Will the Griz play a 4-3-4 defense?

[bgbigdog]

This is really funny. Quick question, where does the extra beef come from? Becase I don't see anything on the roster to lead me to believe it exists. They have just enough guys, minus injury, to rotate the lineman throughout the game so they're not completely gassed by the end of it.

Because they tend to be on the field longer than you'd hope for.

 

[GrizGuy]

It is less about the 3-3-5 scheme and more about maintaining gap integrity.

In the scheme the Griz run, it’s more about forcing the issue. SEMO was a prime example. First part of the game, the Griz were essentially “read and react” which slows down response. It was the same thing the D ran on the cats that was disastrous. You can’t do that in a 3-3-5. It’s too easy to get hats on defenders. But if you force the issue and attack the offense with different blitzing schemes based on the running the other team is doing, you create confusion and penetration. Now the blockers are reacting to what you are trying to do. Penetration is the killer of any run game.

This D is designed to disrupt and get after it. When it’s passive, it gets gashed in the run. When it’s attacking like it’s supposed to, it’s a hard D to overcome.

Now if only I could take a pay cut and get hired on… lol

I'd love to hear more, please. Specifically, is it as simple as deciding to be on the attack vs passive? If so, why be passive at all? Is that what the Griz were doing in the first half against SEMO? And the whole game against MSU? If so, what is the benefit? If not, why might a DC take that approach and then change in the second half? I'm assuming that there's a reason for being "read and react" vs "attacking," but it "seems" to me you'd just always opt to be on the attack then (given the results we've seen anyway).

 

[grizare#1]

We are going to need the 9-1-1 defense against NDSU

 

[PDXGrizzly]

In the scheme the Griz run, it’s more about forcing the issue. SEMO was a prime example. First part of the game, the Griz were essentially “read and react” which slows down response. It was the same thing the D ran on the cats that was disastrous. You can’t do that in a 3-3-5. It’s too easy to get hats on defenders. But if you force the issue and attack the offense with different blitzing schemes based on the running the other team is doing, you create confusion and penetration. Now the blockers are reacting to what you are trying to do. Penetration is the killer of any run game.

This D is designed to disrupt and get after it. When it’s passive, it gets gashed in the run. When it’s attacking like it’s supposed to, it’s a hard D to overcome.

Now if only I could take a pay cut and get hired on… lol

I'd love to hear more, please. Specifically, is it as simple as deciding to be on the attack vs passive? If so, why be passive at all? Is that what the Griz were doing in the first half against SEMO? And the whole game against MSU? If so, what is the benefit? If not, why might a DC take that approach and then change in the second half? I'm assuming that there's a reason for being "read and react" vs "attacking," but it "seems" to me you'd just always opt to be on the attack then (given the results we've seen anyway).

It’s probably way more complicated and nuanced than anything I can understand, let alone explain, lol! Just stuff I’ve observed. In my opinion, the big hesitation on attacking against teams like MSU is because of their ability to mis-direct the d. Griz over pursuing looked to be a major concern. Also during the cat game, most blitzes were inside-out, making it harder to set the edge. So default to read and react. First 2.5 quarters against SEMO was more of the same. Then the D got aggressive and got after it. After that, they were in the backfield disrupting stuff constantly.

I’m sure there is a ton more to it. My pedestrian observations are indeed pedestrian. They are anecdotal at best without any real numbers to back it up. In my opinion the timid play on O and D come from a “we don’t want to make mistakes” mindset that Bobby tends to preach (at least according to Twitter, everyone here, and the GFP). I think he is much more risk adverse against good teams and the output kind of shows it. When the Griz became aggressive and started to take measured risks, all of a sudden they were far more dangerous than they were playing to not make mistakes.

But what do I know?

 

[kemajic]

It's not going to happen as a main set, but losing Todd could actually make it more likely. You don't need 265 lb DEs in a 4 front. And we're down to one of those dudes. There can be a lot of looks with the 3-3-5 and we may see some new ones, but by and large at this point of the season, you dance with the one you brought. That's logical, not stubbornness.

