Most important position to defense and why

[PTGrizzly]

Seriously? You think that an FCS division which included Georgia Southern, UMASS, App. State, Marshall, Troy State, etc. wasn't better than what we have today, you're smoking crack. Oh, I forgot, you're a Bobcat fan. What would anyone expect???

Secondly, I've forgotten more about the game of football than you will ever know. If the games has "evolved" so much, wanna explain to us old guys why the teams who win the National Championships every year in both FBS and FCS run a traditional "Pro-Set" offense? I'll wait.

Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson don’t run a traditional pro-set offense. LSU didn’t either when they won. They run a ton of spread out, no fullback, single TE action. They’re running mainly 11 formation, traditional pro set is generally 12 or 21 formation with some 22 mixed in. Everybody now is running 3-4 WR sets, that ain’t traditional “pro set”.

Not to mention it seems like most modern TE’s move out into the “slot”, so even if it is 12, it’s really more like an 11 with flexibility. The game is different than it was 20 years ago. Even pro teams don’t run traditional pro sets like they did. How often do you see the I formation?

 

[hunt-ducks]

Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson don’t run a traditional pro-set offense. LSU didn’t either when they won. They run a ton of spread out, no fullback, single TE action. They’re running mainly 11 formation, traditional pro set is generally 12 or 21 formation with some 22 mixed in. Everybody now is running 3-4 WR sets, that ain’t traditional “pro set”.

Not to mention it seems like most modern TE’s move out into the “slot”, so even if it is 12, it’s really more like an 11 with flexibility. The game is different than it was 20 years ago. Even pro teams don’t run traditional pro sets like they did. How often do you see the I formation?

"Pro-Set" is a general term. Of course every team uses 3-4 WR sets, including NDSU. I refer only to a base offense, not special packages employed by all teams. What does that fact have to do with Montana using a gimmicky 3-3-5 defense? You are missing the point. The teams I listed do not change their base defense to "defense the spread offenses in our conference". They dictate the play, not respond to it. I am still waiting for any poster to tell me why none of the top FBS and FCS teams use the 3-3-5 as their base defense.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Not to mention it seems like most modern TE’s move out into the “slot”, so even if it is 12, it’s really more like an 11 with flexibility. The game is different than it was 20 years ago. Even pro teams don’t run traditional pro sets like they did. How often do you see the I formation?

"Pro-Set" is a general term. Of course every team uses 3-4 WR sets, including NDSU. I refer only to a base offense, not special packages employed by all teams. What does that fact have to do with Montana using a gimmicky 3-3-5 defense? You are missing the point. The teams I listed do not change their base defense to "defense the spread offenses in our conference". They dictate the play, not respond to it. I am still waiting for any poster to tell me why none of the top FBS and FCS teams use the 3-3-5 as their base defense.

Your post was about offense. Don’t try to act like it was about defense.

And hardly anybody runs a “base” defense. They all adapt to what the offense puts out there. Ain’t nobody in a 4-3 if the offense comes out with 4-5 WR’s. Get real.

And what is the traditional pro set? By definition, the pro set, or split backs, is a 22 formation. None of the schools you mentioned run that as their predominant scheme.

 

[hunt-ducks]

"Pro-Set" is a general term. Of course every team uses 3-4 WR sets, including NDSU. I refer only to a base offense, not special packages employed by all teams. What does that fact have to do with Montana using a gimmicky 3-3-5 defense? You are missing the point. The teams I listed do not change their base defense to "defense the spread offenses in our conference". They dictate the play, not respond to it. I am still waiting for any poster to tell me why none of the top FBS and FCS teams use the 3-3-5 as their base defense.

Your post was about offense. Don’t try to act like it was about defense.

And hardly anybody runs a “base” defense. They all adapt to what the offense puts out there. Ain’t nobody in a 4-3 if the offense comes out with 4-5 WR’s. Get real.

And what is the traditional pro set? By definition, the pro set, or split backs, is a 22 formation. None of the schools you mentioned run that as their predominant scheme.

You can't read, so I am done with you. I am not interested in engaging in a pissing contest with you. If you don't understand what a base defense is, then read a football book. Do the Griz have a base defense? If so, please enlighten us by defining their base defense. :whocares:

 

[hunt-ducks]

Watching the Southern Utah/San Jose State game. 21-0 San Jose after one quarter. And guess what, San Jose State is playing a base 4-3 defense except on obvious passing plays, where they play with three down linemen, and a stand-up LB on the LOS who can either rush, or drop-back. Gee, and this is against the vaunted SUU spread offense! Who woulda thunk it???

