• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Time to Make a Change: Why Bobby Hauck's Contract Should Not Be Extended

stingthemgood said:
You all are insane. You have a great winning program.

A new coach in this era means you will likely lose your whole team and a have a 3-5 win season.

You’d rather be below .500 for a season than have Hauck as your coach?
Click to expand...
Essentially the point I made. If we make a change now, we will lose the whole team and not have the same quality of team next season.
 
stingthemgood said:
You all are insane. You have a great winning program.

A new coach in this era means you will likely lose your whole team and a have a 3-5 win season.

You’d rather be below .500 for a season than have Hauck as your coach?
Click to expand...
You are right sting'em good. Hauck is the best coach for the Griz. We want to keep Bobby for as long as he wants to coach. He's the best Montana could hope for right now.
 
5280Griz said:
4-3-4 (Grandpa’s defense)gets shredded against spread offenses because it pulls linebackers into coverage on wide receivers. That is always a mismatch offensive play callers take advantage of when they have a spread offense going against a 4-3-4 defense. The 5 at the end in the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 means 5 defensive backs. That is the key distinction on why these 2 defenses work against spread offenses but the 4-3-4 does not. 4-3-4 changes a defensive back to a linebacker from the 4-2-5. ISU and EWU aren’t the only spread teams in the conference. MSU for example also uses the spread offense. Any offense with 11 personnel or at least 3 wide receivers is considered spread. Since there are at least 3 wide receivers, linebackers will be covering at least one of them in a 4-3-4 or any 4 defensive back alignment. 4-2-5 is the answer for stronger run defense while not sacrificing our pass defense against the offenses we typically face.
Click to expand...

And my friend that played WR for Dickenson State and also coached for them and that I think probably knows more about football than you, definitely a lot more than me had a simple response when I asked him what if the opponent plays 3 or 4 wide and we're playing a 4-3-4: " Drop a linebacker and play nickel ," five DB's including the nickel back.
 
billingsgriz said:
And my friend that played WR for Dickenson State and also coached for them and that I think probably knows more about football than you, definitely a lot more than me had a simple response when I asked him what if the opponent plays 3 or 4 wide and we're playing a 4-3-4: " Drop a linebacker and play nickel ," five DB's including the nickel back.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct. The thing with the 4-3-4 with a linebacker dropped and adding a defensive back is that is the 4-2-5 by definition.
 
Ursus Horriblis said:
Sounds like Tampa 2 with a Nickel…Not, 4-2-5.
Click to expand...
Yes. At the most basic level, this is something a lot of fans are missing. Same in that the 3-3-5 is a 3-4 in the nickel package in terms of base formation.

I'd love to see us go to a 4 man front, but that is partly because that is just the way I understand football. There have been plenty of good teams that run a three front. I don't see the staff making a sudden switch to a front with four linemen with hands in the dirt, but maybe something as simple as adding in true 3-4 packages with the extra linebacker used more would be a healthy change up to the offense.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Yes. At the most basic level, this is something a lot of fans are missing. Same in that the 3-3-5 is a 3-4 in the nickel package in terms of base formation.

I'd love to see us go to a 4 man front, but that is partly because that is just the way I understand football. There have been plenty of good teams that run a three front. I don't see the staff making a sudden switch to a front with four linemen with hands in the dirt, but maybe something as simple as adding in true 3-4 packages with the extra linebacker used more would be a healthy change up to the offense.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need a heavy package, but I am actually starting to like our defensive scheme.

College football has changed a lot in the last decade. Offenses spread you out, go fast, motion everywhere, and basically try to force defenses into bad matchups.

It’s a scheme people either love or hate, but the truth is this: the 3‑3‑5 has some very real strengths, some clear weaknesses, and a few surprising recruiting advantages over more traditional setups like the 4‑2‑5.

One of the biggest advantages of the 3‑3‑5 is disguise. With only three down linemen and three linebackers, you can bring pressure from anywhere. Blitzes come from the slot, from the back side, from linebackers who creep up late. Montana's defense is designed to be unorthodox and chaotic, which is a nightmare for quarterbacks.

Not every program has a pipeline of 300‑pound defensive tackles. The 3-3-5 is built to mitigate that recruiting disadvantage. Hybrid safeties, Fast linebackers, Undersized but quick defensive linemen.

The 3‑3‑5 isn’t plug‑and‑play. It’s complex and needs continuity. That's been tough with portal.

