• 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

5280Griz said:
The 3-3-5 is good against spread teams which in our conference last year were Eastern Washington and Portland State. The 4-2-5 is better against downhill run teams like Montana State. The argument is our scheme should be based on beating Montana State and not Eastern and Portland State because MSU is our main rival where as EWU and PSU are largely Big Sky cellar dwellers.
Click to expand...
I’m not at all trying to be a prick, but the argument was about how the 3-3-5 is a “gimmick” defense.

But while I don’t necessarily disagree with you, wouldnt you like to be in 3 down and have a 0 nose vs gap scheme run game? Bear front is great vs everything but QB run game.

My point is, the 3-3-5 itself isnt the issue. And I ran 4 down for 11+ years!
 
Missoula223 said:
I’m not at all trying to be a prick, but the argument was about how the 3-3-5 is a “gimmick” defense.

But while I don’t necessarily disagree with you, wouldnt you like to be in 3 down and have a 0 nose vs gap scheme run game? Bear front is great vs everything but QB run game.

My point is, the 3-3-5 itself isnt the issue. And I ran 4 down for 11+ years!
Click to expand...
I disagree that the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. I don’t think it is a gimmick defense but it matches up poorly against Vigen’s offense at MSU. You said not to comment on personnel but I think if you have an elite nose tackle it can but in the 4 man front our guys won’t be getting double teamed as much.
 
Last edited:
5280Griz said:
I disagree that the 3-3-5 is a gimmick defense. I don’t think it is a gimmick defense but it matches up poorly against Vigen’s offense at MSU. You said not to comment on personnel but I think if you have an elite nose tackle but in the 4 man front our guys won’t be getting double teamed as much.
Click to expand...
Well we are getting close to being on the same page.

I would differ by saying that a 0 nose is tough to block in gap scheme, and that most 3 down fronts turn to 5 down in heavy sets and if you play cover 3 from a structure standpoint.

Don’t disagree at all regarding the nose tackle comment. In my first post I went through it more, but my main point was that issues are players not plays, execution, and scheme in that order.
 
Missoula223 said:
Well we are getting close to being on the same page.

I would differ by saying that a 0 nose is tough to block in gap scheme, and that most 3 down fronts turn to 5 down in heavy sets and if you play cover 3 from a structure standpoint.

Don’t disagree at all regarding the nose tackle comment. In my first post I went through it more, but my main point was that issues are players not plays, execution, and scheme in that order.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think we are mostly aligned here. A good 0 tech nose can absolutely be a problem for gap scheme teams, and you are right that most 3 down structures will fold into a 5 man front or Bear look when offenses go heavy or when you are rolling to Cover 3. On paper that answers a lot of the run fit issues. I would counter by asking how realistic is it that we can regularly recruit elite 0 tech nose tackles to execute this?
 
5280Griz said:
Yeah I think we are mostly aligned here. A good 0 tech nose can absolutely be a problem for gap scheme teams, and you are right that most 3 down structures will fold into a 5 man front or Bear look when offenses go heavy or when you are rolling to Cover 3. On paper that answers a lot of the run fit issues. I would counter by asking how realistic is it that we can regularly recruit elite 0 tech nose tackles to execute this?
Click to expand...
I’ve had a few this evening. So if I’m being blunt, I’d say that were the university of Montana and we should have a top 3 nose tackle in the FCS every single year.
 
Missoula223 said:
I’ve had a few this evening. So if I’m being blunt, I’d say that were the university of Montana and we should have a top 3 nose tackle in the FCS every single year.
Click to expand...
So you would say the issue has been a lack of an elite nose tackle like Gubner rather than the scheme and our focus should be on recruiting and player development rather than changing the scheme?
 
Missoula223 said:
Well we are getting close to being on the same page.

I would differ by saying that a 0 nose is tough to block in gap scheme, and that most 3 down fronts turn to 5 down in heavy sets and if you play cover 3 from a structure standpoint.

Don’t disagree at all regarding the nose tackle comment. In my first post I went through it more, but my main point was that issues are players not plays, execution, and scheme in that order.
Click to expand...
Bingo on the last sentence. The D line this year just wasn't big and strong enough at the point of attack in the two games that mattered the most. The Griz ran an even front probably close to 1/3 of the time on defense this season and were multiple in scheme. However, they still lost the trenches in both games and it wasn't becasue of what front they were running.
 
Just because AI tells you that the 3-3-5 is designed to stop the spread offenses doesn't mean the griz ran that style of offense. Idaho State and EWU are the two best examples of a spread offense in the BSC and the griz were lucky to beat either of those teams. The offense the griz ran looked way more like a 4-3 than anything and it was very successful against the run. Generally the WLB played buck end and the nickel or SS played in the box for run support which resembled a 4-3.
The cats ran successfully against them not because of the 3-3 but because they have a very good plus one and RPO running game with a very efficient well coached Oline scheme with players that have developed in their program. Not necessarily because their all over 300 lbs and win every battle when the defense is lined up in a one on one bear front.
You can run any front you want but your not going to beat a team that is well coached and efficient by just recruiting bigger one year and done players in the portal.
 