 

[wbtfg]

So what happened to (The Box} ? 6 or7 in the box. Motion to have defense declare man or zone???. you guys are fun to listen to. Thank you. Incidentally. i knew a fella that led his Griz team in Tackles two years from a nose guard position and weighed lest than 190 lbs. I am pretty sure his number was 64,,, Go Griz ( balls to the wall) against Washington

There is a really long answer to this at least from my experience, and I am not sure egriz or I have the time to engage in it. So I'll settle for a moderately long response...

In all the years I ran the 4-3 and 4-4, as long as teams kept the TE in or played with a 2 back system, I felt really, really confident in the ability of the defense to handle just about everything the offense could throw at us formationally using the strictures of the traditional alignment and coverage rules for both. OC's have known for years how to abuse the 4-4 and what types of route trees to run, including motioning into trips that forced a lot of coverage flips (From cover 3 to cover 6 on the trips side and man on the other). The favorite against the 4-3 was to run trips open or trips and then run iso or zone to the weak side. But in all those cases, you could still get away with a 6 or 7 man box.

The 3-3 and 4-2 interior 6 don't slide a ton to whatever the offenses does, that wasn't the case with the 3-4, 4-4 and 4-3. I'll take the 6 run primary defenders over the most of the time the 7 man box whose run fits got more and more contrived depending on the alignment of the offense. Watching a 4-3 line up against 2x2 is painful especially when you commit to two high safeties and its even worse when you watch it slide pre-snap when they motion a back out to one side and then motion someone else. You just don't see that type of radical slide in a lot of the flex/multiple defenses. Some teams do, but the positional flexibility and the split field coverage have limited how many teams really have to slide to motion. I just find it astounding against pass heavy spread teams that you'd spend a lot of your time in whole field coverages. Just a lot of ways to beat you when you stick to full field cover 1, 2 or 3.

Thanks for these posts. Very enjoyable to read.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Watching the Southern Utah/San Jose State game. 21-0 San Jose after one quarter. And guess what, San Jose State is playing a base 4-3 defense except on obvious passing plays, where they play with three down linemen, and a stand-up LB on the LOS who can either rush, or drop-back. Gee, and this is against the vaunted SUU spread offense! Who woulda thunk it???

Yeah, who’d a thunk that an FBS team wouldn’t need to show anything but a base defense to beat a cellar-dwelling FCS team like a rented mule. It’s almost like they didn’t want anything on film for their ACTUAL opponents. Never seen THAT before…

 

[Grizfan-24]

Very interesting post, love the x and o's stuff. So am I right that you are thinking that read/react out of the 3-3, 4-2 keeps better field balance than traditional run/fit schemes and therefore makes RPO reads less obvious?

Yes. Pretty much.

Any defense with the right personnel and good scheme can defend the spread, but if I were to choose a defense with the spread in mind it would be the 4-2 or 3-3. If you remove the traditional gap responsibility and alignment from a 4-3, it would be pretty serviceable as well. The more that you remove gap responsibility and have players work inside- out against the front side of RPO you are going to be in a lot better shape. RPO teams are good at isolating the back side end, linebacker and a safety depending on how they run it. The 4-3 and 3-4 concepts on the scheme side of give a way ton of pre-snap tells, and the 4-2 and 3-3 effectively eliminate those tells. The reason is by committing to a six man box rather than a 7, you can effectively balance your defense without sliding.

The scheme makes the back side safety a second level run defender from depth and what traditional 2 high systems do is make it pretty evident based upon FS/WLB alignment precisely how you intend to cover the slot. The more you can mask your pre-snap coverage and alignment, it makes it hard to for the QB where they want to run their bubble or snag concept type route to.

Inside the box, because the LB's are flow players rather than gap alignment you get better pursuit to the front side of zone, you can get away by sending pressure to one side or the other and not leave gaping holes in the middle of your run defense. If you are running 4-3 cover 2 pressure against RPO you can't really send pressure off the edge without pre-snap indicating that your coming. Takes too long and the RPO concept is a 60's (quick set, zone) rather than a long 5 step type drop action. So you have to cheat it to bring an OLB, whereas in the 4-2 or 3-3 just because of alignment and personnel decisions you can bring pressure from just about anywhere and not immediately by alignment give away what you are doing behind it because you could be man to one side, zone to the other, or a number of combos. Most of the time we were 2/1 coverage, but with the 4-3 unless you abandon the 2 high, you are going to have to show you are running a zero/one concept.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[argh!]

the most important position to defense, is the quarterback, except for odd situations such as when they run the ball every down. the most important position on the defense? that is another question.

