• 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!

What offensive & defensive schemes are we running?

I like the flexibility a 3-4 defense provides and with the amount of talent we have at LB it seems like a logical idea to implement some of those sets. However, we also play in a conference with pass heavy offenses and a 3-4 defense is fundamently less effective against spread offenses or offenses that will use 4 or 5 reciever sets to create miss matches with LBs covering the slots. I know as a LB there is nothing more frustrating than getting in a situation wher you have the responsibility of covering quick routes from a slot or a TE. When you spread out the LBs and force them to defend the pass it really opens up the middle of the field. Also, if you get in a situation, where your 3 down linemen can't get the job done of controlling the gaps and aren't tying up linemen, your LBs are going to have a long day of getting run over. There is a reason the 4-3 is the popular defensive scheme in the BSC. If we have the personelle on DL to run a 3-4 effectively, I say go for it given our speed and talent at LB, but I know it isn't as easy of switching to that set just because you have more talent at LB.
 
HighLineGRIZ said:
I like the flexibility a 3-4 defense provides and with the amount of talent we have at LB it seems like a logical idea to implement some of those sets. However, we also play in a conference with pass heavy offenses and a 3-4 defense is fundamently less effective against spread offenses or offenses that will use 4 or 5 reciever sets to create miss matches with LBs covering the slots. I know as a LB there is nothing more frustrating than getting in a situation wher you have the responsibility of covering quick routes from a slot or a TE. When you spread out the LBs and force them to defend the pass it really opens up the middle of the field. Also, if you get in a situation, where your 3 down linemen can't get the job done of controlling the gaps and aren't tying up linemen, your LBs are going to have a long day of getting run over. There is a reason the 4-3 is the popular defensive scheme in the BSC. If we have the personelle on DL to run a 3-4 effectively, I say go for it given our speed and talent at LB, but I know it isn't as easy of switching to that set just because you have more talent at LB.
Click to expand...

Good points. Good D-linemen are much more difficult to recruit at the level the Griz play in, because most of the good ones are taken by the big boys. Much easier to recruit good LBs. I think the Griz should use the 3-4 more this season. You can stop the run with the 3-4 defense, if the LBs are quick to fill holes. I think ours can accomplish this.
 
Growler1 said:
HighLineGRIZ said:
I like the flexibility a 3-4 defense provides and with the amount of talent we have at LB it seems like a logical idea to implement some of those sets. However, we also play in a conference with pass heavy offenses and a 3-4 defense is fundamently less effective against spread offenses or offenses that will use 4 or 5 reciever sets to create miss matches with LBs covering the slots. I know as a LB there is nothing more frustrating than getting in a situation wher you have the responsibility of covering quick routes from a slot or a TE. When you spread out the LBs and force them to defend the pass it really opens up the middle of the field. Also, if you get in a situation, where your 3 down linemen can't get the job done of controlling the gaps and aren't tying up linemen, your LBs are going to have a long day of getting run over. There is a reason the 4-3 is the popular defensive scheme in the BSC. If we have the personelle on DL to run a 3-4 effectively, I say go for it given our speed and talent at LB, but I know it isn't as easy of switching to that set just because you have more talent at LB.
Click to expand...

Good points. Good D-linemen are much more difficult to recruit at the level the Griz play in, because most of the good ones are taken by the big boys. Much easier to recruit good LBs. I think the Griz should use the 3-4 more this season. You can stop the run with the 3-4 defense, if the LBs are quick to fill holes. I think ours can accomplish this.
Click to expand...

Glad to see the board isn't turning into a legal website or a reporters blog, finally talking football.

My opinion of the 3-4 is that the LBs have to be athletic enought to cover the slot/TE in the flat. The saftey has to read the middle behind the "will", if he doesn't it's a slant for 6. Your DB/corners are covering outside and deep, 10-17 yards hopefully the safety can read that, and cover the under and with speed the top of the route(double coverage).