5280Griz said:
So you would say the issue has been a lack of an elite nose tackle like Gubner rather than the scheme and our focus should be on recruiting and player development rather than changing the scheme?
Click to expand...
Man I’d have to watch more film to give a good diagnosis “whats wrong” diagnosis. I do think you should recruit to what you want to be. So if you need to be elite at nose, you better get one or make one.

I don’t think it’s good to change scheme to change scheme. Coaches should coach what they are comfortable with and what they believe in. If that’s the case, they’ll be better at coaching it because they believe in it and it has worked for them in the past. Shoot it worked 2 years ago.

So in terms of what changes are need to be made, I don’t know quite frankly. As a generalization, I’d say recruit/develop at a higher level, get players to execute at a higher level, and if there is some schematic tweaks that can be made, make them.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
Just because AI tells you that the 3-3-5 is designed to stop the spread offenses doesn't mean the griz ran that style of offense. Idaho State and EWU are the two best examples of a spread offense in the BSC and the griz were lucky to beat either of those teams. The offense the griz ran looked way more like a 4-3 than anything and it was very successful against the run. Generally the WLB played buck end and the nickel or SS played in the box for run support which resembled a 4-3.
The cats ran successfully against them not because of the 3-3 but because they have a very good plus one and RPO running game with a very efficient well coached Oline scheme with players that have developed in their program. Not necessarily because their all over 300 lbs and win every battle when the defense is lined up in a one on one bear front.
You can run any front you want but your not going to beat a team that is well coached and efficient by just recruiting bigger one year and done players in the portal.
Click to expand...
What is your opinion on what is holding the Griz back from beating the Cats? It sounds like coaching on execution and high school recruiting more than anything else?
 
Last edited:
It's been said many times and hinted at in this thread, but it's the Billies and Joes, not the Xs and Os. With the right players any scheme looks great.
 
5280Griz said:
What is your opinion on what is holding the Griz back from beating the Cats? It sounds like coaching on execution and high school recruiting more than anything else?
Click to expand...
I'm definitely not a college coach but it just seems to me the griz have fallen behind the eight ball in recruiting and building their program. If you lose half the roster every year it's hard to build a cohesive consistent unit. Personally I love the 3-3-5 and its flexibility. I was actually really impressed with how well the griz coaches evaluated talent, and recruited the portal and put together this years team. But it's looking like they will need to do it all over again this year. They have to start winning the in state HS recruiting battle to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. Don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Skookum-Jim said:
I'm definitely not a college coach but it just 🙈 me to me the griz have fallen behind the eight ball in recruiting and building their program. If you lose half the roster every year it's hard to build a cohesive consistent unit. Personally I love the 3-3-5 and its flexibility. I was actually really impressed with how well the griz coaches evaluated talent, and recruited the portal and put together this years team. But it's looking like they will need to do it all over again this year. They have to start winning the in state HS recruiting battle to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you on that.
 
Skookum-Jim said:
I'm definitely not a college coach but it just seems to me the griz have fallen behind the eight ball in recruiting and building their program. If you lose half the roster every year it's hard to build a cohesive consistent unit. Personally I love the 3-3-5 and its flexibility. I was actually really impressed with how well the griz coaches evaluated talent, and recruited the portal and put together this years team. But it's looking like they will need to do it all over again this year. They have to start winning the in state HS recruiting battle to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
Nope. The difference between the 2 teams is very little. Just a bit of luck and bad bounces. People are overreacting and reading way too much into the 2 games. Give us our players and game is different. Some of the “reasons” just aren’t true. Convert on 1 play and I believe the game plays out better for Griz. But at end of day, Cats made more plays than Griz good for the Cats. World has neither changed nor ended.
 
Last edited:
mthoopsfan said:
Nope. The difference between the 2 teams is very little. Just a bit of luck and bad bounces. People are overreacting and reading way too much into the 2 games. Give us our players and game is different. Some of the “reasons” just aren’t true. Convert on 1 play and I believe the game plays out better for Griz. But at end of day, Cats made more plays than Griz good for the Cats. World has neither changed nor ended.
Click to expand...
Monumental gap between the two programs.
 
Missoula223 said:
I still can’t figure out the 3-3-5 is the daunting gimmicky schematic issue that posters treat as the boogeyman. So if someone can explain that to me without commenting on personnel, technique, or coaching I’m all ears!
Click to expand...
So explain how it’s a gimmick without using the gimmicky parts?
 
Missoula223 said:
I’ve had a few this evening. So if I’m being blunt, I’d say that were the university of Montana and we should have a top 3 nose tackle in the FCS every single year.
Click to expand...
We’ve been told those type of linemen aren’t available at this level by the current staff which is why we have to rely on undersized d linemen
 
Missoula223 said:
Personnel isn’t scheme. Technique isn’t scheme. Good or bad coaching isn’t scheme.

Scheme is scheme. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Click to expand...
The gimmicky 3-3-5, 3 lineman, 3 linebackers and 5 defensive backs! That is such a boogeyman until you realize it is just a collection of positions and the players are the ones out there playing football, not the scheme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top