Thoughts on the 3-3-5.

[Dillon]

3-3-5 puts a lot of pressure on a teams DB's and Safety's. You are making young kids at the FCS level think a lot more on the field instead of playing free... You saw that in a couple games last year, where players were out of position after play action, or misdirection runs. Safety's and backend have to figure out...

run/pass side
zone reads (who is in what zone)
blitz sides, with play development

Defense is designed to funnel everything to the back-end, and if that breaks down you see what happens (Cat/griz)

Not saying it is a bad defense at all, but is takes a lot of time to learn... And if you are missing one piece, it makes it look really bad.

:thumb: It should all come Natural Grasshopper - Be wise not otherwise!

 

[GlacierGrizX]

As aforementioned above in other posts I don't like the 3-3-5 against the power run as its better against spread/run offenses. In my opinion, I think its prone to trap blocking or misdirection (counters) where the offense line gets an angle on the front three, and the LBs step up to fill. This allows 1-2 OL to release to next level, to where the run is going and also seals off the back side LB play from the occupied front three. Also the blitzers can be well-disguised from any LB or S, but they have alot more travel time to the QB, so any short routes can be easily executed by a competent QB.

I am also up in the air about the personal needed to run the defense? Do we need smaller more athletic DL that can cover ground or do we need large 'hogs" upfront? Its also probably tougher to find larger sure-run-tackling DB's for the safety spots? I would think that these safeties would be taking on more releasing OL downfield on run plays, if the LBs flow? I would say its an LB's dream defense!

I guess I would rather see a 4-2-5, as I would like to see more beef on beef play in the trenches. I don't like seeing downfield OL play, where both the LB and DB's having to take on large OL in full motion?

 

[alabamagrizzly]

So then my question is, why can’t a team not be ready to play any D to be more prepared for the offense their facing? Offenses learn many formations, defenses should be able to also.

 

[dayday]

So then my question is, why can’t a team not be ready to play any D to be more prepared for the offense their facing? Offenses learn many formations, defenses should be able to also.

Most defenses including this one does. They have a bad D but there are goal line/short yard, dime, nickel packages, etc.

 

[SaskGriz]

So then my question is, why can’t a team not be ready to play any D to be more prepared for the offense their facing? Offenses learn many formations, defenses should be able to also.

Bama, I think they do learn different formations but its a bit tougher for defenses. No matter how much we want the D to "dictate" it is still largely reactive so if you give a defender too many assignments, responsibilities, reads and cues you are going to end up with "paralysis by analysis".

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Watch the WSU game again with an eye toward injury. The Griz players gave it their all and then some and got beat up in the process. If it hadn't been cat-Griz, I'm guessing a full third on each side of the ball, including Sneed, would have sat out the next game. The team that beat the Wildcats was not the team that took the field against the Cats. Just the way sports go sometimes.

 

[kemajic]

So then my question is, why can’t a team not be ready to play any D to be more prepared for the offense their facing? Offenses learn many formations, defenses should be able to also.

Most defenses including this one does. They have a bad D but there are goal line/short yard, dime, nickel packages, etc.

How bad?

 

[SACCAT66]

Most defenses including this one does. They have a bad D but there are goal line/short yard, dime, nickel packages, etc.

How bad?

Really bad.. That's why they need a goal line and short yardage D... If you had a great D, you wouldn't need those.

 

[hunt-ducks]

