A Critique of the 3 Man Rush

Because it gives you the ability to be more aggressive in coverage. You can play man with 2 deep or a 1 deep and a robber. I think you really need to look at the situations where the 3 man rush is being used. If it's being used on 2nd and 4 than there is a problem but if a D coordinator is calling for it on 3rd and 18 it makes a bit more sense.

I have the same gut feeling you do whenever I see the 3-man "stand in place" (becuase it rarely is confused with a "rush"). But you see it all the time by every team so it must work...at least to a degree.

EXCEPT for hail mary's. The 3 man rush is the one time when I like it because it is less likely that they will score a TD based on less blockers downfield.

This obviously depends on where you are on the field. If he can get it into the end-zone then yes more pressure is better but if he can't then yes the 3 man rush makes sense.

everytime i see 3 rushers on a 4th and long, all i think about is the CU v. M game in 1994. I'd never thought about it much before that, but I cringe everytime I see 3 guys rushing.

So you're saying that if you're winning a game with 1 second left and the opposing team on the 50, you wouldn't rush 2 or 3?

Some of your points may have merit, but the 3 man rush has some value.

Your data sample is tiny and without context. I would be interested to see data on a larger scale.

Sending 3 rushers does not automatically transfer to 5 blocking 3. The way in which those rushers line-up and the pre-snap protection call will determine the matchups after the snap. Watch the Patriots defense in obvious passing downs and 10 or more to go. They do it better than anybody. For example, if the offense lines up 5 wide, QB in shotgun and your DE successfully gets matched up one on one with the tackle, then this is a win for the defense. Quite often in a three man rush you will see offensive lineman free in the middle blocking no one. This creates an advantage for the defense in simple numbers as someone in coverage is free to double team or rob.

Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure

The only defenses that choose to sit back instead of pressure are those who do not have the ability to pressure no matter what they do. I agree with you, the prevent with rushing 3 is frustrating to watch as a fan and a sign of hope if your opponent deploys it.

Response to 1) You're using a oft-used quote as an established fact? Weak sauce. And I think it's kinda offset by the fact that there's one more guy out there to confuse the QB in coverage or, you know, simply just covering a guy.

Re: 2) Oh dear. You're using basic arithmetic to try and bolster an already shady argument? You're taking nothing into account except the sheer bodies on the line or in coverage. This is stupid. I would 3-man rush all day if all 3 guys were excellent pass-rushers - which does happen, ya know.

Re: 3) (slams dick into the wall) You're right. Let's just bring the house on the last play of the game with the offense in 4 or 5-wide. Nothing bad could possibly come of that, but a 3-man rush is suddenly heretical? And you're right, once the ball is in the air, anything can happen - and you're reducing your chances of batting it away, blanketing a receiver, coming up with a pick, or making a tackle downfield when you follow your logic.

I don't think the 3-man rush is sliced bread, but I think your reasoning sucks balls from a logical/analytical perspective.

That's why you 3 man rush because the guy can create pressure by himself. All joking aside Michigan has been excellent at actually creating a decent amount of pressure with the 3 man line but the underneath coverage of our back 7 is so atrocious it hasn't been effective. Brian pointed out a couple times laast year where teams had 3 or 4 guys in the pattern and they were still wide open. 3 against 8 should = throw away but many times last year it equaled 1st down. With Graham, Roh and Martin we should have pretty good success with a 3 man rush, but it has been terrible ineffective.

Like many, I tend to agree, sort of, except where it comes to Hail Marys. You damn well had better be only rushing three on the Hail Marys. Might wanna rush two. It's simple numbers. You simply want to outnumber the offense, who can legally send no more than five to catch the ball. Rush three and you send eight to knock it over. Eight on five is better than seven on five is better than six on five....period. Let the quarterback have all day to throw - what's he going to do, run?

I agree, the three man rush is sort of like no-mans land on a tennis court. It lies between rushing 4 or more, or only rushing two...yes...I said two. Teams should do THAT more often. Example? 1995 game between pass-o-matic, high TD Machine Florida State and Virginia. Virginia ran a two man rush most of the night, dropping NINE...completely flusted FSU spearchucker! In fact, when watching the rosebowl vs. the longhorns, as Texas embarked on the game winning drive, I was screaming at Herrman to "rush two and drop nine....make him throw!" But my voice did not carry through the Tv screen.

Under your math assumptions (Argument #2), a six-man rush would be optimal?

Of the 7 pass attempts against a 3-man rush that you cite, all but 2 were short of a 1st down, (would have been 3 but for the penalty against ND in your second example). Still, 3-for-7 (I'm throwing in the one called back) on long yardage situations isn't too bad considering we were playing against some world-beating receivers.

That doesn't explain putting a 3-man front in on 1st down, as in your last example. I agree with you there.

Point #3 is majorly flawed. Even if you rush the passer and prevent the QB from sitting back there and heaving it 50+ yards, he doesn't NEED to throw it into the end zone. That is, if you rush 5/6 and leave only 6/5 back to cover 5, you're unnecessarily creating the opportunity for a deep cross down the field with decent numbers by the WRs. Why do that?