As stated, it's a spread conference, so your LBs cannot be overzelaous and overun the route by thinking the RB has the ball and the quick flip behind him goes for 8-12 yards. In my opinion there is a lot that has to happen, LBs cover flats and inside 3- 7 yards, DB/corner hands on and anything over 10.
The D-line must be aggressive from the outside forcing the tackle that is pulling, to maintain contact inside supporting the guard getting his butt kicked, LBs would have a field day in tackles. Spread offense is and should be played man to man, and LBs hitting or getting hands on anything crossing their lane. Of course speed and the player understanding his responsiblity is key, however the LBs are important and must read the TE. Watching film, a guard will tell you run or pass, the foot stance is different it has to be. A set back foot is a quick reaction stance, square is for balance a run. Pick a guard left or right and watch the play.

This is all opinion.
 
With the type of athletes we have at linebacker and safety, I wouldn't be to surprised if we ran a 3-4 or 4-3, but ran those using some 4-2-5 principles.
 
what some of you guys don't realize is how hard it is to switch from a traditional 4-3 defense like the Griz run to a true 3-4 defense. Although having the great athletes at LB and Safety like the Griz have helps, there is a big difference in scheme and technique. It is especially hard to switch defensive schemes especially in a short time. Now I can see putting in some 3-4 packages to allow more flexibility on defense and open up some players like J. Tripp to make more plays and the 3-4 gives a D more room to blitz and confuse an offense. But I believe the Griz will stick with their 4-3 D and just add some 3-4 packages.
 
The other thing I haven't seen brought up is that to be effective with a 3-4... I'VE HEARD (I don't claim to be an expert on every single football related scheme in existence) you definitely need to have that monster in the middle... 300+ pound beast that can sustain getting double teamed all season long. I think if you look at all the tams that are successful in the 3-4, you'll find they usually have this guy.
 
With as many spread teams as there are in the conference, having a huge Nose isn't all that essential. There is a new mindset, as with the 4-2-5, that lineman while lighter in the pants are better suited against spread teams.

Poor, you are correct though that against a power run teams you are going to need a Nose capable of taking two offensive lineman. In my case at the high school level, there is a need of a space eater in the middle. But at the Georgia Military College model has shown, the 3-3-5 or a 3-4-4 can be very effective against multiple types of offenses.

I am of the belief that even with a 3-4, with the spread teams that UofM will face in a good number of games, won't be run as a true 3-4 but something more akin to a 3-3-5. The reason is that like in a 4-2-5, the 3-3 allows a d-coor to essentially commit five defensive backs to the perimeter on every play while being able to mix up stunts and fronts with the other six to take care of run and pressures. On a number occasions last year Breske, though I know Gregorak has different philosophies, used a 3-4-4 look but really ran a lot of mixed coverages over the top. Safeties in the flat, man to one side, zone the other (hallmark of TCU's 4-2-5) and so forth. This allows the use of different personnel in a 3-4 or 4-2 look that varies from the traditional models that we are used to seeing.
 
Seems to me that the only time we extensively used a non-4-3 last year was vs. EWU (i.e., a team that throws a ton). that made perfect sense especially with our DBs and with Dirty in the middle. I'm not sure we have the personnel to do that again (as successfully), but i do expect to see it somewhat vs. EWU and probably SUU. I think we'll see Ty mix it up every game and dabble with different fronts here and there but i don't think we'll see a unique system for an entire game like what we used in the EWU game. Just a guess.
 
TDiggs1 said:
what some of you guys don't realize is how hard it is to switch from a traditional 4-3 defense like the Griz run to a true 3-4 defense. Although having the great athletes at LB and Safety like the Griz have helps, there is a big difference in scheme and technique. It is especially hard to switch defensive schemes especially in a short time. Now I can see putting in some 3-4 packages to allow more flexibility on defense and open up some players like J. Tripp to make more plays and the 3-4 gives a D more room to blitz and confuse an offense. But I believe the Griz will stick with their 4-3 D and just add some 3-4 packages.
Click to expand...

Lots of passing teams in The Sky. But, I don't like the 4-2-5, especially when our strength this year is our LBs, and our weakness is our DBs. You are always better putting your best players on the field. With that said, I prefer using the 3-4 more this season.
 
