• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Griz D

Bear Spray

Bear Spray

Well-known member
So now that you've recovered from your turkey coma, some food for thought. Bobby's run this D for a few years now & by most measures it's effective. It does seem like well coached teams are catching onto how to attack it though - Idaho threw effectively against it, MSU ran pretty good too. Would you like to see a more tradition scheme next season, or is this the best fit for the kids on the team & their talents, and do you think another scheme would be more effective against teams like MSU & NDSU's running games?
 
Well MSU running is very different then NDSU.
We will see how this defense does the first weekend of December against NDSU.
 
Bear Spray said:
So now that you've recovered from your turkey coma, some food for thought. Bobby's run this D for a few years now & by most measures it's effective. It does seem like well coached teams are catching onto how to attack it though - Idaho threw effectively against it, MSU ran pretty good too. Would you like to see a more tradition scheme next season, or is this the best fit for the kids on the team & their talents, and do you think another scheme would be more effective against teams like MSU & NDSU's running games?
Click to expand...

My thoughts: this D is/was created to stop the pass. BSC used to be a pass-heavy league. With the dual threats that now exist and MSU’s D, I’m not sure it’s effective enough to get through the conference schedule without a couple of losses every year. With Baer allegedly retiring this year, it’ll be interesting to see if they keep this system or go to a more conventional one.
 
AZGrizFan said:
Bear Spray said:
So now that you've recovered from your turkey coma, some food for thought. Bobby's run this D for a few years now & by most measures it's effective. It does seem like well coached teams are catching onto how to attack it though - Idaho threw effectively against it, MSU ran pretty good too. Would you like to see a more tradition scheme next season, or is this the best fit for the kids on the team & their talents, and do you think another scheme would be more effective against teams like MSU & NDSU's running games?
Click to expand...

My thoughts: this D is/was created to stop the pass. BSC used to be a pass-heavy league. With the dual threats that now exist and MSU’s D, I’m not sure it’s effective enough to get through the conference schedule without a couple of losses every year. With Baer allegedly retiring this year, it’ll be interesting to see if they keep this system or go to a more conventional one.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know there were rumors about Baer retiring. If he does I sure hope we move forward with a more traditional scheme.
 
hm.grwn.grizfan said:
AZGrizFan said:
My thoughts: this D is/was created to stop the pass. BSC used to be a pass-heavy league. With the dual threats that now exist and MSU’s D, I’m not sure it’s effective enough to get through the conference schedule without a couple of losses every year. With Baer allegedly retiring this year, it’ll be interesting to see if they keep this system or go to a more conventional one.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know there were rumors about Baer retiring. If he does I sure hope we move forward with a more traditional scheme.
Click to expand...

Don’t quote me on that. I know nobody. Talk to nobody. Have no inside connections. And never played the game. So I got that going for me. :lol:
 
I've been reading some articles on the 3-3-5. Almost none of them agree with what various posters are saying. Here's one.

"Conclusion
The 3-3-5 defense is a great option for coaches to run in today’s game of football.

It allows for great flexibility to defend against both the pass and the run, especially when more and more offenses are running more multiple wide receiver sets and out of more shotgun formations.

Perhaps the best thing about a 3-3-5 defense is its ability to cause confusion to opposing offenses.

Nearly every position at the second level (the linebackers) and the third level (the secondary) of the defense can be a potential blitzer, which means that pressure from a 3-3-5 defense can come from anywhere at any time.

This not only creates confusion with receivers running passing routes and offensive linemen trying to identify blitzing players, but it also causes confusion for offensive players when they’re trying to identify their blocking responsibilities in the run game.

However, in order to effectively run a 3-3-5 defense, a coach must first know whether he has the defensive personnel capable of the task.

Almost all players on the defense in a 3-3-5 formation must possess speed and quickness, along with strength up front and vision and adjustment ability in the linebackers and secondary.

The secondary must also have players capable of keeping contain and covering receivers one-on-one without extra support over the top at times as safeties and linebackers blitz.

Overall, if a coach has the right personnel that can understand and run the formation, a 3-3-5 defense is a great option for keeping opposing offenses on their toes.