It’s a high‑risk, high‑reward philosophy.​

Our version in particular thrives on blitzing, disguising coverages, and forcing big plays. That’s awesome when it works. But when the pressure doesn’t get home?
You see:

  • Long runs
  • Deep shots
  • Explosive plays
That’s the nature of a pressure‑based defense.

Finally:

This part surprises a lot of people. On paper, the 4‑2‑5 looks simple: four linemen, two linebackers, five DBs. Easy, right? Not really — because the 4‑2‑5 requires specific body types that are very hard to find, especially at the FCS level.

The 3‑3‑5 leans on:

  • Safeties
  • Nickel‑type hybrids
  • Quick linebackers
  • One legit defensive tackle
These athletes are far more common in high school recruiting pools. The 3‑3‑5 essentially allows you to build a defense out of athletes, while the 4‑2‑5 requires trench monsters — and those kids get recruited by every FBS team in the country.

​

The 3-3-5 gives us more flexibility.
Because it uses hybrids everywhere, the 3‑3‑5 lets us:

  • Convert safeties into linebackers
  • Convert linebackers into edge players
  • Use smaller linemen as movement‑based ends
That’s a huge advantage for schools that don’t dominate the big-man recruiting game every year.

The 3‑3‑5 isn’t perfect — far from it. It can be feast‑or‑famine, and it absolutely struggles against teams that can line up, run the ball downhill, and physically overwhelm the front.

But it shines against spread offenses, it leverages speed and versatility, and it gives programs an identity even if they can’t land four starting‑caliber defensive linemen every recruiting cycle. And in the Big Sky, where offenses are wide‑open and hybrid defenders grow on trees, the 3‑3‑5 isn’t just a scheme — it’s a practical roster‑building strategy.
 
406football said:
I agree that we need a heavy package, but I am actually starting to like our defensive scheme.

College football has changed a lot in the last decade. Offenses spread you out, go fast, motion everywhere, and basically try to force defenses into bad matchups.

It’s a scheme people either love or hate, but the truth is this: the 3‑3‑5 has some very real strengths, some clear weaknesses, and a few surprising recruiting advantages over more traditional setups like the 4‑2‑5.

One of the biggest advantages of the 3‑3‑5 is disguise. With only three down linemen and three linebackers, you can bring pressure from anywhere. Blitzes come from the slot, from the back side, from linebackers who creep up late. Montana's defense is designed to be unorthodox and chaotic, which is a nightmare for quarterbacks.

Not every program has a pipeline of 300‑pound defensive tackles. The 3-3-5 is built to mitigate that recruiting disadvantage. Hybrid safeties, Fast linebackers, Undersized but quick defensive linemen.

The 3‑3‑5 isn’t plug‑and‑play. It’s complex and needs continuity. That's been tough with portal.

It’s a high‑risk, high‑reward philosophy.​

Our version in particular thrives on blitzing, disguising coverages, and forcing big plays. That’s awesome when it works. But when the pressure doesn’t get home?
You see:

  • Long runs
  • Deep shots
  • Explosive plays
That’s the nature of a pressure‑based defense.

Finally:

This part surprises a lot of people. On paper, the 4‑2‑5 looks simple: four linemen, two linebackers, five DBs. Easy, right? Not really — because the 4‑2‑5 requires specific body types that are very hard to find, especially at the FCS level.

The 3‑3‑5 leans on:

  • Safeties
  • Nickel‑type hybrids
  • Quick linebackers
  • One legit defensive tackle
These athletes are far more common in high school recruiting pools. The 3‑3‑5 essentially allows you to build a defense out of athletes, while the 4‑2‑5 requires trench monsters — and those kids get recruited by every FBS team in the country.

​

The 3-3-5 gives us more flexibility.
Because it uses hybrids everywhere, the 3‑3‑5 lets us:

  • Convert safeties into linebackers
  • Convert linebackers into edge players
  • Use smaller linemen as movement‑based ends
That’s a huge advantage for schools that don’t dominate the big-man recruiting game every year.

The 3‑3‑5 isn’t perfect — far from it. It can be feast‑or‑famine, and it absolutely struggles against teams that can line up, run the ball downhill, and physically overwhelm the front.

But it shines against spread offenses, it leverages speed and versatility, and it gives programs an identity even if they can’t land four starting‑caliber defensive linemen every recruiting cycle. And in the Big Sky, where offenses are wide‑open and hybrid defenders grow on trees, the 3‑3‑5 isn’t just a scheme — it’s a practical roster‑building strategy.
Click to expand...
This is a really good post/explanation on the advantages and disadvantages of the 3-3-5 alignment.
 
