3 Man Lines
I have several things that want to make my head explode, but if I could eliminate this from the board with a couple simple examples I would be much happier. Here is a fact.
Having a 3 man defensive line does not prevent you from shutting down power offenses.
Why is this a fact? Teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers and coaches like Bill Bellichik and oh yes the Univeristy of Michigan's defenses under Bo Schembechler and Gary Moeller and Lloyd Carr who often had 3 man lines have completley shut down power run teams and continue to do so.
This post is not in defense of our current DC or our current alignments or strategies. This is not in defense of the 3-3-5 or whatever the hell hybrid that we are playing. This is in response to every ill informed person that thinks having 3 down lineman just doesn't work and we are the only team in the country trying to stop teams with 3 down lineman.
Personally I think our best defensive players are currently defensive lineman and we should be in a 4 man line more, but in the same respects if we had better LB's I would be fine with a 3-4 or 3-3-5 or whatever.
Obviously the defense is ripe for board posts and analysis just please don't use the 3 man line as a crutch. A 3 man line works just fine.....just not here right now. Ok I'm better now.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
a guy named Mike Martin is playing.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^
I wonder what would happen if you used a 3-man line and then blitzed?
Well, I guess we'll never find out.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
...but you must have missed Kovacs sacking Tolzein on the 1st drive to force a punt.
Seriously though, I think you are absolutley right. We need to put more pressure on to save our db's I think we should be at least faking a blitz every play and then playing zone behind a lot of 5 man rushes.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^
it worked....but where was it the rest of the game? Three man lines work when you can keep the offense guessing where the 4th or 5th guy is coming from....we rarely bring the fourth or fifth guy....
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
Oh, we blitz....with the smallest DB on the team. Vinopal frickin sling-shotted himself into the backfield like 5 times against pisconsin. It wasn't effective, but it was gritty.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
The problem was our 3-3-5 is as follows:
Martin (or replacement DT)/Roh/RBV: Amazing but injured/Good but a little small/Solid
Demens/Mouton/Ezeh: Good but placed so he was easy for the linemen to swallow/Solid/Enh not as terrible as an OLB as a MLB, but still....
They match up against 5 offensive linemen, a FB and a TE. So when you do the math they have 7 potential blockers. If they double Team Martin and swallow Up the other 5 1 on 1. This leaves you with a big RB cutting into a secondary full of smaller 18 and 19 year olds. Guys who have had one summer camp lifting and conditioning at the college level.
A very predictable result happens (see second half of Wisconsin). I have nothing against the 3-3-5, I played on a 3-3-5 defense in HS, but when you're facing a team whose power running you should have packages that involve replacing one of the 5 with a larger run stopping guy. you definitely should not sit there through the second half and let them kill the clock running while refusing to say "Well gee maybe I'll pull one of the coverage guys and toss in another DT." Instead we loaded the box, but loaded it with guys under 200 lbs drawn from the 5 part of the 3-3-5 and look what happened.
Being an armchair DC I was screaming for a 4-3 or 3-4 w/Moundros. Big guy, senior, in shape. He wouldn't have to do anything fancy. Just lock up on their FB or TE every play, thus springing Demens or Mouton to go get the RB hopefully.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
Is this change mid-game you speak of one of those mythical "coaching adjustments" we've heard about but never seen?
I thought they banned those along with the horsecollar tackle.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
new recruits to step up.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
Our problem with the 3-3-5 is that it is heavily reliant on LB's, CB's and Safeties being good; LB's more so than the 4-3.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Actually, I think it's the opposite. Having a good 3-3-5 depends largely upon having a good 3-man line. If those three can take of what they need to up front, then there are 8 guys roaming around/blitzing to make the plays. Unfortunately, Van Bergen is mediocre, Martin has been hurt (and Patterson is overmatched at NT), and Roh is undersized for the 3-man front.
Our poor defensive line prevents our linebackers from making a lot of plays.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
As do our poor linebackers unfortunately.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
If Casteel came in next year, who do you think would be on our line? Roh (after another 15-25 lbs), Washington, and Martin?