Using the 3-3-5 as your base defense shows weakness in your defensive personnel. Been reading the comments about the reasoning to use the 3-3-5 because the Big Sky is filled with teams running the pass-heavy offenses. Poor excuse for the 3-3-5.
Montana football has always been about being one of the top 5 programs in the nation, and aspiring to win the national championship. At least that is what it used to be about. Now it seems to be about trying to compete with EWU, Weber, and even the Bobcats within our own conference. Playoffs??? Playoffs???
It all changed when Pflu was fired, Engstrom was hired, then Delaney was given three seasons to bring down the program. Then the nail in the coffin was the hiring of Stitt, who tried to make us another WASSU team which tried to win by out-scoring the opposition, with little attention to defense.
If we expect to return to national dominance, we can't allow other conference offenses to dictate what we do on defense. The 3-3-5 defense used as our base defense shows weakness. It will never be able to stop opponents who can run the ball effectively, and are balanced offensively. This is the reason that FBS powers like Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, & Clemson would never run a 3-3-5 as their base defense. These teams have defenses which dictate the game, instead of allowing the opposing offense to dictate the game.
And in FCS, powers like NDSU and James Madison also run defenses which dictate the game. Their defenses are not threatened by pass-heavy offenses. In fact, it plays right into their defensive strategy, by totally taking away the threat of a running game, thus making their opponent one-dimensional.
It is no mystery why the NFL, as well as the national power college teams use either a 4-3 or a 3-4 as their base defenses. So, if Montana wants to become a national power again, they will scrap the 3-3-5, and recruit the type of players to run the 4-3 or 3-4 as their base defense. My two-cents.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Not sure where to begin with this because as you know I am prone to long-winded technical explanations, and I might need the use of several images or graphs...

I have as a defensive coordinator run the 4-3, 4-4, 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defense extensively over my coaching career.

Here is what i know:

1. Scheme is only as good as the individuals coaching it and the personnel you have to execute it.
2. All schemes are great against certain things and an absolute dumpster fire against others.
3. There is no maximum extent or absolutes with scheme.

I get that some of you have a major hard-on for NDSU's stout 4-3. Works for them. They have good coaches and great personnel. With those two combo's you can run a kitchen sink against inferior offensive scheme and personnel and win 7 out of 10 times. Remember back in the Paulson era, people used to bitch and moan about the limitations of the 4-3. **Cough Villanova Cough**

I ran the 3-3-5 in a conference with primarily power offenses. I worked with a lot of guys who had absolutely no imagination or understanding on how to defend power. We once lined up with 6-1 personnel out of that 3-3-5 base (don't ask) and got torched to the tune of 355 yards rushing in the first half against a wing-t team. you have to know how to defend and scheme against power and even to that end it might not matter.

I prefer the 4-2-5 because it plays like a 4-4 against the run and a nickel set against spread without ruing the basic principles of the scheme. But the 3-3-5 as I have run and watched SDSU run successfully over the past decade, can be damn sexy against the run. When you listen to 3-3-5 guys, whether it is guys like Rocky Long or the Georgia Military College group, they'll tell you this over and over again: "You need to know your personnel"

the first year we ran it we had OLB's coming out of our ears and we absolutely brutalized teams with disruptive stunts and pressures against the run. I think we blitzed 70 to 80 percent of our snaps that year. A couple of years later, I had a defense replete with DE and DL types and we spent our time in a 5-3 much of the year and almost never blitzed. All are possible within the scheme, but if you get focused on being in a 30 front all the time or sticking to the scheme, you are going to get drilled.

I have said this for years, there is no more maddening offense to scheme against it than power. You can't just line up against it and take stuff away. The 3-3 and 4-2 schemes can line up against spread teams and effectively scheme against a lot of stuff. I don't whether you are in a 5-2, A 4-6, 4-3, power run teams are going to find a way occasionally to make you look stupid. Your goal is to minimize damage and there are literally a million ways to do that.

The wing T playbook has 7,000 ways to run trap, power and counter. I for years being on the offensive side preferred to see teams run an even front running power. The reason was simple: We knew we could control the LOS and the were better blocking angles and fewer variables at the second level. There are a ton of 30 front guys who absolutely believe that odd fronts because of their flexibility at the second level are vastly superior at handling power. I do believe after running both 30 and 40 schemes, that it is a bit of a myth that 30 fronts are easily to brutalize from a power run perspective. As I said, I prefer the 4-2-5 as a defense but much of that goes not to the front or how the secondary is allotted but rather that it as a defense is vastly easier to adjust when coaching at the high school level.

If you really want me to go in depth on this, I can break out a 10,000 word dissertation on the topic. But enough for now. Enjoy your coffee and game week.

GF24.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Not sure where to begin with this because as you know I am prone to long-winded technical explanations, and I might need the use of several images or graphs...