Growler,

I understand your point on the 4-2-5. Spending a lot of time watching video and listening to Gary Patterson from TCU my impression on what the 4-2-5 really is changed my impression a bit. I don't think you are wrong, but I do now know the defense isn't as much of a nickle/dime db package as it is a hybrid 4-3. My high school which is running the system this year full time (we have ran it in parts of the past three), really sits in a 4-3 most of the time that is unless we are playing against true 2x2 spread teams.

The advantage as I have found is that allows you to put your SS (really an OLB) in the best possible coverage matchups to allow him to be a better force player on the edge. These guys aren't light in the seats defensive backs but truly linebackers. THe weak safety is truly a hybrid guy (i think Tripp or Addison Owen fit that bill) where they can play in space a bit and are really solid against the run.

The weakness is as you noted when your strength is in linebackers how do you effectively deploy them. What I do know about the 4-2-5 is that you can take advantage of weaknesses in your secondary bcause you can cover for and protect your defensive backs because the coverages are much more friendly than others. THe reads are less complex, where if you have a talented safety (which the UofM would) that is savvy enough to make read calls, really the 4-2-5 can protect weaknesses in the secondary if you have a talented Free and a dang good Strong safety, the 4-2-5 can work despite deficiencies. This allows you to deploy at least one or if not two linebacker types as the strong and weak safety. The preference in a 4-2-5 is to put your best run safety at strong and the better cover guy at weak. But in reality, they are linebackers in the 4-2-5. That can change on how you choose deploy your personnel.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
Growler,

I understand your point on the 4-2-5. Spending a lot of time watching video and listening to Gary Patterson from TCU my impression on what the 4-2-5 really is changed my impression a bit. I don't think you are wrong, but I do now know the defense isn't as much of a nickle/dime db package as it is a hybrid 4-3. My high school which is running the system this year full time (we have ran it in parts of the past three), really sits in a 4-3 most of the time that is unless we are playing against true 2x2 spread teams.

The advantage as I have found is that allows you to put your SS (really an OLB) in the best possible coverage matchups to allow him to be a better force player on the edge. These guys aren't light in the seats defensive backs but truly linebackers. THe weak safety is truly a hybrid guy (i think Tripp or Addison Owen fit that bill) where they can play in space a bit and are really solid against the run.

The weakness is as you noted when your strength is in linebackers how do you effectively deploy them. What I do know about the 4-2-5 is that you can take advantage of weaknesses in your secondary bcause you can cover for and protect your defensive backs because the coverages are much more friendly than others. THe reads are less complex, where if you have a talented safety (which the UofM would) that is savvy enough to make read calls, really the 4-2-5 can protect weaknesses in the secondary if you have a talented Free and a dang good Strong safety, the 4-2-5 can work despite deficiencies. This allows you to deploy at least one or if not two linebacker types as the strong and weak safety. The preference in a 4-2-5 is to put your best run safety at strong and the better cover guy at weak. But in reality, they are linebackers in the 4-2-5. That can change on how you choose deploy your personnel.
Click to expand...

Valid points. But I question whether we have a great safety to play the 4-2-5. I am NOT a Tully fan (does not seem interested in tacking anyone), and Hermy is still very young and untested. The safety is a very key position in the 4-2-5, and I am not sure Hermy is ready to assume that much responsibility yet (maybe next year???). I am very concerned about our DBs this season. Unlike Mel Kiper III, I am not convinced that we have a lot of talent there. I know this, while there may be players with great potential, we will be very inexperienced in the secondary.... perhaps more-so than any year in memory. It should be telling when the coaches moved Dennard to CB. Still prefer the 3-4 this year for the Griz.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
With as many spread teams as there are in the conference, having a huge Nose isn't all that essential. There is a new mindset, as with the 4-2-5, that lineman while lighter in the pants are better suited against spread teams.

Poor, you are correct though that against a power run teams you are going to need a Nose capable of taking two offensive lineman. In my case at the high school level, there is a need of a space eater in the middle. But at the Georgia Military College model has shown, the 3-3-5 or a 3-4-4 can be very effective against multiple types of offenses.