Come on. Any defensive coach worth his salt installs variations of his base defense throughout the season to defense the strength of the teams he is facing. Maybe in your day, it didn't happen, but then leather helmets were in vogue then too, right?

I guess you missed this: " There can be a lot of looks with the 3-3-5 and we may see some new ones,". Your reading comprehension skills come into play once more. Maybe they don't teach that anymore. You can do what you're asking within your base scheme.

 

[kemajic]

It's not going to happen as a main set, but losing Todd could actually make it more likely. You don't need 265 lb DEs in a 4 front. And we're down to one of those dudes. There can be a lot of looks with the 3-3-5 and we may see some new ones, but by and large at this point of the season, you dance with the one you brought. That's logical, not stubbornness.

I'm guessing every single Cat fan is glad their coaches didn't have your philosophy last year when the playoffs started.

Really? Did they change their entire defensive scheme then? I must have missed that.

 

[Hurdlingriz]

It is less about the 3-3-5 scheme and more about maintaining gap integrity.

In the scheme the Griz run, it’s more about forcing the issue. SEMO was a prime example. First part of the game, the Griz were essentially “read and react” which slows down response. It was the same thing the D ran on the cats that was disastrous. You can’t do that in a 3-3-5. It’s too easy to get hats on defenders. But if you force the issue and attack the offense with different blitzing schemes based on the running the other team is doing, you create confusion and penetration. Now the blockers are reacting to what you are trying to do. Penetration is the killer of any run game.

This D is designed to disrupt and get after it. When it’s passive, it gets gashed in the run. When it’s attacking like it’s supposed to, it’s a hard D to overcome.

Now if only I could take a pay cut and get hired on… lol

Yes! When they hesitate, the D gets hammered. Get into the damn backfield and blow it up!

 

[Grizfan-24]

When I was coaching in Idaho, the varsity DC while running a 3-3-5 decided that he'd come up with a plan of a 9-1-1 as a way to stop the wing t. The result 35ish carries 430 plus yards and six touchdowns.

From a coaching perspective this idea that a '40' front is superior to a '30' front is outmoded and archaic when it comes to stopping the run. Maybe you don't like your Nose getting trapped or DE kicked and just maybe you remember listening to your high school 46 coach that odd fronts are terrible against power. I beg to differ as your problem against teams who run overload or power is still the same problem. They are going to trap your nose or they are going to trap your DT in the A gap as a 3 technique. Your defender still has to get over the block, and whether a team puts 3 guys with their hands in the dirt or not, and there is still always going to be one back side defender that isn't getting blocked, whether it is on the DL or at the second level. Those pursuit guys still have to scrape through trash and track it down from behind. Your backers still have to play down hill and gap assignment football. Here is the simple reality, all the gaps are covered in a 3-3 as they are in a 4-3 and so forth.

If you are embracing a philosophy that you can't execute, or is such a deviation from what you normally do, it doesn't make you more stout but rather over time, but actually slower and more reactive if the reads and actions are not well rehearsed. Much of it boils down to whatever philosophy you embrace and the ability for your players to execute that strategy and Montana has to be fast and aggressive. If your philosophy is centered around bulk gap maintenance where DL are asked to stay at the LOS then that is the philosophy you should stick with for the most part. If your DL are set up as a gap penetration philosophy, asking them to suddenly eat blocks and create piles is generally a recipe for disaster. Whatever game plan you choose, it comes down to the ability anticipate and react to what NDSU is doing. The best game plans whether you are running a 30 or 40 when facing power is smaller versus larger tweaks that allows the defense to be in the best alignment at the snap of the football and keeps the defense as fast and reactive as possible.

If our defense doesn't disrupt, and plays parallel to the line of scrimmage as a read and react 4-3, we'll get steamrolled. You have to lean into your skill sets, and too often against MSU we were the exact opposite of what has made this defense tick. Whether it is a 30 or 40 philosophy, you have to win at the LOS be it with 3 down linemen or 4. MSU was vastly better on that day and it had more to do with their execution and the lack of execution of ours. If those two things are true, you could put 5 Noses on the field in each gap and it wouldn't matter.

