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

Defensive Scheme

Missoula223 said:
I’m curious. How is it a gimmick defense?

Vs. 11 personnel teams, which most teams including MSU major in, how many schematic options are there?
Click to expand...
To me any defense not concerned with gap integrity is gimmicky. A defense that favors undersized linemen over “average” or “normal” sized linemen is gimmicky. Any defense that takes nfl caliber talent all over the field to run consistently well is gimmicky. Are there are better options schematically to run against 11 personnel? I believe so but that’s a matter of opinion. But as I alluded to in my previous post it doesn’t matter what we run if we’re going to keep the average weight of our d Line 250 pounds and our secondary doesn’t have the 2 shutdown corners it needs to run effectively.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
I'm old school so my terminology is probably a bit dated.
Click to expand...
Me too. When I was playing I was never called the “3 tech”, I was always the “under” tackle and unless we had an alignment change or a pre-snap move on I always lined up as the 3 tech. Strong side b gap
 
Last edited:
5280Griz said:
If I was a college offensive coordinator game planning against your 6-1 defense, I would exploit the weaknesses by spreading the field to create lighter boxes and natural passing windows with quick game and bubble screens. 6-1 only has one linebacker. This I would exploit with play action and RPOs over the 1 linebacker. If the only linebacker steps forward, the middle is wide open. I would run gap scheme that influences penetration . The 6-1 wants vertical movement and I would use this against them. When the DL penetrates the play direction, the cutback lane opens with no second level help. I would use plenty of motion, misdirection and backfield action to confuse your defense. The 6-1 is assignment rigid and motion will force communication and potential for errors. I would also flood the flats. 6 on the line of scrimmage means defenses are late to the perimeter.
Click to expand...
The 6-1 he is referring to is actually a 4-3. Ferris St calls it a 6-1 just to differentiate it from a traditional 4-3 because they do some things that are unorthodox alignment wise.
 
Does anyone realize that Illinois State's defense runs the 3-3-5? They have bigger defensive lineman (mostly 285 to 305lbs with a couple DEs at 265). Maybe it's not the scheme and more about the Johnny's and Joe's.
 
GriznMN said:
Does anyone realize that Illinois State's defense runs the 3-3-5? They have bigger defensive lineman (mostly 285 to 305lbs with a couple DEs at 265). Maybe it's not the scheme and more about the Johnny's and Joe's.
Click to expand...
State is going to wreck that defense. Unfortunately.
 
RobGriz said:
State is going to wreck that defense. Unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Illinois State has some elite interior defensive linemen that can play DT and NT. We destroyed the Cats running the 3-3-5 when we had that with Gubner.
 
Last edited:
GriznMN said:
Does anyone realize that Illinois State's defense runs the 3-3-5? They have bigger defensive lineman (mostly 285 to 305lbs with a couple DEs at 265). Maybe it's not the scheme and more about the Johnny's and Joe's.
Click to expand...
They don’t run the 3-3-5 exactly how we run it either. Illinois State’s scheme is more focused on stopping big plays than Montana’s at the expense of not being as good against the run. Montana’s 3-3-5 is more aggressive and versatile because you see us blitzing from different angles far more than Illinois State. Our scheme is built for speed at the defensive back position to cover a lot of ground and make plays. Illinois State’s sends linebackers into coverage more which is good for pass defense and preventing big plays but often at the expense of stopping the run which Montana is still good at even out of a 3 man front.
 
5280Griz said:
They don’t run the 3-3-5 exactly how we run it either. Illinois State’s scheme is more focused on stopping big plays than Montana’s at the expense of not being as good against the run. Montana’s 3-3-5 is more aggressive and versatile because you see us blitzing from different angles far more than Illinois State. Our scheme is built for speed at the defensive back position to cover a lot of ground and make plays. Illinois State’s sends linebackers into coverage more which is good for pass defense and preventing big plays but often at the expense of stopping the run which Montana is still good at even out of a 3 man front.
Click to expand...
Their 3 down linemen are huge, which is odd as I was assured by the current coaching staff that finding d linemen like that at this level was almost impossible. Their linebackers are athletic and their hybrid player or “Jack” as he is called can be a rush end/linebacker or drop in coverage as opposed to ours which is more of a linebacker/safety. Plays different than our joe lee Dunn/Rocky long inspired 3-3-5 but not unrecognizably so. They have been blitzing at a rate of 80% in the playoffs
 
Last edited:
RobGriz said:
To me any defense not concerned with gap integrity is gimmicky. A defense that favors undersized linemen over “average” or “normal” sized linemen is gimmicky. Any defense that takes nfl caliber talent all over the field to run consistently well is gimmicky. Are there are better options schematically to run against 11 personnel? I believe so but that’s a matter of opinion. But as I alluded to in my previous post it doesn’t matter what we run if we’re going to keep the average weight of our d Line 250 pounds and our secondary doesn’t have the 2 shutdown corners it needs to run effectively.
Click to expand...
A defense giving up five plays of over 70 yards is gimmicky.
 
ISU doesn't run a 335, its more of a hybrid 344 or 434, (3 down linemen w/a hybrid buck end) similar to what MSU ran during the Choate years.
MSU ran the Kwiatkowski version of this defense, I don't know the lineage of ISU's version of this defense but alignment and responsibilities are very similar to what MSU ran during Choate.
 
The.Real.2506 said:
ISU doesn't run a 335, its more of a hybrid 344 or 434, (3 down linemen w/a hybrid buck end) similar to what MSU ran during the Choate years.
MSU ran the Kwiatkowski version of this defense, I don't know the lineage of ISU's version of this defense but alignment and responsibilities are very similar to what MSU ran during Choate.
Click to expand...
Their base defense is a 3-3-5 although the alignment on certain down and distances makes it look like a 3-4-4 or 4-3-4 with a buck.

Travis Niekamp, ISU's defensive coordinator, attends Rocky Long coaching seminars at coaching clinics and should be a familiar name with Griz fans.

Rocky Long quote that Travis Niekamp likes a lot "The #1 fundamental on defense is effort." What is true for basketball and wrestling is true for football - #1 fundamental is effort!

Brock Spack, ISU's head coach and former DC for Purdue during the Joe Tiller years, said during the National Championship press conference about defense and, specifically, MSU's defense "The less you do, the better you are." or in other words, KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

I see that in how ISU coaches their defense, they can operate out of a lot of different alignments because they keep their concepts simple which allows the concepts to flow across different alignments and allows their players to play fast.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top