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
That's the thing - I don't know if Roh fits. He should be a DE in a 4-3, not a 3-man front. I really don't know how things would shake out. I would guess that we'd have the same front we have now if Casteel came in - Roh, Martin, and Van Bergen.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^
At 250 he is too damn small, fine for a DE, but it is not using his strengths as an edge rusher in this scheme.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
The 3-4 requires a huge NT and two almost-DT DEs so that all three pretty much command a double team. We have guys that are big enough to do that, but they aren't our best players. The Steelers starting DL weight 300, 325, 285. Our starting linemen are 285, 300, 250. That's an average of 25 lbs lighter at each position. To make it work, we'd have to move Martin to DE, keep RVB where he is, and replace Roh by putting Washington at NT. I really don't think that's a good idea. I'd rather us just run 4 down linemen.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
You are absolutly right that a 3-4 requires bigger lineman but comparing a college front line to Steelers in terms of size is like comparing apples to oranges.
In a 3-4 Roh would be good as the Frontside rush LB where he is standing over a TE or even shifting down to a 4-3.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
Our LB's are the heart of the problem...Not only do they just got blocked but they over pursue and get lost in the mix. They lose containment to the outside all the time. When your relying on your safties to come up and make tackles your in trouble. That means the RB is constantly getting to the 2nd level with ease. To stop the run you have to get penetration from the line, and have our LBs plug the gaps and not lose contain. I believe most of it is on scheme and play calling and the inability to coach and develop the LB core.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Much-needed post ... the problem is related to personnel (players and coaches) much more than the scheme.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
Something that many people need to hear. Sick of hearing about scheme is not good enough. Our defense will be good when we have good players playing in it. Period
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Since the few teams capable haven't crash landed in AA and donated their players you make great arguments why not to run this formation. The talent isn't there and hasn't been recruited and still won't stop some pure power teams all as you have said so I guess the answer of us simple folk is to not run this formation against power teams as I have said on the MLIve UM FB Fan forum for two years. And all this time you and Chris Spielman and Brian's breakdown simply prove me right! I f we hire Bellichik or recruit the Steelers let me know?
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
"3-man" should be hyphenated. Currently, American culture under-hyphenates.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
This may have already been posted on the board, but here's my half-assed theory of the day: When your defensive backs aren't good, you don't want to blitz a lot and put any of them on an island. However, when your defensive backs are one of the worst units in the country (say, for example, they are a bunch of freshman and a converted wide receiver), you might as well blitz, because you're going to get burned anyway. If two extra men in coverage isn't helping you because they don't know how to contribute to coverage, you might as well send them after the quarterback (I exclude Ray Vinopal from this theory).
I think the wisdom of blitzing, generally speaking, is on a sort of inverted bell curve: It's wise to blitz if your defensive backs are really good, unwise to blitz if they're mediocre, and wise to blitz if they're terrible.* I'm not advocating blitzing on every down but I do hope they blitz a lot more on Saturday than they have for most of the year. We already know that the current blitz rate doesn't work.
*I realize that they're terrible b/c they're inexperienced. I don't mean to bag on the guys.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
yes, i think that blitzing with bad DBs is similar to the laffer curve, except i ain't laughin.
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
I happen to love the 3-4 defense and Pats/Steelers run it well. But this is a VERY personnel driven scheme. Both of these teams have a horse at NT that is 350lbs+, DE's that are 280-290lbs and bada$$ LB's. This scheme is amazing if you have the space eater/strong point of attack DL and big/fast LB's. We do not have that and it's hard for college teams to run 3-4 because the kids just are big enough at this point to be a 3-4 DLineman (Unless they are a mature program that has luxury of kids bulking up 2+ years before seeing field to be ready to play)...Case in point, UM's DLine getting thrown around like GERG's stuffed beaver all last Saturday.
I agree Mike Martin is an absolute monster and will play on Sundays. Could you imagine if he had someone next to him to just occupy an extra blocker from him!?!? We definitely do not have the big strong Lamarr Woodley type at LB.
