Most important position to defense and why

[AZGrizFan]

Score 30, we win. It’s that simple.

I see losses at 34, 41 and 41 points scored. We win those if only giving up 10 points, right?

If we had 3 losses total in the last four years, we’d have a couple more NC banners hanging in Wa/Griz.

But following your logic, we could either limit EVERY team to 10, or score 42 EVERY game. You choose.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Trying to explain the split field coverage system is nuts and it is even harder to conceptualize for fans because the rules are never consistent. What is interesting, is this whole conversation is why A LOT of high school programs absolutely refused to implement the 4-2/3-3 because they thought it was dependent on unicorn players and coverage concepts that were too complex. Yet if you were to travel around San Diego County where I am at, I'd say at least half, if not more run some version of them now.

You just can't win against spread teams (which most school are now) without either having D1 mandigos everywhere in a 4-3 or a 3-4 or conceding that you are just going to have to line up out of your base system 90% of your snaps. Very few college teams have pulled off the 4-3 against spread successfully (NDSU, Bama are two) and it is because literally they have guys who are such freak athletes you could run a 9 front and win games. In the 4-3 you absolutely need that one disruptive DL element to win, but in this defense you aren't as dependent on high end DL play to win games.

I totally disagree with your reasoning. You seem to think that the only way for a 4-3 defense to stop the spread offense is to have a bunch of elite players on defense. You listed NDSU & Bama as examples of teams who fit that profile. What about Ohio State, LSU, Clemson, Michigan, Florida, Texas A & M, Georgia in FBS, and Sam Houston, James Madison, and South Dakota State, Delaware, et. al. in FCS??? None of them run the defense you seem to love, to my knowledge. They don't attempt to stop the spread with gimmick defenses, rather they DICTATE the game by saying to the opponent "we play the 4-3 defense. If you think you can defeat us with your spread, go for it!".

Finally, Montana was a Top 3-4 program in FCS for many many years, and the division was much better in those days, because so many of the other top programs have moved-up to FBS. In those days we ran a traditional defense, and didn't worry about our opponent's offensive philosophy. If NDSU, JMU, SDSU, and Sam Houston can recruit defenders good enough to play the 4-3, and EXCEL at doing so against Big Sky type offenses, why can't UM recruit these kids???

Montana should be able to structure our defense to dictate, like we used to do. If we are unable to do that currently, we are NOT YET BACK TO DOMINANCE!

Lol. In the timeframe you’re referencing, literally NOBODY ran a spread or RPO offense. That’s why it was such a novelty for years. Not the case today…

 

[ilovethecats]

I totally disagree with your reasoning. You seem to think that the only way for a 4-3 defense to stop the spread offense is to have a bunch of elite players on defense. You listed NDSU & Bama as examples of teams who fit that profile. What about Ohio State, LSU, Clemson, Michigan, Florida, Texas A & M, Georgia in FBS, and Sam Houston, James Madison, and South Dakota State, Delaware, et. al. in FCS??? None of them run the defense you seem to love, to my knowledge. They don't attempt to stop the spread with gimmick defenses, rather they DICTATE the game by saying to the opponent "we play the 4-3 defense. If you think you can defeat us with your spread, go for it!".

Finally, Montana was a Top 3-4 program in FCS for many many years, and the division was much better in those days, because so many of the other top programs have moved-up to FBS. In those days we ran a traditional defense, and didn't worry about our opponent's offensive philosophy. If NDSU, JMU, SDSU, and Sam Houston can recruit defenders good enough to play the 4-3, and EXCEL at doing so against Big Sky type offenses, why can't UM recruit these kids???

Montana should be able to structure our defense to dictate, like we used to do. If we are unable to do that currently, we are NOT YET BACK TO DOMINANCE!

Lol. In the timeframe you’re referencing, literally NOBODY ran a spread or RPO offense. That’s why it was such a novelty for years. Not the case today…

That, and the division wasn’t “much better”. Man it’s crazy to see some of these old guys pretending the game hasn’t evolved.

 

[hunt-ducks]

Lol. In the timeframe you’re referencing, literally NOBODY ran a spread or RPO offense. That’s why it was such a novelty for years. Not the case today…

That, and the division wasn’t “much better”. Man it’s crazy to see some of these old guys pretending the game hasn’t evolved.

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.

 

[ilovethecats]

That, and the division wasn’t “much better”. Man it’s crazy to see some of these old guys pretending the game hasn’t evolved.

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.

Of all your old sayings you spew over and over, I gotta say, the “I’ve forgotten more about the game of football than you’ll ever know” is by far my favorite.

It’s right up there with “clown car act show” and makes the same amount of sense.

And yes, I think the division is tougher now than it was then. Because the game evolves and programs change. I would think a fan of the griz of all programs would understand that what was 20-25 years ago…..isn’t necessarily what is now.

So yes, I feel the division is somehow puttering along, even without the likes of Troy State and Massachusetts. Some how. Some way.

 

[hunt-ducks]

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.