 

[SaskGriz]

Very interesting post, love the x and o's stuff. So am I right that you are thinking that read/react out of the 3-3, 4-2 keeps better field balance than traditional run/fit schemes and therefore makes RPO reads less obvious?

Yes. Pretty much.

Any defense with the right personnel and good scheme can defend the spread, but if I were to choose a defense with the spread in mind it would be the 4-2 or 3-3. If you remove the traditional gap responsibility and alignment from a 4-3, it would be pretty serviceable as well. The more that you remove gap responsibility and have players work inside- out against the front side of RPO you are going to be in a lot better shape. RPO teams are good at isolating the back side end, linebacker and a safety depending on how they run it. The 4-3 and 3-4 concepts on the scheme side of give a way ton of pre-snap tells, and the 4-2 and 3-3 effectively eliminate those tells. The reason is by committing to a six man box rather than a 7, you can effectively balance your defense without sliding.

The scheme makes the back side safety a second level run defender from depth and what traditional 2 high systems do is make it pretty evident based upon FS/WLB alignment precisely how you intend to cover the slot. The more you can mask your pre-snap coverage and alignment, it makes it hard to for the QB where they want to run their bubble or snag concept type route to.

Inside the box, because the LB's are flow players rather than gap alignment you get better pursuit to the front side of zone, you can get away by sending pressure to one side or the other and not leave gaping holes in the middle of your run defense. If you are running 4-3 cover 2 pressure against RPO you can't really send pressure off the edge without pre-snap indicating that your coming. Takes too long and the RPO concept is a 60's (quick set, zone) rather than a long 5 step type drop action. So you have to cheat it to bring an OLB, whereas in the 4-2 or 3-3 just because of alignment and personnel decisions you can bring pressure from just about anywhere and not immediately by alignment give away what you are doing behind it because you could be man to one side, zone to the other, or a number of combos. Most of the time we were 2/1 coverage, but with the 4-3 unless you abandon the 2 high, you are going to have to show you are running a zero/one concept.

Hope that makes sense.

Now that's a football post. Thanks for that.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Yes. Pretty much.

Any defense with the right personnel and good scheme can defend the spread, but if I were to choose a defense with the spread in mind it would be the 4-2 or 3-3. If you remove the traditional gap responsibility and alignment from a 4-3, it would be pretty serviceable as well. The more that you remove gap responsibility and have players work inside- out against the front side of RPO you are going to be in a lot better shape. RPO teams are good at isolating the back side end, linebacker and a safety depending on how they run it. The 4-3 and 3-4 concepts on the scheme side of give a way ton of pre-snap tells, and the 4-2 and 3-3 effectively eliminate those tells. The reason is by committing to a six man box rather than a 7, you can effectively balance your defense without sliding.

The scheme makes the back side safety a second level run defender from depth and what traditional 2 high systems do is make it pretty evident based upon FS/WLB alignment precisely how you intend to cover the slot. The more you can mask your pre-snap coverage and alignment, it makes it hard to for the QB where they want to run their bubble or snag concept type route to.

Inside the box, because the LB's are flow players rather than gap alignment you get better pursuit to the front side of zone, you can get away by sending pressure to one side or the other and not leave gaping holes in the middle of your run defense. If you are running 4-3 cover 2 pressure against RPO you can't really send pressure off the edge without pre-snap indicating that your coming. Takes too long and the RPO concept is a 60's (quick set, zone) rather than a long 5 step type drop action. So you have to cheat it to bring an OLB, whereas in the 4-2 or 3-3 just because of alignment and personnel decisions you can bring pressure from just about anywhere and not immediately by alignment give away what you are doing behind it because you could be man to one side, zone to the other, or a number of combos. Most of the time we were 2/1 coverage, but with the 4-3 unless you abandon the 2 high, you are going to have to show you are running a zero/one concept.

Hope that makes sense.

Now that's a football post. Thanks for that.

24 is far and away the best X’s and O’s Guy on this site. LOVE his posts.

 

[ilovethecats]

Now that's a football post. Thanks for that.

24 is far and away the best X’s and O’s Guy on this site. LOVE his posts.

I don't know. I have it on good authority that hunt-ducks has indeed forgot more about the game than 24 will ever know....

 

[Griz#64]

LB-ers must work inside out dive, QB, and pitch man(leverage }Contain defender (DE,) need to keep outside foot back and and force QB to move laterally as the sideline becomes another defender.as he ultimately has pitch man as well. Free or strong need to fill on commitment. Thanks for the good stuff Guys, Go Griz

 

[Grizfan-24]

24 is far and away the best X’s and O’s Guy on this site. LOVE his posts.

I don't know. I have it on good authority that hunt-ducks has indeed forgot more about the game than 24 will ever know....