Mind you that Montana has employed fronts that varied from the true 30, to an overload 30 that looks like a 40, to a tight 50 that has all the feel of a 5-3 at points. Whether they have had 5 guys on the LOS or not, it always plays the same: If Montana can force disruption in exchange zones and mesh points against NDSU's power as well as its zone scheme, Montana has a puncher's chance to create issues with the ability to get personnel to the POC. There are things this defense can do from its comfort of the 3-3-5 set that absolutely are a better option to combat NDSU's power by lining up in a 40 or 50 front the whole game.

 

[mtgriz]

It been awhile since I played the game, but I would like to see the Griz make any dramatic scheme changes on the offensive side of the ball instead. Accept that NDSU is going to get their usual production and design a gameplan to outscore that. Don’t waste many downs on inside zone runs and get the ball to the playmakers in space. Use jet sweeps, shovel and swing passes to replace a lot of the inside zone runs.

 

[grizare#1]

This is the match up that Bobby has looked for since he came back, maybe just as much as the Brawl.
I can't help but believe we will have something dialed up for this game.
Would be surprised if ESPN would not move this game to the ESPN2 format as it would have to be a more watched game than maybe even the title game.

 

[indiancoyote]

In the scheme the Griz run, it’s more about forcing the issue. SEMO was a prime example. First part of the game, the Griz were essentially “read and react” which slows down response. It was the same thing the D ran on the cats that was disastrous. You can’t do that in a 3-3-5. It’s too easy to get hats on defenders. But if you force the issue and attack the offense with different blitzing schemes based on the running the other team is doing, you create confusion and penetration. Now the blockers are reacting to what you are trying to do. Penetration is the killer of any run game.

This D is designed to disrupt and get after it. When it’s passive, it gets gashed in the run. When it’s attacking like it’s supposed to, it’s a hard D to overcome.

Now if only I could take a pay cut and get hired on… lol
[/quote]


I'd love to hear more, please. Specifically, is it as simple as deciding to be on the attack vs passive? If so, why be passive at all? Is that what the Griz were doing in the first half against SEMO? And the whole game against MSU? If so, what is the benefit? If not, why might a DC take that approach and then change in the second half? I'm assuming that there's a reason for being "read and react" vs "attacking," but it "seems" to me you'd just always opt to be on the attack then (given the results we've seen anyway).
[/quote]

I'll attach a still picture and video footage of how ineffective our defensive is against good running teams. The picture and video are from this years Griz/Cat game. The still picture lets you see the alignment and the video lets you see the result. Bobby was so out coached. Go to 3:55 of the video and let it play. You will see the play in real speed and then they show it is slow motion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0K3WEBb1PM
If we would have been in a 4/3 we would have stopped this play. I can explain the alignment of the 4/3 if you want and how it would have forced the Cat players to make some tough decisions on blocks.

griz1 2.jpeg

 

[uofmman1122]

I can explain the alignment of the 4/3 if you want and how it would have forced the Cat players to make some tough decisions on blocks.

Please do.

 

[indiancoyote]

I can explain the alignment of the 4/3 if you want and how it would have forced the Cat players to make some tough decisions on blocks.

Please do.

Unfortunately, the site won't let me upload the picture so I'll just do it with the video. Pause the video at 3:57 and i'll walk you through the alignment of a 4-3 vs what you see in this video. The Cats motion to create a massive advantage that they clearly picked up on film. The Griz make no adjustments and are completely outflanked. They don't even block Gruber because they know that Mellot will be way past him before he's a factor. This is how a 4-3 would have created issues for that play and I'm describing from the offensive side of the ball. So, when I say the defensive right I mean the offensive left or where the Cats attach the Griz defense.