Honestly, whatever scheme that is run by this team wouldn't work cause they're just not that good/young/clueless. I think it's not in the best interests to rush 3 and leave 4+ true freshman to cover wide receivers for 5-15 seconds. Wisc Qb sat in pocket, ate a sandwich, threw a wobbly duck and WR caught it over middle with 15 yards of clear field in all directions.
With that being said...Let's hope they forget who they are and beat the dog pi$$ out of the browneyes!
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
Thank you for pointing out schemes and personnel are NOT completely independent factors.
With a great defensive roster, one could probably play almost any modern defense (4-3-4, 3-4-4, 3-3-5, 4-2-5, 4-4-3), but when one doesn't have a great defensive roster one has to play a defense which minimizes the weaknesses. Teams with great LBs but only OK DL have gone with 3-4-4 in order to put as many of their LBs on the field as possible. Likewise if a team has a pair of great DTs it makes more sense to play a 4-3-4 in order to get them into a game. If your squad has a pair of great DBs, more man coverage schemes and more risky blitzes could be called.
Some coaches like a specific scheme and so go out and recruit/draft for it. Bill Parcells who put together some great defenses in the pros seemed to like defenses which had monster LBs - his archtype team were the NY Giants when they had... Lawrence Tayler, Pepper Rodgers, Harry Carson, Carl Banks...all 6-4+ 250 really fast LBs...that was what he wanted on his team and he drafted for it. For our squad, if we are looking to play a 3-3-5 as others have pointed out we need better LBs, a really tough guy up the middle (and a good backup) and speedy sure-tackling DBs. I'm not anti or pro on the head coach/DC situation - but right now it has bee hard to see a consistent theme or thread.
Finally, this discussion is sort of the mirror to the discussion when RR first came here with the offense. Do you play an offense around what players you have or fit your players into the offense you want. Ryan Mallett clearly can play QB - just not in the RR spread attack. Denard Robinson is cleary a better fit in that role, but I doubt he could step in as a RS 2nd year into a classic pro style passing game with numerous checkdowns. Time has shown that RR with players who fit his offensive scheme can be successful. It seems that we want to be a low risk bend and don't break defense, but at this point, it might worth trying more risks - the defense has been usually bending and finally breaking.
It is too late to tinker much now and we have to hope that emotion and the adversity will cause the defense to rise to the occasion. There will be plenty of time to rehash the season after the bowl game, so let's Go Blue and upset the Buckeyes!
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^
You are correct that they have bigger lineman and 4 (not 3) linebackers instead of the extra DB. I would love to see a 3-4 played more for our team if Martin was an end with a bigger guy in the middle. I think he could be really explosive. Dumping the extra DB and putting more size near the line with the extra LB could make this pretty dangerous.
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
I don't care if we play a 3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5, we can't tackle. Numerous plays made Saturday where our guys tried to tackle with their arms on the backs shoulders. Ultimate fail. Hit them in their chest with your shoulder and wrap around the middle. Tackle.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
I can't speak for other people and obviously I'm no coach, but you just summed up in general terms why I think a 3-man DL is not the best formation for us currently. In other words, scheme is a problem here.
What unit of our defense has the best combination of depth and experience and maybe even talent? It's not our secondary. Given the inconsistent play of Mouton and Ezeh, and the promising but still inexperienced younger players like Demens, I wouldn't say it's our LB corps, either. On the line, we've got MM, JVB, Roh, and Patterson to start with, and you can add in Sagesse, Banks, Black, and Watson. Seems to me that it would make sense to take maximal advantage of our best unit and try to hide the deficiencies of our worst, but if you're playing 3 DLs and 5 DBs, you're doing the opposite.
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
I understand what you're saying, and it certainly makes sense some of the time (such as when facing a Wisconsin team whose offensive line averages 320 pounds). However, if we take a DB and replace him with a lineman while our overall talent/experience might go up we've also increased the responsibilities of 4 underclass DBs. With fewer secondary players, their job has gotten harder.
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
i've been preaching this all year. the current philosphy: ok, we have young, inexperienced (bad) DBs, so we need to put another young, inexperienced (bad) DB to solve the problem. However, we are taking away a better player on the DLine. This idea never made sense to me. And Wisky abused this decision this past Saturday.