In other words - what's more dangerous to you - 8 defenders in the end zone trying to bat a ball down with maybe 5 (more likely 4) WRs hoping for a lucky bounce, or 5 defenders trying to make an open field tackle on a WR, when the defenders probably have already gone into a crazy deep drop and have to close a gap of 20-30 yards while avoiding WR blocks?

Edit: I realize that we, as UM fans, are a bit scarred by the Hail Mary. But as amazing as Kordell's throw was, that play is one of many ignored failed Hail Marys if the ball is batted down and not batted up in an attempt to pick it. Hail Marys are rarely successful because of how hard it is for 4-5 WRs to beat out 7-8 defenders for a jump ball in the end zone in that sort of traffic...

#1 I don't buy into what the talking heads on tv say, and I'm surprised any reader of this blog would. Sometimes a QB with a lot of time finds an open receiver, sometimes he does not. I can make the same, totally unsupported argument but in the opposite direction - if you drop 8 guys back, the QB will have nowhere to throw.

#2 This is terribly flawed logic. As someone already pointed out, by your logic, a 6:5 ratio of rushers to coverage guys (or a 5:6 ratio thanks to the odd numbers) is always optimal. Besides, you're assuming the marginal benefit of the next pass defender is less than the marginal benefit of the extra pass rusher. Why?

#3 The 1994 game sucked, but that doesn't prove you're correct. Neither do 10 random youtube videos. Think I'm wrong? Apply some stats to those 10 observations and find out.

that episoded of The Simpsons where Lisa sells Homer that rock that will keep tigers away.

Lisa used the word 'specious' in her exchange with Homer.

specious.

learn it.

Enjoy Life may be on to something. I found this footage of the 1976 Orange Bowl. 9:32 into the video Leach attempts a hail mary pass against a 4 man rush and it is intercepted.

If you watch the entire video you will see Gordie Bell score the lone M touchdown. Bo also called for a Halfback pass and Gordie threw an INT into the endzone, but that's ok.

I usually don't like 3 man rushes either, but based on your 7 instances above, it looks like 'paper' to screen plays 'rock' (paper wins that one in case you don't rochambeau).

From now on, whenever I see us in a 3 man front, I'm going to be hollering "Come on screen! Call a screen!"

the 3-man rush because I don't think it puts enough pressure on the QB. I also think that having 8 DBs instead of 7 only provides marginally better field coverage. In the end, if it is a hail mary play, the main concern is getting position to where the ball is being thrown. I don't think it helps having more guys in the cluster of players standing in the end zone. I want my tallest guy out there with the best deep ball skills to bat it down. That's why you'll see Randy Moss out there in "jump-ball" hail mary situations because that's what he's great at. I would go rush 4 and have the players I described cover the end zone, with lesser quality DBs covering short.

JMO

I am no fan of 3 man rushes, but in a hail mary situation they are a must. Your argument FAILs miserably on your first bullet, and goes down hill after that.

A QB will pick you apart if you give them time. Agreed. A hail mary is not a "pick you apart" situation. It is a throw it as far as u can and pray (hence the name). You are thinking much more of say a final drive, where a team drops back into a prevent and the QB goes down the field with 10-15 yd passes. That, I agree with you on. I hate the prevent, and for some reason Michigan's historically bad prevent. I believe in pressure during those circumstances. But we are talking massive differences between that and a hail mary.

Your math on #2 is beyond flawed. Others have ripped it apart I prolly shouldn't. Just matching up a man vs a man and determining that x more man means x% more effectiveness is nuts. Against a 5-6 man front, how more often does a 4 man rush get at the QB than a 3 man? That's more of a metric. But still not complete. Next, I would say a hail mary doesn't take a lot of time. There's not a play developing, there's no break down, no need to create, no need to read defenses..its 5-7 step drop, 2 steps up throw it as far as you can. Every time. Same over and over and over. Its a high throw, your not going to bat it down. Literally, you have to sack or apply enough pressure to make the qb do something other than drop back, step up and throw. Not happening. I will take 2 or 4 more hands in the end zone. A hail mary is one of the most predictable, shoot I would say THE most, predictable throws as far as how much time it takes to get off. Coaches aren't dumb, some, but not every single one of them. If they thought by adding 1 more guy on the line they could get at said QB in the amount of time it takes, they would. They clearly don't think its even close, or more would try. Whats the % of a blocked punt? Yet defenses try that any number of times a game. Its dumb, it just takes one more person away from the secondary.

You also have to think about which hands are being taken away. Usually, its a taller receiver or special teams player, who can physically match up against the offenses receivers better. The normal secondary is back there cause they have the experience in the position, and the extras are the taller good hands guys. If you simply do a normal front, and drop your normal secondary, its a bunch of 5'10'' DBs going for a jump ball against 6'2'' receivers.

You are kind of using the logic that you see the sun come up in the east, and set in the west. It must revolve around the earth! Without taking other factors into play or thinking your argument through. Eh, good attempt.