In a 4-3, the Griz would have had a defensive-end on the outside shoulder of the the Cats right tackle. The weakside backer (left backer) would have been about five yards behind him and slightly outside to protect the flank. The left D-Tackle (Gruber) would have been on the inside shoulder of the right offensive guard. The right D-Tackle (Alford) would have been on the outside shoulder of the left guard. The right defensive end would have moved to headup on the tight end when they shifted and the strong-side backer (O'Connell) would have been about 5 yards off and slightly outside the tightend. There would have been a linebacker (Mike Backer) five yards off the ball and over the center. Cotton was in a great position and played the play perfectly. The strongside corner not seen in the video is a nonfactor. The two safeties would have divided the field and had attacked their lane responsibilities with the backside safety watching the QB. I'm not really sure what they were reading on this play. In a 4-3, the Cats player just outside the tightend would have been wrong regardless of who he blocked and more than likely, we would have stuffed this play.

 

[uofmman1122]

Please do.

Unfortunately, the site won't let me upload the picture so I'll just do it with the video. Pause the video at 3:57 and i'll walk you through the alignment of a 4-3 vs what you see in this video. The Cats motion to create a massive advantage that they clearly picked up on film. The Griz make no adjustments and are completely outflanked. They don't even block Gruber because they know that Mellot will be way past him before he's a factor. This is how a 4-3 would have created issues for that play and I'm describing from the offensive side of the ball. So, when I say the defensive right I mean the offensive left or where the Cats attach the Griz defense.

In a 4-3, the Griz would have had a defensive-end on the outside shoulder of the the Cats right tackle. The weakside backer (left backer) would have been about five yards behind him and slightly outside to protect the flank. The left D-Tackle (Gruber) would have been on the inside shoulder of the right offensive guard. The right D-Tackle (Alford) would have been on the outside shoulder of the left guard. The right defensive end would have moved to headup on the tight end when they shifted and the strong-side backer (O'Connell) would have been about 5 yards off and slightly outside the tightend. There would have been a linebacker (Mike Backer) five yards off the ball and over the center. Cotton was in a great position and played the play perfectly. The strongside corner not seen in the video is a nonfactor. The two safeties would have divided the field and had attacked their lane responsibilities with the backside safety watching the QB. I'm not really sure what they were reading on this play. In a 4-3, the Cats player just outside the tightend would have been wrong regardless of who he blocked and more than likely, we would have stuffed this play.

I'm by no means an expert on defense, but two things:

1. It was McGourin who was left unblocked (who was also outside the left tackle, where you said he'd be in the 4-3, anyway), just like they would have left whoever would be the end on that side in the 4-3 unblocked because it's a read. This is the basis of how they create the +1 blocking scheme. He was too inside peeking at Chambers, so Chambers handed it off to Tommy, and he couldn't make the tackle. You also notice that Cole Sain #56 doesn't block anyone on this play because he doesn't have to, but this leads into my second point:

2. Blocking assignments in a zone run scheme change based on the alignment of the defense. We had 8 players in the box on this play (9 if you count Ford moving in after the motion) and 5 guys on the line, so I'm not sure what really changes that much in the 4-3. The 4 OL other than Sain are trapping to the right, #8 is blocking the outside-most man, whether it's Cotton or another LB, The TE is going to the second level to get the other backer (just like he did), the RB is still lead blocking looking for the safeties and Sain is pulling looking for any DL or LB that might be free.

This play failed because McGourin got caught flat footed, and even if he's in good position to make Chambers keep it, Ford and Nuce essentially get blocked by the same guy because Ford went too wide, so all Chambers had to do was beat Fouch 1-on-1 for the TD on the other side. We ran pressure up the middle to take that away, but having guys more spread out doesn't magically fix this play. Those spread out LBs have to hit the right gaps, still, and it comes down to executing, which was the biggest problem.

If McGourin does a better job shuffle sliding out, he could make a play on Tommy or force Chambers to keep it, but that still requires Ford to be in the right gap. If those two things happen, this play is dead, even in this alignment....assuming we don't miss the tackles like we did all day long. :lol:

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Please do.