I have as a defensive coordinator run the 4-3, 4-4, 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defense extensively over my coaching career.

Here is what i know:

1. Scheme is only as good as the individuals coaching it and the personnel you have to execute it.
2. All schemes are great against certain things and an absolute dumpster fire against others.
3. There is no maximum extent or absolutes with scheme.

I get that some of you have a major hard-on for NDSU's stout 4-3. Works for them. They have good coaches and great personnel. With those two combo's you can run a kitchen sink against inferior offensive scheme and personnel and win 7 out of 10 times. Remember back in the Paulson era, people used to bitch and moan about the limitations of the 4-3. **Cough Villanova Cough**

I ran the 3-3-5 in a conference with primarily power offenses. I worked with a lot of guys who had absolutely no imagination or understanding on how to defend power. We once lined up with 6-1 personnel out of that 3-3-5 base (don't ask) and got torched to the tune of 355 yards rushing in the first half against a wing-t team. you have to know how to defend and scheme against power and even to that end it might not matter.

I prefer the 4-2-5 because it plays like a 4-4 against the run and a nickel set against spread without ruing the basic principles of the scheme. But the 3-3-5 as I have run and watched SDSU run successfully over the past decade, can be damn sexy against the run. When you listen to 3-3-5 guys, whether it is guys like Rocky Long or the Georgia Military College group, they'll tell you this over and over again: "You need to know your personnel"

the first year we ran it we had OLB's coming out of our ears and we absolutely brutalized teams with disruptive stunts and pressures against the run. I think we blitzed 70 to 80 percent of our snaps that year. A couple of years later, I had a defense replete with DE and DL types and we spent our time in a 5-3 much of the year and almost never blitzed. All are possible within the scheme, but if you get focused on being in a 30 front all the time or sticking to the scheme, you are going to get drilled.

I have said this for years, there is no more maddening offense to scheme against it than power. You can't just line up against it and take stuff away. The 3-3 and 4-2 schemes can line up against spread teams and effectively scheme against a lot of stuff. I don't whether you are in a 5-2, A 4-6, 4-3, power run teams are going to find a way occasionally to make you look stupid. Your goal is to minimize damage and there are literally a million ways to do that.

The wing T playbook has 7,000 ways to run trap, power and counter. I for years being on the offensive side preferred to see teams run an even front running power. The reason was simple: We knew we could control the LOS and the were better blocking angles and fewer variables at the second level. There are a ton of 30 front guys who absolutely believe that odd fronts because of their flexibility at the second level are vastly superior at handling power. I do believe after running both 30 and 40 schemes, that it is a bit of a myth that 30 fronts are easily to brutalize from a power run perspective. As I said, I prefer the 4-2-5 as a defense but much of that goes not to the front or how the secondary is allotted but rather that it as a defense is vastly easier to adjust when coaching at the high school level.

If you really want me to go in depth on this, I can break out a 10,000 word dissertation on the topic. But enough for now. Enjoy your coffee and game week.

GF24.

Please leave these technical topics to the people who know what they’re talking about. You’ve obviously never coached before :mrgreen: .

Sorry, sometimes I just can’t help myself. Great description and analysis. But I’m gonna need you to go into a little more depth.

There, I did it again :mrgreen: .

 

[AZGrizFan]

Not sure where to begin with this because as you know I am prone to long-winded technical explanations, and I might need the use of several images or graphs...

I have as a defensive coordinator run the 4-3, 4-4, 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defense extensively over my coaching career.

Here is what i know:

1. Scheme is only as good as the individuals coaching it and the personnel you have to execute it.
2. All schemes are great against certain things and an absolute dumpster fire against others.
3. There is no maximum extent or absolutes with scheme.

