• 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 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?

Lots of quality responses, thanks, I appreciate the detail. If Bobby had told the defense after the JMU game last year that they’d go to an aggressive 4/3 defense for 2022, would the team had more wins?

Given their personnel - no. They don’t have the hogs up front. This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic. You wouldn’t think switching to a 4/3 is a big deal, but it is. Furthermore, I don’t buy the smaller but faster argument. Faster didn’t work at all against MSU. I am not sure it would work against NDSU either. We will hopefully find out.
 
I think they’ll stick with the 3-3-5, and probably should. However, there are adjustments/variations that should be installed (actually should already be there) to account for a variety of run schemes. The tradition inside zone is not great against the 3-3-5, however pin and pull (think buck sweep), any plus 1 c gap or wider, and outside veer require some different alignment and assignments as far as run fits. Just my 2 cents. And I personally think the 3-3-5 is a junk defense.
 
"This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic."

They're using him as a TE this year.
 
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
"This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic."

They're using him as a TE this year.

Who is “he”?
 
AZGrizFan said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
"This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic."

They're using him as a TE this year.

Who is “he”?
Rensvold or Elwell?
 
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
"This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic."

They're using him as a TE this year.
Our program is really good at recruiting and developing LB's and nickel type safeties. The 3-3-5 lends itself well to those type of players. We also have really good cover corners which is great for this defense. I know this base defense is designed to counter the spread. But it sure seems like it should be great against a heavy RPO if we limit the blitzing and play gap assignments.
MSU had an exceptional game plan and they executed it at a high level that day but I don't think it would be smart to scrap our defense because they had a bad matchup that day. You can call the 3-3-5 a gimmick defense but it fits who we have on the roster.
 
indian-outlaw said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
"This will really tick people off, but they don’t have the right personnel at defensive end either. I think they would have to recruit to make the switch, which is problematic."

They're using him as a TE this year.
Our program is really good at recruiting and developing LB's and nickel type safeties. The 3-3-5 lends itself well to those type of players. We also have really good cover corners which is great for this defense. I know this base defense is designed to counter the spread. But it sure seems like it should be great against a heavy RPO if we limit the blitzing and play gap assignments.
MSU had an exceptional game plan and they executed it at a high level that day but I don't think it would be smart to scrap our defense because they had a bad matchup that day. You can call the 3-3-5 a gimmick defense but it fits who we have on the roster.

I don't think any defense is a gimmick. It's really difficult to turn that motor-muscle memory switch off though and let the play come to you.









the play come to you.
 
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/

The article is spot on and our weakness running the 3-3-5 is at CB just like the article noted. Our front end is fine it's the back end that breaks down due to personnel problems
 
GrizProtocol said:
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/

The article is spot on and our weakness running the 3-3-5 is at CB just like the article noted. Our front end is fine it's the back end that breaks down due to personnel problems

Huh? Ford is an all-American and first team all conference. One corner is a 2 or 2.5 starter. The other corner was all-conference at Idaho St.
 
mthoopsfan said:
GrizProtocol said:
The article is spot on and our weakness running the 3-3-5 is at CB just like the article noted. Our front end is fine it's the back end that breaks down due to personnel problems

Huh? Ford is an all-American and first team all conference. One corner is a 2 or 2.5 starter. The other corner was all-conference at Idaho St.
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week
 
GrizProtocol said:
mthoopsfan said:
Huh? Ford is an all-American and first team all conference. One corner is a 2 or 2.5 starter. The other corner was all-conference at Idaho St.
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

Did Ford steal your gf at some point?
 
kurtismichael said:
GrizProtocol said:
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

Did Ford steal your gf at some point?

Protocol doesn’t understand football and is an idiot. Ford is quite physical and fairly big.
 
GrizProtocol said:
mthoopsfan said:
Huh? Ford is an all-American and first team all conference. One corner is a 2 or 2.5 starter. The other corner was all-conference at Idaho St.
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

Apparently no coach in the Big Sky agrees with you.

Weird.
 
GrizProtocol said:
mthoopsfan said:
Huh? Ford is an all-American and first team all conference. One corner is a 2 or 2.5 starter. The other corner was all-conference at Idaho St.
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

What corners in the BSC would you take over Ford? Curious…
 
AZGrizFan said:
GrizProtocol said:
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

What corners in the BSC would you take over Ford? Curious…
Woodard at MSU is a more physical run stopper but he isn't better as an overall corner.
 
indian-outlaw said:
AZGrizFan said:
What corners in the BSC would you take over Ford? Curious…
Woodard at MSU is a more physical run stopper but he isn't better as an overall corner.

Was the cat first team all conference this year, first team pre season all American this year, and first team all American last year?
 
AZGrizFan said:
GrizProtocol said:
Yep and we need better corners especially ones that can be physical. You can have Ford, he's overrated but he doess quit really hard when things get tough. I will give him that.

I stand by my comment but go ahead and tell us how our secondary doesn't get beat like a rented drum. We see what happens every week

What corners in the BSC would you take over Ford? Curious…
Adam's - Portland State
Heckard - Weber St

Talbot - NDSU

All 3 are better at more things than Ford, people over inflate his value simply based on size. I'd throw at him all game tomorrow with SEMO WR King would beat him all day. He's a very good route runner
 
GrizProtocol said:
AZGrizFan said:
What corners in the BSC would you take over Ford? Curious…
Adam's - Portland State
Heckard - Weber St

Talbot - NDSU

All 3 are better at more things than Ford, people over inflate his value simply based on size. I'd throw at him all game tomorrow with SEMO WR King would beat him all day. He's a very good route runner

Is your post a joke?
 
mthoopsfan said:
indian-outlaw said:
Woodard at MSU is a more physical run stopper but he isn't better as an overall corner.

Was the cat first team all conference this year, first team pre season all American this year, and first team all American last year?
Uh what? Not sure what that has to do with what I said.
 
Back
Top