Unfortunately, the site won't let me upload the picture so I'll just do it with the video. Pause the video at 3:57 and i'll walk you through the alignment of a 4-3 vs what you see in this video. The Cats motion to create a massive advantage that they clearly picked up on film. The Griz make no adjustments and are completely outflanked. They don't even block Gruber because they know that Mellot will be way past him before he's a factor. This is how a 4-3 would have created issues for that play and I'm describing from the offensive side of the ball. So, when I say the defensive right I mean the offensive left or where the Cats attach the Griz defense.

In a 4-3, the Griz would have had a defensive-end on the outside shoulder of the the Cats right tackle. The weakside backer (left backer) would have been about five yards behind him and slightly outside to protect the flank. The left D-Tackle (Gruber) would have been on the inside shoulder of the right offensive guard. The right D-Tackle (Alford) would have been on the outside shoulder of the left guard. The right defensive end would have moved to headup on the tight end when they shifted and the strong-side backer (O'Connell) would have been about 5 yards off and slightly outside the tightend. There would have been a linebacker (Mike Backer) five yards off the ball and over the center. Cotton was in a great position and played the play perfectly. The strongside corner not seen in the video is a nonfactor. The two safeties would have divided the field and had attacked their lane responsibilities with the backside safety watching the QB. I'm not really sure what they were reading on this play. In a 4-3, the Cats player just outside the tightend would have been wrong regardless of who he blocked and more than likely, we would have stuffed this play.

Shhhhh, you don't want Kem to have an anxiety attack. He should lecture the D-coordinators at Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, and USC about the vast advantages of installing the 3-3-5 as their base defense, because it is so easy to make adjustments to stop the run. Hell, why stop there! NFL teams need to hear this too!

 

[indiancoyote]

Unfortunately, the site won't let me upload the picture so I'll just do it with the video. Pause the video at 3:57 and i'll walk you through the alignment of a 4-3 vs what you see in this video. The Cats motion to create a massive advantage that they clearly picked up on film. The Griz make no adjustments and are completely outflanked. They don't even block Gruber because they know that Mellot will be way past him before he's a factor. This is how a 4-3 would have created issues for that play and I'm describing from the offensive side of the ball. So, when I say the defensive right I mean the offensive left or where the Cats attach the Griz defense.

In a 4-3, the Griz would have had a defensive-end on the outside shoulder of the the Cats right tackle. The weakside backer (left backer) would have been about five yards behind him and slightly outside to protect the flank. The left D-Tackle (Gruber) would have been on the inside shoulder of the right offensive guard. The right D-Tackle (Alford) would have been on the outside shoulder of the left guard. The right defensive end would have moved to headup on the tight end when they shifted and the strong-side backer (O'Connell) would have been about 5 yards off and slightly outside the tightend. There would have been a linebacker (Mike Backer) five yards off the ball and over the center. Cotton was in a great position and played the play perfectly. The strongside corner not seen in the video is a nonfactor. The two safeties would have divided the field and had attacked their lane responsibilities with the backside safety watching the QB. I'm not really sure what they were reading on this play. In a 4-3, the Cats player just outside the tightend would have been wrong regardless of who he blocked and more than likely, we would have stuffed this play.

I'm by no means an expert on defense, but two things:

1. It was McGourin who was left unblocked (who was also outside the left tackle, where you said he'd be in the 4-3, anyway), just like they would have left whoever would be the end on that side in the 4-3 unblocked because it's a read. This is the basis of how they create the +1 blocking scheme. He was too inside peeking at Chambers, so Chambers handed it off to Tommy, and he couldn't make the tackle. You also notice that Cole Sain #56 doesn't block anyone on this play because he doesn't have to, but this leads into my second point:

2. Blocking assignments in a zone run scheme change based on the alignment of the defense. We had 8 players in the box on this play (9 if you count Ford moving in after the motion) and 5 guys on the line, so I'm not sure what really changes that much in the 4-3. The 4 OL other than Sain are trapping to the right, #8 is blocking the outside-most man, whether it's Cotton or another LB, The TE is going to the second level to get the other backer (just like he did), the RB is still lead blocking looking for the safeties and Sain is pulling looking for any DL or LB that might be free.