I get that some of you have a major hard-on for NDSU's stout 4-3. Works for them. They have good coaches and great personnel. With those two combo's you can run a kitchen sink against inferior offensive scheme and personnel and win 7 out of 10 times. Remember back in the Paulson era, people used to bitch and moan about the limitations of the 4-3. **Cough Villanova Cough**

I ran the 3-3-5 in a conference with primarily power offenses. I worked with a lot of guys who had absolutely no imagination or understanding on how to defend power. We once lined up with 6-1 personnel out of that 3-3-5 base (don't ask) and got torched to the tune of 355 yards rushing in the first half against a wing-t team. you have to know how to defend and scheme against power and even to that end it might not matter.

I prefer the 4-2-5 because it plays like a 4-4 against the run and a nickel set against spread without ruing the basic principles of the scheme. But the 3-3-5 as I have run and watched SDSU run successfully over the past decade, can be damn sexy against the run. When you listen to 3-3-5 guys, whether it is guys like Rocky Long or the Georgia Military College group, they'll tell you this over and over again: "You need to know your personnel"

the first year we ran it we had OLB's coming out of our ears and we absolutely brutalized teams with disruptive stunts and pressures against the run. I think we blitzed 70 to 80 percent of our snaps that year. A couple of years later, I had a defense replete with DE and DL types and we spent our time in a 5-3 much of the year and almost never blitzed. All are possible within the scheme, but if you get focused on being in a 30 front all the time or sticking to the scheme, you are going to get drilled.

I have said this for years, there is no more maddening offense to scheme against it than power. You can't just line up against it and take stuff away. The 3-3 and 4-2 schemes can line up against spread teams and effectively scheme against a lot of stuff. I don't whether you are in a 5-2, A 4-6, 4-3, power run teams are going to find a way occasionally to make you look stupid. Your goal is to minimize damage and there are literally a million ways to do that.

The wing T playbook has 7,000 ways to run trap, power and counter. I for years being on the offensive side preferred to see teams run an even front running power. The reason was simple: We knew we could control the LOS and the were better blocking angles and fewer variables at the second level. There are a ton of 30 front guys who absolutely believe that odd fronts because of their flexibility at the second level are vastly superior at handling power. I do believe after running both 30 and 40 schemes, that it is a bit of a myth that 30 fronts are easily to brutalize from a power run perspective. As I said, I prefer the 4-2-5 as a defense but much of that goes not to the front or how the secondary is allotted but rather that it as a defense is vastly easier to adjust when coaching at the high school level.

If you really want me to go in depth on this, I can break out a 10,000 word dissertation on the topic. But enough for now. Enjoy your coffee and game week.

GF24.

Sweet post. Boiling it down....”know your personnel”. :lol:

 

[hunt-ducks]

Not sure where to begin with this because as you know I am prone to long-winded technical explanations, and I might need the use of several images or graphs...

I have as a defensive coordinator run the 4-3, 4-4, 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defense extensively over my coaching career.

Here is what i know:

1. Scheme is only as good as the individuals coaching it and the personnel you have to execute it.
2. All schemes are great against certain things and an absolute dumpster fire against others.
3. There is no maximum extent or absolutes with scheme.

I get that some of you have a major hard-on for NDSU's stout 4-3. Works for them. They have good coaches and great personnel. With those two combo's you can run a kitchen sink against inferior offensive scheme and personnel and win 7 out of 10 times. Remember back in the Paulson era, people used to bitch and moan about the limitations of the 4-3. **Cough Villanova Cough**

I ran the 3-3-5 in a conference with primarily power offenses. I worked with a lot of guys who had absolutely no imagination or understanding on how to defend power. We once lined up with 6-1 personnel out of that 3-3-5 base (don't ask) and got torched to the tune of 355 yards rushing in the first half against a wing-t team. you have to know how to defend and scheme against power and even to that end it might not matter.

I prefer the 4-2-5 because it plays like a 4-4 against the run and a nickel set against spread without ruing the basic principles of the scheme. But the 3-3-5 as I have run and watched SDSU run successfully over the past decade, can be damn sexy against the run. When you listen to 3-3-5 guys, whether it is guys like Rocky Long or the Georgia Military College group, they'll tell you this over and over again: "You need to know your personnel"

the first year we ran it we had OLB's coming out of our ears and we absolutely brutalized teams with disruptive stunts and pressures against the run. I think we blitzed 70 to 80 percent of our snaps that year. A couple of years later, I had a defense replete with DE and DL types and we spent our time in a 5-3 much of the year and almost never blitzed. All are possible within the scheme, but if you get focused on being in a 30 front all the time or sticking to the scheme, you are going to get drilled.