Why is there a certain group of "Griz fans" that just can't seem to understand how hard it is to win games.

Anyone that wants to get rid of a coach with Hauck's coaching record, ability to get talent to come to Montana and his love of all things UM, needs their f'ing head examined.

He's 151-43 at UM (78% winning)

The FCS has over 120 teams, and all but 2 would take Hauck over the coach they have.
There are a lot of FBS teams that would want him.
He could coach special teams at most of the FBS schools.
 
406football said:
Exactly. I think this would be a fun freaking defense to play in (outside the front 3). ha
Click to expand...
Ty Gregorak ran a more straight stack 3-3-5 in 2015 than we are currently running and that was my personal favorite season with the Griz. There are a lot of benefits to the 3-3-5. I am just not sure if it matches up that well against Vigen’s MSU offense which Gregorak never faced at UM.
 
Last edited:
gotgame75 said:
I know Justin is a great recruiter, but clearly the collective recruiting effort for MT is just not good enough.

Last recruiting cycle, the Cats landed 8 out of the top 10 in-state recruits. We got 1 and Carrol got 1. That is simply not going to cut it.
Click to expand...
Well Griz fans will get to see how valuable JG was for his alma-mater.
 
5280Griz said:
Ty Gregorak ran a more straight stack 3-3-5 in 2015 than we are currently running and that was my personal favorite season with the Griz. There are a lot of benefits to the 3-3-5. I am just not sure if it matches up that well against Vigen’s offense which Gregorak never faced at UM.
Click to expand...
We just need specific packages or subbing bigger LB for nickel in my opinion. Maintain better gap integrity and blitz less against those teams.
 
Paytonlives said:
Why is there a certain group of "Griz fans" that just can't seem to understand how hard it is to win games.

Anyone that wants to get rid of a coach with Hauck's coaching record, ability to get talent to come to Montana and his love of all things UM, needs their f'ing head examined.

He's 151-43 at UM (78% winning)

The FCS has over 120 teams, and all but 2 would take Hauck over the coach they have.
There are a lot of FBS teams that would want him.
He could coach special teams at most of the FBS schools.
Click to expand...
Not even close.
 
Paytonlives said:
Why is there a certain group of "Griz fans" that just can't seem to understand how hard it is to win games.

Anyone that wants to get rid of a coach with Hauck's coaching record, ability to get talent to come to Montana and his love of all things UM, needs their f'ing head examined.

He's 151-43 at UM (78% winning)

The FCS has over 120 teams, and all but 2 would take Hauck over the coach they have.
There are a lot of FBS teams that would want him.
He could coach special teams at most of the FBS schools.
Click to expand...
Which 2 are you thinking of? I am thinking there are a lot more than 2 teams that would take their current coach over Hauck but it is mostly because of reasons that make Hauck a better fit here. Hauck doesn’t know the FCS conferences or regions of the country very well outside of the Big Sky so most non Big Sky teams would want to keep their current coach. Hauck does know the Big Sky and Montana very well. There is no other potential coach out there right now that knows the Big Sky and Montana better than Hauck in my opinion.
 
5280Griz said:
Which 2 are you thinking of? I am thinking there are a lot more than 2 teams that would take their current coach over Hauck but it is mostly because of reasons that make Hauck a better fit here. Hauck doesn’t know the FCS conferences or regions of the country very well outside of the Big Sky so most non Big Sky teams would want to keep their current coach. Hauck does know the Big Sky and Montana very well. There is no other potential coach out there right now that knows the Big Sky and Montana better than Hauck in my opinion.
Click to expand...
How about the guy coaching a few hours east who has been kicking his ass in recruiting across Montana?
 
HikeGlacier said:
How about the guy coaching a few hours east who has been kicking his ass in recruiting across Montana?
Click to expand...
Vigen isn’t leaving MSU to come here so he is not a potential coach. Brent Vigen and Jeff Choate are the only 2 that could be comparable in recruiting Montana in my opinion, and they are both currently coaching teams they are not leaving to coach the Griz.
 
5280Griz said:
Vigen isn’t leaving MSU to come here so he is not a potential coach. Brent Vigen and Jeff Choate are the only 2 that could be comparable in recruiting Montana in my opinion, and they are both currently coaching teams they are not leaving to coach the Griz.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top