ILTC,

I work really, really hard to maintain the perception that I am a vastly overrated class B coach who shows every day that I didn't play the game.

 

[EverettGriz]

Now that's a football post. Thanks for that.

24 is far and away the best X’s and O’s Guy on this site. LOVE his posts.

He’s better than the rest of us put together.

 

[ilovethecats]

I don't know. I have it on good authority that hunt-ducks has indeed forgot more about the game than 24 will ever know....

ILTC,

I work really, really hard to maintain the perception that I am a vastly overrated class B coach who shows every day that I didn't play the game.

:lol:

Your posts are great.

 

[Ursa Major]

Now that's a football post. Thanks for that.

24 is far and away the best X’s and O’s Guy on this site. LOVE his posts.

+1

 

[Hawkeyebowhunter]

If I could pick- a dominant DT.

Especially in our defense, where instead of creating pressure from the front, we have to utilize some portion of the secondary to get the qb’s timing off.

Today’s game is designed to be offensive friendly- doesn’t matter how good your secondary is, it’s awfully tough to defend when a web can sit back there and read the Sunday paper.

Pressure up front, right up the middle disrupts passing lanes, messes up the qb’s timing and can ruin a game plan in a hurry

 

[hunt-ducks]

Watching the Southern Utah/San Jose State game. 21-0 San Jose after one quarter. And guess what, San Jose State is playing a base 4-3 defense except on obvious passing plays, where they play with three down linemen, and a stand-up LB on the LOS who can either rush, or drop-back. Gee, and this is against the vaunted SUU spread offense! Who woulda thunk it???

Yeah, who’d a thunk that an FBS team wouldn’t need to show anything but a base defense to beat a cellar-dwelling FCS team like a rented mule. It’s almost like they didn’t want anything on film for their ACTUAL opponents. Never seen THAT before…

I thought you were smarter than this ridiculous post. What the hell have I been discussing in this thread..... BASE DEFENSE! Why do you think I don't understand that all base defenses have many options to defense certain offensive plays? Nickle and dime packages. Four down or three-down with a stand-up hybrid LB...... Why you don't you explain Bobby's BASE DEFENSE, or are you content to just blather-on to attempt to deflect from admission that all of the top teams in the nation utilize either a 4-3, or 3-4 BASE DEFENSE!!!!! BASE DEFENSE!!!!! BASE DEFENSE!!!!!

 

[hunt-ducks]

Very interesting post, love the x and o's stuff. So am I right that you are thinking that read/react out of the 3-3, 4-2 keeps better field balance than traditional run/fit schemes and therefore makes RPO reads less obvious?

Yes. Pretty much.

Any defense with the right personnel and good scheme can defend the spread, but if I were to choose a defense with the spread in mind it would be the 4-2 or 3-3. If you remove the traditional gap responsibility and alignment from a 4-3, it would be pretty serviceable as well. The more that you remove gap responsibility and have players work inside- out against the front side of RPO you are going to be in a lot better shape. RPO teams are good at isolating the back side end, linebacker and a safety depending on how they run it. The 4-3 and 3-4 concepts on the scheme side of give a way ton of pre-snap tells, and the 4-2 and 3-3 effectively eliminate those tells. The reason is by committing to a six man box rather than a 7, you can effectively balance your defense without sliding.

The scheme makes the back side safety a second level run defender from depth and what traditional 2 high systems do is make it pretty evident based upon FS/WLB alignment precisely how you intend to cover the slot. The more you can mask your pre-snap coverage and alignment, it makes it hard to for the QB where they want to run their bubble or snag concept type route to.

Inside the box, because the LB's are flow players rather than gap alignment you get better pursuit to the front side of zone, you can get away by sending pressure to one side or the other and not leave gaping holes in the middle of your run defense. If you are running 4-3 cover 2 pressure against RPO you can't really send pressure off the edge without pre-snap indicating that your coming. Takes too long and the RPO concept is a 60's (quick set, zone) rather than a long 5 step type drop action. So you have to cheat it to bring an OLB, whereas in the 4-2 or 3-3 just because of alignment and personnel decisions you can bring pressure from just about anywhere and not immediately by alignment give away what you are doing behind it because you could be man to one side, zone to the other, or a number of combos. Most of the time we were 2/1 coverage, but with the 4-3 unless you abandon the 2 high, you are going to have to show you are running a zero/one concept.

Hope that makes sense.

Total rope-a-dope once again. But, hey it obviously impresses the pedestrian fans, so keep it up. Maybe someday, you'll be asked to coach above Class C. Maybe you should get an agent and stop handling yourself.