I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
Reaching out to experienced football minds here.
The knock against blitzing, it would seem to me, is that it is a high risk, high reward tactic.
Yet, in situations where these things hold true...
- You have a great offense
- You have a marginal defense
- You have an inexperienced secondary
- You want to maximize your possessions given that you are 6th in the country in points per possession (thank you Rash)
- You want to prevent the opponent from limiting your possessions with a measured, ball-control offense
- The opponent has a great offense
- The opponent has a marginal or weak defense
...is not the downside to an aggressive, disruptive blitzing campaign relatively negligible?
- You would increase the number of possessions for your offense against a bad defense, probably yielding a higher PPP than average,
- You would decrease the need for your secondary to be better than it is, and
- You would prevent one of the few things that would give us all gray hair on Saturday: enduring long, glacial drives by Chappell that have us into the second quarter with perhaps a single TD on the board (a la UMass in the first half).
It seems Indiana and Michigan State fit the above profile perfectly.
So, expert panel, please describe the downside of this strategy against such teams. (Note: I am assuming a rational blitzing scheme, not jailbreak insanity every play.)
[Ed: Excellent diary that helps orient everyone to the 3-3-5.]
One of the greatest difficulties Michigan faces in the Big Ten is that there are a vast array of offenses deployed. You have the Wisconsin’s and Michigan State’s of the world still running two TE with a FB and slamming down your throats, and Northwestern and Purdue on the opposite end of the spectrum. Then you have all those teams in between, the single back look from Iowa, the mixed attack of Penn State, and the offense that periodically exists in Columbus and Champaign. Because it is unfeasible to switch defenses to match offenses in college football (see move to 3-3-5 against Purdue in 2008), it is important to find a base defense that can be implemented to at least some degree of success against these different teams. >
This means two things, one, you need some versatility in your players. Two, you need to put your players in the situation that helps them the most. I’m not going to say either way that the 3-3-5 is that, I just want to give a brief overview of the defense and then make a few points at the end.
First I’ll cover some basics.
This is the numbering system I’ll be using, where the dark circle with the X is the center:
Note, that for linebackers, the numbering system adds a zero to the end. For example, if a LB is lined up off the line, but stacked above a 4-tech DE, he would be playing a 40 technique. Pictured below is the base formation.
Defensive ends (DE) are in 4-techniques, or head on with the offensive tackle. Nose tackle (NT) is on the nose of the ball. Outside Linebackers (OLB) are in a 40-tech, while the middle linebacker (MLB/Mike) is in a 10-tech. The strong safeties (SS/Spur) are three yards off the line and three yards outside of the last man on the line. Corners (CB) are 5-9 yards off the line over the wide receivers, and the free safety (FS) is deep center. While this seems like a 2-gap system for the NT, it will be typical to apply some sort of slant to make it actually more of a 1-gap system.
Next you will see a basic coverage that will be run. This is a cover-3, zone under. Notice that there are no stunts or blitzes here. This is a very vanilla defense and would only be run in obvious pass downs most likely. Red is deep zones (in this case thirds), yellow indicates flats/seems, and green is underneath zones for hooks and curls (the MLB in this case covers the “hole”).
The next look is at a very simple outside linebacker blitz. This is still a cover-3, zone under. [Ed: continued after the jump, with lots more diagrams and some simple bullets on pros and cons.]