Of all your old sayings you spew over and over, I gotta say, the “I’ve forgotten more about the game of football than you’ll ever know” is by far my favorite.

It’s right up there with “clown car act show” and makes the same amount of sense.

And yes, I think the division is tougher now than it was then. Because the game evolves and programs change. I would think a fan of the griz of all programs would understand that what was 20-25 years ago…..isn’t necessarily what is now.

So yes, I feel the division is somehow puttering along, even without the likes of Troy State and Massachusetts. Some how. Some way.

The truth always hurts, eh Sparky? You exhibit your limited football acumen regularly. Uh, UMASS no only won a national championship, but also beat the Grizzlies in Missoula the only time the two played. Troy State was consistently ranked in the Top 5-10 in FCS, year-after-year. But, as always,thanks for playing.

 

[ilovethecats]

Of all your old sayings you spew over and over, I gotta say, the “I’ve forgotten more about the game of football than you’ll ever know” is by far my favorite.

It’s right up there with “clown car act show” and makes the same amount of sense.

And yes, I think the division is tougher now than it was then. Because the game evolves and programs change. I would think a fan of the griz of all programs would understand that what was 20-25 years ago…..isn’t necessarily what is now.

So yes, I feel the division is somehow puttering along, even without the likes of Troy State and Massachusetts. Some how. Some way.

The truth always hurts, eh Sparky? You exhibit your limited football acumen regularly. Uh, UMASS no only won a national championship, but also beat the Grizzlies in Missoula the only time the two played. Troy State was consistently ranked in the Top 5-10 in FCS, year-after-year. But, as always,thanks for playing.

Damn. I forgot "Sparky". Also one of my favorites. :lol:

I understand what those programs did and how successful they once were. And if it wasn't the game of football, and no other teams have been successful since those teams were then you'd have a point I suppose.

But to make a case that the division his somehow weaker now because we have different great programs than we had 20 years ago just doesn't make sense.

 

[Griz#64]

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

 

[AZGrizFan]

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

:thumb: :thumb: :clap: :clap:

 

[Grizfan-24]

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.

 

[SaskGriz]

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.

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?

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

I love reading your posts. :clap: :thumb:

 

[Griz#64]

In a 4-3 As i recall , when they had a tight end we moved Sam to heads up to jam and our7 slid down to a hard 5 , but when the went to a flex. we moved him into a walk away. to take away the quick look-in with containment on sweep etc..Keep in mind, i am old school. But still have my heart in the game..

 

[SaskGriz]

In a 4-3 As i recall , when they had a tight end we moved Sam to heads up to jam and our7 slid down to a hard 5 , but when the went to a flex. we moved him into a walk away. to take away the quick look-in with containment on sweep etc..Keep in mind, i am old school. But still have my heart in the game..

If you jammed the TE with your Sam, were you releasing him into the strong side zone or is that kid running with him? Do you have the Will, sit and read because he's got the boundary flat? Or did you have packages where you blitzed the Will if they saw an empty backfield?

 

[PhxGriz]

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Their's no I in team.

 

[AZGrizFan]

In a 4-3 As i recall , when they had a tight end we moved Sam to heads up to jam and our7 slid down to a hard 5 , but when the went to a flex. we moved him into a walk away. to take away the quick look-in with containment on sweep etc..Keep in mind, i am old school. But still have my heart in the game..

If you jammed the TE with your Sam, were you releasing him into the strong side zone or is that kid running with him? Do you have the Will, sit and read because he's got the boundary flat? Or did you have packages where you blitzed the Will if they saw an empty backfield?

The Will runs with the Sam and the TE runs free. :lol: :lol:

 

[3-7-77]

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Their's no I in team.

Between the two of us, we've got some good material. Maybe we should get it copyrighted. :steal: :thumb: :lol:

 

[Griz#64]

O.K: Mike was Given the stop light keys. Green read, Go hard fill B gap and continue hard. Yellow light , Caution skate find the ball, look for nearest receiver , Red light. Stop hold A gap on traps and fb Dives etc. pretty elementary, but High School kids could really relate

 

[hunt-ducks]

The truth always hurts, eh Sparky? You exhibit your limited football acumen regularly. Uh, UMASS no only won a national championship, but also beat the Grizzlies in Missoula the only time the two played. Troy State was consistently ranked in the Top 5-10 in FCS, year-after-year. But, as always,thanks for playing.

Damn. I forgot "Sparky". Also one of my favorites. :lol:

I understand what those programs did and how successful they once were. And if it wasn't the game of football, and no other teams have been successful since those teams were then you'd have a point I suppose.

But to make a case that the division his somehow weaker now because we have different great programs than we had 20 years ago just doesn't make sense.

Obvious why you are a Cat fan. Your football knowledge is consistent with your parade of pedestrian head coaches.

 

[PTGrizzly]

That, and the division wasn’t “much better”. Man it’s crazy to see some of these old guys pretending the game hasn’t evolved.

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”.