I am of the belief that even with a 3-4, with the spread teams that UofM will face in a good number of games, won't be run as a true 3-4 but something more akin to a 3-3-5. The reason is that like in a 4-2-5, the 3-3 allows a d-coor to essentially commit five defensive backs to the perimeter on every play while being able to mix up stunts and fronts with the other six to take care of run and pressures. On a number occasions last year Breske, though I know Gregorak has different philosophies, used a 3-4-4 look but really ran a lot of mixed coverages over the top. Safeties in the flat, man to one side, zone the other (hallmark of TCU's 4-2-5) and so forth. This allows the use of different personnel in a 3-4 or 4-2 look that varies from the traditional models that we are used to seeing.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. I still think its crucial, if a team wants to run a 3-4, that you have 3 down lineman that can tie up the OL, especially when defending the spread. It is much more difficult to control gaps when you only have 3 DL against a spread offense. It also makes it very difficult on your LBs to execute their assignments and can leave the middle of the field very vulnerable. As a LB, it is soooo much easier when you can work in space and don't have to deal with OLmen to make a play on the ball. With the 3-4, opposing OL blocking assignments extend into the second level if double teams aren't required to contain the 3 lineman and that can cause huge openings for the running game or draw plays. The 3-4 just isn't as effective in defending the spread than other sets. That's why you don't see any Pac12 or BSC teams that run it as their base set. Oregon would absolutely dismantle a 3-4. I agree with your thoughts on the 4-2-5. Its a lot of fun watching TCU run that.
 
Why don't we just run a 5-5-1 and knock everyone down at the line of scrimmage? Give QB contain to the 1 and just have a trench war with the other 20 guys on the field? (No need to answer this post. I know why. But you gotta admit it would be fun!) :D
 
1235099057512.jpg


lol, nice one.
 
Would love to see the Griz D put a Monster package in like the Green Bay Packers run with either no down lineman or one down lineman and everyone else stemming around and not having a set position. This would definitely free up guys lik J.Tripp and Croyle and others to exploit some gaps in the passing game. It fits more of a 3-4 defense but you can always just take out a lineman or two and put some more LBs in to increase the athleticism in this package. It will be sack lunches all day!
 
TDiggs1 said:
Would love to see the Griz D put a Monster package in like the Green Bay Packers run with either no down lineman or one down lineman and everyone else stemming around and not having a set position. This would definitely free up guys lik J.Tripp and Croyle and others to exploit some gaps in the passing game. It fits more of a 3-4 defense but you can always just take out a lineman or two and put some more LBs in to increase the athleticism in this package. It will be sack lunches all day!
Click to expand...

Green Bay Packers defense is one of the worst defenses in the league..
 
@ grizcountry420

yes last year it was one of the worst defenses in the league, but the year before it was one of the best. Don't confuse college defense with NFL defense because there is a huge difference in how the game is played now. In college you have to have a dominating D to play for a national title, now in the NFL you can have a terrible defense (the Packers and Patriots for example) and still make the super bowl. So before you go and make a stupid comment and just try to be an A** think about it first. Just because the Packers had a terrible defense does not mean that the idea of a Monster package won't work. Its all about your personnel and how they execute the scheme. Teams have off years, it happens, but that doesn't mean the scheme does not work.
 
TDiggs1 said:
@ grizcountry420

yes last year it was one of the worst defenses in the league, but the year before it was one of the best. Don't confuse college defense with NFL defense because there is a huge difference in how the game is played now. In college you have to have a dominating D to play for a national title, now in the NFL you can have a terrible defense (the Packers and Patriots for example) and still make the super bowl. So before you go and make a stupid comment and just try to be an A** think about it first. Just because the Packers had a terrible defense does not mean that the idea of a Monster package won't work. Its all about your personnel and how they execute the scheme. Teams have off years, it happens, but that doesn't mean the scheme does not work.
Click to expand...

Allow me to apologize... I just like to stir up the pot a little when it comes to cheese heads. Your exactly right.. College level you have to have a dominating D to contend for a national title. 8-)
 
@ grizcountry420

It's all good. And don't be hatin on my cheezheads haha! they are gonna win it all this year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top