It’s also a great way to teach players a different approach to defense and give them multiple tools they need to read offenses and react by either dropping into coverage against the pass, or blitzing and filling gaps against both the pass and the run."

https://footballadvantage.com/3-3-5-defense/
 
AZGrizFan said:
Bear Spray said:
So now that you've recovered from your turkey coma, some food for thought. Bobby's run this D for a few years now & by most measures it's effective. It does seem like well coached teams are catching onto how to attack it though - Idaho threw effectively against it, MSU ran pretty good too. Would you like to see a more tradition scheme next season, or is this the best fit for the kids on the team & their talents, and do you think another scheme would be more effective against teams like MSU & NDSU's running games?
Click to expand...

My thoughts: this D is/was created to stop the pass. BSC used to be a pass-heavy league. With the dual threats that now exist and MSU’s D, I’m not sure it’s effective enough to get through the conference schedule without a couple of losses every year. With Baer allegedly retiring this year, it’ll be interesting to see if they keep this system or go to a more conventional one.
Click to expand...

Who told you that the D was created to stop the pass?
 
He has dudes in all positions in this defense. Which he should considering he’s had 5 years to put them in place. It might create flexibility but it exposes itself to being gashed. Point being last Saturday. And I wouldn’t call the MSU offense very confused on Saturday. They were able to do whatever they wanted with the scheme we used.

And this defense is NOT Baer’s defense. It is Haucks that he brought from SDSU. Baer had to learn it when he arrived here. He’s not a big fan of it. So if Baer leaves after the season, and I think he will with Sacks, you will most likely continue to see the defense. Unless Hauck brings somebody else in and they are able to convince him to switch it around.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I've been reading some articles on the 3-3-5. Almost none of them agree with what various posters are saying. Here's one.

"Conclusion
The 3-3-5 defense is a great option for coaches to run in today’s game of football.

It allows for great flexibility to defend against both the pass and the run, especially when more and more offenses are running more multiple wide receiver sets and out of more shotgun formations.

Perhaps the best thing about a 3-3-5 defense is its ability to cause confusion to opposing offenses.

Nearly every position at the second level (the linebackers) and the third level (the secondary) of the defense can be a potential blitzer, which means that pressure from a 3-3-5 defense can come from anywhere at any time.

This not only creates confusion with receivers running passing routes and offensive linemen trying to identify blitzing players, but it also causes confusion for offensive players when they’re trying to identify their blocking responsibilities in the run game.

However, in order to effectively run a 3-3-5 defense, a coach must first know whether he has the defensive personnel capable of the task.

Almost all players on the defense in a 3-3-5 formation must possess speed and quickness, along with strength up front and vision and adjustment ability in the linebackers and secondary.

The secondary must also have players capable of keeping contain and covering receivers one-on-one without extra support over the top at times as safeties and linebackers blitz.

Overall, if a coach has the right personnel that can understand and run the formation, a 3-3-5 defense is a great option for keeping opposing offenses on their toes.

It’s also a great way to teach players a different approach to defense and give them multiple tools they need to read offenses and react by either dropping into coverage against the pass, or blitzing and filling gaps against both the pass and the run."

https://footballadvantage.com/3-3-5-defense/
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting read. I would argue that the way the defensive pressure is applied (especially against the cats) negates some of its effectiveness. Last week, the D could not set the edge, the twisting done by the line washed them out, and the pressure from blitzing linebackers was inside out not outside in. Instead of creating confusion, the pressure applied simply put less dudes on the edge to counter the run scheme that state was using. When the Griz shifted to a heavier set, it was too late. And the cats could still run it.
 
mthoopsfan said:
AZGrizFan said:
My thoughts: this D is/was created to stop the pass. BSC used to be a pass-heavy league. With the dual threats that now exist and MSU’s D, I’m not sure it’s effective enough to get through the conference schedule without a couple of losses every year. With Baer allegedly retiring this year, it’ll be interesting to see if they keep this system or go to a more conventional one.
Click to expand...

Who told you that the D was created to stop the pass?
Click to expand...

I made it up, operating under the assumption that the BSC was a pass-heavy league. :D When you have 5 defensive backs, isn’t it somewhat common sense?
 
Fahque said:
AZGrizFan said:
...isn’t it somewhat common sense?
Click to expand...

C'mon man, this is eGriz
Click to expand...

Google it. This the first site to pop up.

"Can be Used in Multiple Formats - A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

Another:

"What is the weakness of a 3 3 5 defense?

Requires Speed - A slower, bigger defensive team might have trouble keeping up with speedier wide receivers, athletic tight ends, and running backs who are running routes. Requires Athleticism - A 3-3-5 defense cannot succeed without bigger, more powerful defensive backs who are solid at tackling."

"Common sense" from the egriz crowd doesn't cut it with me. I want expertise.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Fahque said:
C'mon man, this is eGriz
Click to expand...

Google it. This the first site to pop up.

"Can be Used in Multiple Formats - A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

Another:

"What is the weakness of a 3 3 5 defense?

Requires Speed - A slower, bigger defensive team might have trouble keeping up with speedier wide receivers, athletic tight ends, and running backs who are running routes. Requires Athleticism - A 3-3-5 defense cannot succeed without bigger, more powerful defensive backs who are solid at tackling."

"Common sense" from the egriz crowd doesn't cut it with me. I want expertise.
Click to expand...

If it’s expertise you are after hoops, then boy oh boy you are in the wrong place! :lol:
 
mthoopsfan said:
Fahque said:
C'mon man, this is eGriz
Click to expand...

Google it. This the first site to pop up.

"Can be Used in Multiple Formats - A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

Another:

"What is the weakness of a 3 3 5 defense?

Requires Speed - A slower, bigger defensive team might have trouble keeping up with speedier wide receivers, athletic tight ends, and running backs who are running routes. Requires Athleticism - A 3-3-5 defense cannot succeed without bigger, more powerful defensive backs who are solid at tackling."

"Common sense" from the egriz crowd doesn't cut it with me. I want expertise.
Click to expand...

I think it’s good against a typical run team. Not so good against the +1 that MSU and Sac run.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Fahque said:
C'mon man, this is eGriz
Click to expand...

Google it. This the first site to pop up.

"Can be Used in Multiple Formats - A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

Another:

"What is the weakness of a 3 3 5 defense?

Requires Speed - A slower, bigger defensive team might have trouble keeping up with speedier wide receivers, athletic tight ends, and running backs who are running routes. Requires Athleticism - A 3-3-5 defense cannot succeed without bigger, more powerful defensive backs who are solid at tackling."

"Common sense" from the egriz crowd doesn't cut it with me. I want expertise.
Click to expand...

I guess I forgot to put the laughing emoji in my post to insinuate sarcasm… :roll:
 
Fahque said:
mthoopsfan said:
Google it. This the first site to pop up.

"Can be Used in Multiple Formats - A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

Another:

"What is the weakness of a 3 3 5 defense?

Requires Speed - A slower, bigger defensive team might have trouble keeping up with speedier wide receivers, athletic tight ends, and running backs who are running routes. Requires Athleticism - A 3-3-5 defense cannot succeed without bigger, more powerful defensive backs who are solid at tackling."

"Common sense" from the egriz crowd doesn't cut it with me. I want expertise.
Click to expand...

I guess I forgot to put the laughing emoji in my post to insinuate sarcasm… :roll:
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing my post at you. More the prior person. And making a general comment. I understood your comment.
 
User avatar
Bear Spray
Posts: 516
Contact: Contact Bear Spray
Unread post Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:22 pm

So now that you've recovered from your turkey coma, some food for thought. Bobby's run this D for a few years now & by most measures it's effective. It does seem like well coached teams are catching onto how to attack it though - Idaho threw effectively against it, MSU ran pretty good too. Would you like to see a more tradition scheme next season, or is this the best fit for the kids on the team & their talents, and do you think another scheme would be more effective against teams like MSU & NDSU's running
Click to expand...

Well it was the best fit to keep Robby in the game at all times. Who knows what next year brings.
 
I just know that Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, Michigan, Penn State, USC, UCLA, North Dakota State, and South Dakota state do NOT run the 3-3-5 as their base defense. They have nickel and dime packages which use additional D-backs, of course. But their base defense is either a 3-4 or a 4-3. I don't need to know anything else. You emulate excellence, not gimmicks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top