I have said this for years, there is no more maddening offense to scheme against it than power. You can't just line up against it and take stuff away. The 3-3 and 4-2 schemes can line up against spread teams and effectively scheme against a lot of stuff. I don't whether you are in a 5-2, A 4-6, 4-3, power run teams are going to find a way occasionally to make you look stupid. Your goal is to minimize damage and there are literally a million ways to do that.

The wing T playbook has 7,000 ways to run trap, power and counter. I for years being on the offensive side preferred to see teams run an even front running power. The reason was simple: We knew we could control the LOS and the were better blocking angles and fewer variables at the second level. There are a ton of 30 front guys who absolutely believe that odd fronts because of their flexibility at the second level are vastly superior at handling power. I do believe after running both 30 and 40 schemes, that it is a bit of a myth that 30 fronts are easily to brutalize from a power run perspective. As I said, I prefer the 4-2-5 as a defense but much of that goes not to the front or how the secondary is allotted but rather that it as a defense is vastly easier to adjust when coaching at the high school level.

If you really want me to go in depth on this, I can break out a 10,000 word dissertation on the topic. But enough for now. Enjoy your coffee and game week.

GF24.

Sweet post. Boiling it down....”know your personnel”. :lol:

You must be masochistic, because you put on the knee pads so early in the game and got into the prone position. This convoluted post said NOTHING! Total rope-a-dope double-talk. But it obviously impressed you and your fellow 12-hour keyboard jockey. You people embarrass those of us who understand football. Notice that the few who have played the game didn't jump in on this cluster-fcuk of a post. 24...... you might impress people from Alabama and Southern Texas, where football is an after-thought to swilling mescal and popping roids, but you ain't foolin' the rest of us.

AzGriz and Alambama, you might wanna take a break from discussing the X's and O's. If you get a woody reading the 24 B.S., then a macrame site may be more your speed. Just sayin'.

 

[MikeyGriz]

Not sure where to begin with this because as you know I am prone to long-winded technical explanations, and I might need the use of several images or graphs...

I have as a defensive coordinator run the 4-3, 4-4, 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defense extensively over my coaching career.

Here is what i know:

1. Scheme is only as good as the individuals coaching it and the personnel you have to execute it.
2. All schemes are great against certain things and an absolute dumpster fire against others.
3. There is no maximum extent or absolutes with scheme.

I get that some of you have a major hard-on for NDSU's stout 4-3. Works for them. They have good coaches and great personnel. With those two combo's you can run a kitchen sink against inferior offensive scheme and personnel and win 7 out of 10 times. Remember back in the Paulson era, people used to bitch and moan about the limitations of the 4-3. **Cough Villanova Cough**

I ran the 3-3-5 in a conference with primarily power offenses. I worked with a lot of guys who had absolutely no imagination or understanding on how to defend power. We once lined up with 6-1 personnel out of that 3-3-5 base (don't ask) and got torched to the tune of 355 yards rushing in the first half against a wing-t team. you have to know how to defend and scheme against power and even to that end it might not matter.

I prefer the 4-2-5 because it plays like a 4-4 against the run and a nickel set against spread without ruing the basic principles of the scheme. But the 3-3-5 as I have run and watched SDSU run successfully over the past decade, can be damn sexy against the run. When you listen to 3-3-5 guys, whether it is guys like Rocky Long or the Georgia Military College group, they'll tell you this over and over again: "You need to know your personnel"

the first year we ran it we had OLB's coming out of our ears and we absolutely brutalized teams with disruptive stunts and pressures against the run. I think we blitzed 70 to 80 percent of our snaps that year. A couple of years later, I had a defense replete with DE and DL types and we spent our time in a 5-3 much of the year and almost never blitzed. All are possible within the scheme, but if you get focused on being in a 30 front all the time or sticking to the scheme, you are going to get drilled.

I have said this for years, there is no more maddening offense to scheme against it than power. You can't just line up against it and take stuff away. The 3-3 and 4-2 schemes can line up against spread teams and effectively scheme against a lot of stuff. I don't whether you are in a 5-2, A 4-6, 4-3, power run teams are going to find a way occasionally to make you look stupid. Your goal is to minimize damage and there are literally a million ways to do that.

The wing T playbook has 7,000 ways to run trap, power and counter. I for years being on the offensive side preferred to see teams run an even front running power. The reason was simple: We knew we could control the LOS and the were better blocking angles and fewer variables at the second level. There are a ton of 30 front guys who absolutely believe that odd fronts because of their flexibility at the second level are vastly superior at handling power. I do believe after running both 30 and 40 schemes, that it is a bit of a myth that 30 fronts are easily to brutalize from a power run perspective. As I said, I prefer the 4-2-5 as a defense but much of that goes not to the front or how the secondary is allotted but rather that it as a defense is vastly easier to adjust when coaching at the high school level.

If you really want me to go in depth on this, I can break out a 10,000 word dissertation on the topic. But enough for now. Enjoy your coffee and game week.

GF24.

Sweet post. Boiling it down....”know your personnel”. :lol:

And sometimes, no matter how well you know your personnel, it still doesn't work!

 

[ChesterGriz]

Sweet post. Boiling it down....”know your personnel”. :lol:

You must be masochistic, because you put on the knee pads so early in the game and got into the prone position. This convoluted post said NOTHING! Total rope-a-dope double-talk. But it obviously impressed you and your fellow 12-hour keyboard jockey. You people embarrass those of us who understand football. Notice that the few who have played the game didn't jump in on this cluster-fcuk of a post. 24...... you might impress people from Alabama and Southern Texas, where football is an after-thought to swilling mescal and popping roids, but you ain't foolin' the rest of us.

AzGriz and Alambama, you might wanna take a break from discussing the X's and O's. If you get a woody reading the 24 B.S., then a macrame site may be more your speed. Just sayin'.

Duck, you are a total asshat. You are now and forever on my ignore list. What a jackass.

 

[uofmman1122]

Sweet post. Boiling it down....”know your personnel”. :lol:

You must be masochistic, because you put on the knee pads so early in the game and got into the prone position. This convoluted post said NOTHING! Total rope-a-dope double-talk. But it obviously impressed you and your fellow 12-hour keyboard jockey. You people embarrass those of us who understand football. Notice that the few who have played the game didn't jump in on this cluster-fcuk of a post. 24...... you might impress people from Alabama and Southern Texas, where football is an after-thought to swilling mescal and popping roids, but you ain't foolin' the rest of us.

AzGriz and Alambama, you might wanna take a break from discussing the X's and O's. If you get a woody reading the 24 B.S., then a macrame site may be more your speed. Just sayin'.

Okay, I was a little skeptical at first, but this is definitely ban evasion account #17 by now, right? lmao

 

[alabamagrizzly]

You must be masochistic, because you put on the knee pads so early in the game and got into the prone position. This convoluted post said NOTHING! Total rope-a-dope double-talk. But it obviously impressed you and your fellow 12-hour keyboard jockey. You people embarrass those of us who understand football. Notice that the few who have played the game didn't jump in on this cluster-fcuk of a post. 24...... you might impress people from Alabama and Southern Texas, where football is an after-thought to swilling mescal and popping roids, but you ain't foolin' the rest of us.

AzGriz and Alambama, you might wanna take a break from discussing the X's and O's. If you get a woody reading the 24 B.S., then a macrame site may be more your speed. Just sayin'.

Okay, I was a little skeptical at first, but this is definitely ban evasion account #17 by now, right? lmao

Why give the attention whore what it wants? Obviously his nanny didn’t hold him enough.

 

[Griz#64]

Someone on this site needs to research an Old U of Houston coach by the Name of Melvin Robertson.He was an absolute 4-3 guy or also called the (27) . I believe he was a little ahead of his time, But i do enjoy the mini coaches clinics on this board