Pre-Fall camp discussion 2 - The defense & specialists

[bgbigdog]

I genuinely am a smart ass, which you've aready gathered.

Regardless of the cover strategy they use, cover two, three or man, they're only as effective as their ability to get home in the pass rush. Can we agree on that? Even Ford was taken advantage of against the better receivers when the rush wasn't as effective. And the rush, 90% or more of the time, comes from the backers. Meaning the remainder of the eight guys set up behind the line of scrimmage have to cover more ground. And as you point out, they're called safties for a reason. Putting your best in the slot, means they will most often be matched up against a safety or a linebacker at times. That's called looking for an advantage. I enjoy your posts and read all of them.

I was suggesting a situational use of a third corner, when they anticipate an opportunity to leverage an advantage of their own, down and distance, or to address the strategies of the other teams who may use trips packages and four wides as a prominent feature of their offenses. Not that they permanently switch them out. I'm also hoping Bradford can do more to manufacture a pass rush from the front three, like TCU has been able to do, so that there are fewer holes and more bodies in the passing lanes.

Every team they played last year, utilized some form of situational substitution strategy to try to find an advantage on defense. Seems like that is worthwhile strategy to explore. Maybe that's a down lineman who can rush the passer in passing situations, or a slot corner to help take away the advantage the other guys are trying to leverage.

I see what you are saying about a good pass rush, but pass defense is much more than a good pass rush. It is also good coverage, good schemes and good calls for the situation. Remember, corner was my position, and I still follow secondary play and talk to the Griz secondary coaches and some players on occasion.

Of course it is. But this defense is predicated on creating chaos, which 99% of the time means effectively pressuring the QB,

Riddle me this, was your defensive backfield more effective when the front was pressuring well, or was it better for you to run with the receiver and contest their attempts at receptions all game? I am absolutely sure you had both experiences. My contention, for those playing along at home, is that they've played the base defense almost exclusively for five seasons. It wasn't long before good coaching discovered the weaknesses, and have worked to exploit them. Other teams will copy. I have not advocated for wholesale change, only considering situational subs that might cause the other teams to fail to execute, Bowing your neck and trying to out-tough the other team isn;t going to be an effective strategy in playing for national championships. Those teams are as tough and talented. And some of them can effectively impose their will because they have the horses to do so.

 

[Missoula223]

I am genuinely not being a smart ass but I have no idea what you mean when you say they’re going to play cover 2 whether it’s a slot corner or not. Are you saying if they switch the corner and nickel spot they will play 2 as opposed to man free? That’s fairly easy to do if you are playing Tampa but it doesn’t do anything to take away a slot. I would argue you’re going to be better off in cover 3 so you can re-route that guy. Also fairly easy to do, but doesn’t take care of the fact that that guy is going to have to get off blocks.

I would guess that Montana played maybe 50-100 snaps of true cover 2 last season tops. My point to the previous poster was simply that its not easy to switch the spots between the corner and Cottons position.

I genuinely am a smart ass, which you've aready gathered.

Regardless of the cover strategy they use, cover two, three or man, they're only as effective as their ability to get home in the pass rush. Can we agree on that? Even Ford was taken advantage of against the better receivers when the rush wasn't as effective. And the rush, 90% or more of the time, comes from the backers. Meaning the remainder of the eight guys set up behind the line of scrimmage have to cover more ground. And as you point out, they're called safties for a reason. Putting your best in the slot, means they will most often be matched up against a safety or a linebacker at times. That's called looking for an advantage.

I was suggesting a situational use of a third corner, when they anticipate an opportunity to leverage an advantage of their own, down and distance, or to address the strategies of the other teams who may use trips packages and four wides as a prominent feature of their offenses. Not that they permanently switch them out. I'm also hoping Bradford can do more to manufacture a pass rush from the front three, like TCU has been able to do, so that there are fewer holes and more bodies in the passing lanes.

Every team they played last year, utilized some form of situational substitution strategy to try to find an advantage on defense. Seems like that is worthwhile strategy to explore. Maybe that's a down lineman who can rush the passer in passing situations, or a slot corner to help take away the advantage the other guys are trying to leverage.

Haha. Now we are talking a whole different thing. Every team in America is only as good in coverage as their pass rush. Then once you establish that you have to look at how often you get teams into passing situations. Which is a whole other can of worms. Once were into passing situations then absolutely you can argue for another corner in the game. Do we have that personnel? Is another corner better at covering a slot than Cotton is?

I didn’t include TCU when I was talking in my first post because as much as they love to claim 3-3 I would say they’re just as often 5-1 with low overhangs or a 3 man front with a rush and just a 0 nose. I have no issues with personnel changes. I think originally I was arguing against a 3-4 against spread teams. I would like to think that a 3 down front allows for more multiplicity when rushing the passer. The one thing I will say is I would question the ways the Griz have manipulated pass pro with a 4 man rush. The term people like to use is “simulated pressure” which is just an overrated way to say disguising a blitz from one side, blitzing the other, and dropping the guys out from the disguise. I would question whether or not the grizzlies have utilized those sorts of tools in passing situations.

Anyway I think we are sort of on the same page. Changes in personnel aren’t a bad thing based on the opponents situation.

 

[Copper Griz]

I see what you are saying about a good pass rush, but pass defense is much more than a good pass rush. It is also good coverage, good schemes and good calls for the situation. Remember, corner was my position, and I still follow secondary play and talk to the Griz secondary coaches and some players on occasion.

Of course it is. But this defense is predicated on creating chaos, which 99% of the time means effectively pressuring the QB,

Riddle me this, was your defensive backfield more effective when the front was pressuring well, or was it better for you to run with the receiver and contest their attempts at receptions all game? I am absolutely sure you had both experiences. My contention, for those playing along at home, is that they've played the base defense almost exclusively for five seasons. It wasn't long before good coaching discovered the weaknesses, and have worked to exploit them. Other teams will copy. I have not advocated for wholesale change, only considering situational subs that might cause the other teams to fail to execute, Bowing your neck and trying to out-tough the other team isn;t going to be an effective strategy in playing for national championships. Those teams are as tough and talented. And some of them can effectively impose their will because they have the horses to do so.

This is a thoughtful post. Tough to argue against it quite frankly. The interior D line is a concern. Nobody wants to discuss it. If Branford doesn’t run a 3-3-5 all the time (I pray he doesn’t) what is he going to run? Gubner can only do so much and the Griz got gashed last year - really gashed against NDSU and MSU. Call it missed assignments or whatever other excuse you want to make. Bottom line is the Bobcat oline were damn bulldozers. How many long runs did NDSU have against the 3-3-5? Way too many and way too easy. You can’t rely upon safeties to make tackle after tackle against a good run team. The linebackers were out of position or on their backs in both games. (Yes, sometimes blitzing). It was the big difference in both games.

 

[bgbigdog]

I genuinely am a smart ass, which you've aready gathered.

Regardless of the cover strategy they use, cover two, three or man, they're only as effective as their ability to get home in the pass rush. Can we agree on that? Even Ford was taken advantage of against the better receivers when the rush wasn't as effective. And the rush, 90% or more of the time, comes from the backers. Meaning the remainder of the eight guys set up behind the line of scrimmage have to cover more ground. And as you point out, they're called safties for a reason. Putting your best in the slot, means they will most often be matched up against a safety or a linebacker at times. That's called looking for an advantage.

I was suggesting a situational use of a third corner, when they anticipate an opportunity to leverage an advantage of their own, down and distance, or to address the strategies of the other teams who may use trips packages and four wides as a prominent feature of their offenses. Not that they permanently switch them out. I'm also hoping Bradford can do more to manufacture a pass rush from the front three, like TCU has been able to do, so that there are fewer holes and more bodies in the passing lanes.

Every team they played last year, utilized some form of situational substitution strategy to try to find an advantage on defense. Seems like that is worthwhile strategy to explore. Maybe that's a down lineman who can rush the passer in passing situations, or a slot corner to help take away the advantage the other guys are trying to leverage.

Haha. Now we are talking a whole different thing. Every team in America is only as good in coverage as their pass rush. Then once you establish that you have to look at how often you get teams into passing situations. Which is a whole other can of worms. Once were into passing situations then absolutely you can argue for another corner in the game. Do we have that personnel? Is another corner better at covering a slot than Cotton is?

I didn’t include TCU when I was talking in my first post because as much as they love to claim 3-3 I would say they’re just as often 5-1 with low overhangs or a 3 man front with a rush and just a 0 nose. I have no issues with personnel changes. I think originally I was arguing against a 3-4 against spread teams. I would like to think that a 3 down front allows for more multiplicity when rushing the passer. The one thing I will say is I would question the ways the Griz have manipulated pass pro with a 4 man rush. The term people like to use is “simulated pressure” which is just an overrated way to say disguising a blitz from one side, blitzing the other, and dropping the guys out from the disguise. I would question whether or not the grizzlies have utilized those sorts of tools in passing situations.

Anyway I think we are sort of on the same page. Changes in personnel aren’t a bad thing based on the opponents situation.

I need to confess my football acumin is not in a strata you run in. My indoctrination and experience come from just after the single-wing offense was retired, think veer and wishbone time frame.

That said, what i've gleaned from watching the last five or so seasons is that this is rather complex system. Perhaps that plays into what they've been able to actualize? Last season might have been the first time they'd have had someone to play a slot corner, given Hauck inherited a pair of wide receivers to play the corner in the first season. I think the defense works well enough to be what's needed to win championships. But as I also noted they were left out on the field far too long last season. They were banged up and exhausted by the time the second half of the NDSU game kicked off. That was a result of believing they, and the specials, were going to be the difference and that the offense only need to not f&%k things up. No one will ever convince me that this was a winning strategy. Keep posting my friend, it's great to have someone like yourself and GF24 who can take us behind the scenes with some real football talk 

 

[mthoopsfan]

Haha. Now we are talking a whole different thing. Every team in America is only as good in coverage as their pass rush. Then once you establish that you have to look at how often you get teams into passing situations. Which is a whole other can of worms. Once were into passing situations then absolutely you can argue for another corner in the game. Do we have that personnel? Is another corner better at covering a slot than Cotton is?

I didn’t include TCU when I was talking in my first post because as much as they love to claim 3-3 I would say they’re just as often 5-1 with low overhangs or a 3 man front with a rush and just a 0 nose. I have no issues with personnel changes. I think originally I was arguing against a 3-4 against spread teams. I would like to think that a 3 down front allows for more multiplicity when rushing the passer. The one thing I will say is I would question the ways the Griz have manipulated pass pro with a 4 man rush. The term people like to use is “simulated pressure” which is just an overrated way to say disguising a blitz from one side, blitzing the other, and dropping the guys out from the disguise. I would question whether or not the grizzlies have utilized those sorts of tools in passing situations.

Anyway I think we are sort of on the same page. Changes in personnel aren’t a bad thing based on the opponents situation.

I need to confess my football acumin is not in a strata you run in. My indoctrination and experience come from just after the single-wing offense was retired, think veer and wishbone time frame.

That said, what i've gleaned from watching the last five or so seasons is that this is rather complex system. Perhaps that plays into what they've been able to actualize? Last season might have been the first time they'd have had someone to play a slot corner, given Hauck inherited a pair of wide receivers to play the corner in the first season. I think the defense works well enough to be what's needed to win championships. But as I also noted they were left out on the field far too long last season. They were banged up and exhausted by the time the second half of the NDSU game kicked off. That was a result of believing they, and the specials, were going to be the difference and that the offense only need to not f&%k things up. No one will ever convince me that this was a winning strategy. Keep posting my friend, it's great to have someone like yourself and GF24 who can take us behind the scenes with some real football talk 

The offense needed better QB play. It was not nearly good enough most of the time after SS. I thought the D and team were still going to be able to recover and do it, but that obviously didn't occur. I didn't know Johnson's LCL was hurt (nor did any fans, to my knowledge). That explains why he wasn't as good and kept getting hurt and coming out.

 

[thirdandlong]

There is no reasonable defense for running a 3-3-5 against great running teams. It simply will not work. Too much guessing instead of execution of a given defensive position. Thus, giving-up many long running plays.
The Bobcats have to be licking their chops at the prospect of playing us again while we try to stop their running game with the 3-3-5. Same for most playoff teams.

 

[Missoula223]

There is no reasonable defense for running a 3-3-5 against great running teams. It simply will not work. Too much guessing instead of execution of a given defensive position. Thus, giving-up many long running plays.
The Bobcats have to be licking their chops at the prospect of playing us again while we try to stop their running game with the 3-3-5. Same for most playoff teams.

Tell me you don’t know football without telling me you don’t know football.

NDSU gave up more yards per game rushing than the Griz did. They run a 4-3. Wow the 4-3 is a terrible scheme.

 

[bgbigdog]

There is no reasonable defense for running a 3-3-5 against great running teams. It simply will not work. Too much guessing instead of execution of a given defensive position. Thus, giving-up many long running plays.
The Bobcats have to be licking their chops at the prospect of playing us again while we try to stop their running game with the 3-3-5. Same for most playoff teams.

Tell me you don’t know football without telling me you don’t know football.

NDSU gave up more yards per game rushing than the Griz did. They run a 4-3. Wow the 4-3 is a terrible scheme.

Great observation. Not to beat a dead horse, but I still think Rosey gave up on running it a little too soon in the playoff game. They were right around 100 yds at the half before the wheels fell off.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I see what you are saying about a good pass rush, but pass defense is much more than a good pass rush. It is also good coverage, good schemes and good calls for the situation. Remember, corner was my position, and I still follow secondary play and talk to the Griz secondary coaches and some players on occasion.

Of course it is. But this defense is predicated on creating chaos, which 99% of the time means effectively pressuring the QB,

Riddle me this, was your defensive backfield more effective when the front was pressuring well, or was it better for you to run with the receiver and contest their attempts at receptions all game? I am absolutely sure you had both experiences. My contention, for those playing along at home, is that they've played the base defense almost exclusively for five seasons. It wasn't long before good coaching discovered the weaknesses, and have worked to exploit them. Other teams will copy. I have not advocated for wholesale change, only considering situational subs that might cause the other teams to fail to execute, Bowing your neck and trying to out-tough the other team isn;t going to be an effective strategy in playing for national championships. Those teams are as tough and talented. And some of them can effectively impose their will because they have the horses to do so.

The 3-3-5 is designed to keep the offense and their blockers unsure of who to block and where the rush is coming from.

Our defensive backfield was not more effective when the front was pressuring well. More than half of the plays are running plays. No need to put pressure on the qb in running plays. Better to have more guys in their lanes and more backers available to take on blocks and make tackles in running plays. Yes, generally, a good pass rush helps in pass defense, but good pass defense also works without a good pass rush. It has to.

The UM 3-3-5 has played only for 4 falls seasons, so far.

Does the 3-3-5 have anything to do with "out-toughing" the other team?

I agree on situational changes, and the Griz have done that, at least to some extent.

The 3-3-5 has flexibility and is good for teams with speed at various positions. Probably also for teams without a lot of inside tackle beef. And seems to need smarter players because the defense and defensive calls seem to be more varied and complex.

I assume the new DC will make various adjustments and will call the defenses in a different manner, at least at times.

I don't profess to have expertise in the 3-3-5. I don't advocate for any particular base defense. But I do comment when I see incorrect or stupid things said about the 3-3-5.

A Michigan player's comment after TCU beat them: " It presents a lot of problems for a run game because if your receivers or tight ends aren’t locked into putting a hat on a hat, their safeties and linebackers will make you pay."

"A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

This is a good simple overview of the 3-3-5:

https://joedanielfootball.com/335facts/

 

[indian-outlaw]

Of course it is. But this defense is predicated on creating chaos, which 99% of the time means effectively pressuring the QB,

Riddle me this, was your defensive backfield more effective when the front was pressuring well, or was it better for you to run with the receiver and contest their attempts at receptions all game? I am absolutely sure you had both experiences. My contention, for those playing along at home, is that they've played the base defense almost exclusively for five seasons. It wasn't long before good coaching discovered the weaknesses, and have worked to exploit them. Other teams will copy. I have not advocated for wholesale change, only considering situational subs that might cause the other teams to fail to execute, Bowing your neck and trying to out-tough the other team isn;t going to be an effective strategy in playing for national championships. Those teams are as tough and talented. And some of them can effectively impose their will because they have the horses to do so.

The 3-3-5 is designed to keep the offense and their blockers unsure of who to block and where the rush is coming from.

Our defensive backfield was not more effective when the front was pressuring well. More than half of the plays are running plays. No need to put pressure on the qb in running plays. Better to have more guys in their lanes and more backers available to take on blocks and make tackles in running plays. Yes, generally, a good pass rush helps in pass defense, but good pass defense also works without a good pass rush. It has to.

The UM 3-3-5 has played only for 4 falls seasons, so far.

Does the 3-3-5 have anything to do with "out-toughing" the other team?

I agree on situational changes, and the Griz have done that, at least to some extent.

The 3-3-5 has flexibility and is good for teams with speed at various positions. Probably also for teams without a lot of inside tackle beef. And seems to need smarter players because the defense and defensive calls seem to be more varied and complex.

I assume the new DC will make various adjustments and will call the defenses in a different manner, at least at times.

I don't profess to have expertise in the 3-3-5. I don't advocate for any particular base defense. But I do comment when I see incorrect or stupid things said about the 3-3-5.

A Michigan player's comment after TCU beat them: " It presents a lot of problems for a run game because if your receivers or tight ends aren’t locked into putting a hat on a hat, their safeties and linebackers will make you pay."

"A 3-3-5 defense is not only good for protecting against a passing offense. A good combination of personnel will be solid against the run game as well, allowing safeties to play near the line of scrimmage more in run support."

This is a good simple overview of the 3-3-5:

https://joedanielfootball.com/335facts/

I'm not a football coach by any means but I don't understand all the hate for the 3-3-5 defense. I think people forgot how dominant our defense was last year with the exception of the cat/griz. We have always recruited fast and athletes safeties and linebackers. We need to take advantage of the players on our roster by getting the best athletes on the field. Tweak the defense to defender team like the bobcats. But don't wreck what worked so well for the majority of the season.

 

[poorgriz]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

Uhm, it worked against Michigan.... and it worked to get TCU to the championship.

It worked for us against Washington. It worked great when we destroyed the Cats the year before...

 

[uofmman1122]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

 

[kemajic]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

It happened in the last Missoula brawl, which you seem so motivated to forget. Can happen again this year.

 

[poorgriz]

There is no reasonable defense for running a 3-3-5 against great running teams. It simply will not work. Too much guessing instead of execution of a given defensive position. Thus, giving-up many long running plays.
The Bobcats have to be licking their chops at the prospect of playing us again while we try to stop their running game with the 3-3-5. Same for most playoff teams.

You know it. I really, really hope you're still running with the 3-3-5 scheme come Cat-griz. That's not going to stop or even slow down the Bobcat rushing attack at all, once again. For it to even be a contest, Gubner will have to play out of his mind. Highly unlikely that he'll even play in the game however as it sounds like there isn't enough quality depth behind and around him this year so he's going to get beat and abused, overworked, like a rented mule. All smack aside..... he is the best player on your team and is an absolute stud. Almost as good as Sabastian Valdex.

 

[kemajic]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

When an irresponsible number of blitzes are deployed that wise offenses can exploit.

 

[mthoopsfan]

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

When an irresponsible number of blitzes are deployed that wise offenses can exploit.

I don't view play calls as a problem of the 3-3-5 scheme. The other 3-3-5 defenses I've watched don't seem to send as many backers. Blitzing backers also close running lanes.

 

[poorgriz]

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

When an irresponsible number of blitzes are deployed that wise offenses can exploit.

Correct. Also, when you have a team with a dominant OL that isn't going to get pushed around by three or even 4 (when the situation calls for bringing in a 4th) D Linemen, AND when you have electric playmakers all over the field (WRs, RBs, TEs, FB), AND TWO elite veteran QBs that know where and when to distribute the ball, and finally, said QBs are both a threat every play to take off running and take it to the house..... well you get the idea. Then again, I'm not sure if any scheme you put out there would stop the Bobcat offense - I don't think you have the personnel.

 

[SoldierGriz]

I think that's the point Outlaw. Probably works fine against average teams, and of course it will work against the crappy teams (Of which you played several). But when you run into an elite team like MSU, NDSU, SDSU... ain't happening.

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

It's not the scheme. It's the personnel executing.

The scheme can be a run-stuffing machine if the 3 up front are good enough to unleash the other 8.

That's been principal among the problems for the Griz at times...elite teams will have elite offensive lines...

But, it is not the scheme itself.

 

[uofmman1122]

What specifically about the 3-3-5 as a scheme makes it weak against "elite" teams?

It's not the scheme. It's the personnel executing.

The scheme can be a run-stuffing machine if the 3 up front are good enough to unleash the other 8.

That's been principal among the problems for the Griz at times...elite teams will have elite offensive lines...

But, it is not the scheme itself.

So despite what people keep saying, it sounds like the 3-3-5 isn't the issue.