This play failed because McGourin got caught flat footed, and even if he's in good position to make Chambers keep it, Ford and Nuce essentially get blocked by the same guy because Ford went too wide, so all Chambers had to do was beat Fouch 1-on-1 for the TD on the other side. We ran pressure up the middle to take that away, but having guys more spread out doesn't magically fix this play. Those spread out LBs have to hit the right gaps, still, and it comes down to executing, which was the biggest problem.

If McGourin does a better job shuffle sliding out, he could make a play on Tommy or force Chambers to keep it, but that still requires Ford to be in the right gap. If those two things happen, this play is dead, even in this alignment....assuming we don't miss the tackles like we did all day long. :lol:

Funny as hell. Sitting here with two college defensive coaches who will be coaching on New Years Day. No one got caught flatfooted except the the Griz coaches.

 

[PDXGrizzly]

I love this thread! Such good conversation, discussion, and it’s about football! Like a hug for my soul!

 

[uofmman1122]

I'm by no means an expert on defense, but two things:

1. It was McGourin who was left unblocked (who was also outside the left tackle, where you said he'd be in the 4-3, anyway), just like they would have left whoever would be the end on that side in the 4-3 unblocked because it's a read. This is the basis of how they create the +1 blocking scheme. He was too inside peeking at Chambers, so Chambers handed it off to Tommy, and he couldn't make the tackle. You also notice that Cole Sain #56 doesn't block anyone on this play because he doesn't have to, but this leads into my second point:

2. Blocking assignments in a zone run scheme change based on the alignment of the defense. We had 8 players in the box on this play (9 if you count Ford moving in after the motion) and 5 guys on the line, so I'm not sure what really changes that much in the 4-3. The 4 OL other than Sain are trapping to the right, #8 is blocking the outside-most man, whether it's Cotton or another LB, The TE is going to the second level to get the other backer (just like he did), the RB is still lead blocking looking for the safeties and Sain is pulling looking for any DL or LB that might be free.

This play failed because McGourin got caught flat footed, and even if he's in good position to make Chambers keep it, Ford and Nuce essentially get blocked by the same guy because Ford went too wide, so all Chambers had to do was beat Fouch 1-on-1 for the TD on the other side. We ran pressure up the middle to take that away, but having guys more spread out doesn't magically fix this play. Those spread out LBs have to hit the right gaps, still, and it comes down to executing, which was the biggest problem.

If McGourin does a better job shuffle sliding out, he could make a play on Tommy or force Chambers to keep it, but that still requires Ford to be in the right gap. If those two things happen, this play is dead, even in this alignment....assuming we don't miss the tackles like we did all day long. :lol:

Funny as hell. Sitting here with two college defensive coaches who will be coaching on New Years Day. No one got caught flatfooted except the the Griz coaches.

This is best reply I've gotten on this site in a long time, thank you. :lol:

 

[indiancoyote]

Funny as hell. Sitting here with two college defensive coaches who will be coaching on New Years Day. No one got caught flatfooted except the the Griz coaches.

This is best reply I've gotten on this site in a long time, thank you. :lol:

Not laughing like we are from a guy trying to defend a team giving up over 400 yards rushing. We will defiently post some pictures on January 1st.

 

[uofmman1122]

This is best reply I've gotten on this site in a long time, thank you. :lol:

Not laughing like we are from a guy trying to defend a team giving up over 400 yards rushing. We will defiently post some pictures on January 1st.

I think we sucked, couldn't execute ourselves out of a wet paper bag and tackled like we were afraid to get dirty, but if you think that's defending what happened against MSU, more power to you.

So was it you or one of the January 1st bowl defensive coaches that mistook the DT for the DE in your analysis (and got his name wrong twice)? :lol: