Do the Coaches Prefer the 3-3-5?
I don't want to debate on if the 3-3-5 is a good idea, or if GERG is the guy. My question is this:
A point was made that we went to the 3-3-5 out of necessity and looking at our defensive line and lack of playmaking linebackers, that makes sense. So part of me thought maybe they would rather not run that setup ideally. But, RR seems to believe in it number one and recruiting seems to target some of those hybrid areas number 2
Do you think the coaches have a prefered idea of what they would want the defense to be? I hate hearing you cant do this or that in the big ten, because, the big ten is a pretty diverse league, scheme wise. So, I can see where hybrid guys are valuable.
So this is a, if you had the players you wanted, whould they (the coaches) still want the 3-3-5?
October 18th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
i prefer Business Class
EDIT: OP has ruined my retort
October 18th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 3-3-5 as the base set as it is flexible enough to allow you to shift to 4 down linemen when you need it. Issue right now is execution - if we have an MLB that is aggressive in run support and adequate in pass support, another CB that does not always need to give 10 yards cushion and a Safety that is not a first-year-position-switcher-starter, the same scheme can work pretty well.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
I thought I saw CBs closer than 10 yards on Saturday...then get torched for touchdowns.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^
idk, but watching WVU run the 3-3-5 in some of their games this year it has looked pretty good. I am still holding judgment till we get some actual upper classmen in our secondary
October 18th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
It's my understanding that Rich Rod likes the 3-3-5 in general, and I could be wong, but I believe that's what he ran back at WVU. Granted, the 3-3-5 is supposed to help mitigate the problems in the secondary, so that definitely has something to do with it.
One point, though. You say this:
A point was made that we went to the 3-3-5 out of necessity and looking at our defensive line and lack of playmaking linebackers, that makes sense.
I just want to point out that the D-Line is easily the best part of the defense. Probably the biggest complaint that can be leveled against the 3-3-5 is that it really hinders the D's only real strenght, which is their front 4.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
The counterpoint to that would be that, going into the season, our depth was pretty thin. Martin and Van Bergen were the only proven commodities (Roh made some plays last year, but was eaten alive against the run). Playing four DL at the outset would have basically required them to never be substituted. As the season's gone on, we've started to develop better depth, and we're playing four down linemen more often. Still, we're pretty dependent on Martin/Van Bergen to make plays.
October 18th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
This is correct, Rich Rod ran the 3-3-5 at WVU and never really had too awful much of a defense.
The most important part of this scheme is the nose tackle, IMO... thankfully, we've got a good one. With Woolfolk back and hopefully a little more competence from the secondary, this could be a very good team next year.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
Sort of an unfair comparison since there are stylistic differences in the types of offenses both conferences showcase. Pitt or UConn is the closest thing to an Iowa, MSU, Wisc or OSU and those are weak comparisons.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
they still stomped on oklahoma with it
October 18th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
But I wish someone could explain, in words that a person who doesn't coach or break down film could understand, what the difference is between a 3-3-5 and a base 3-4 that is playing a nickel.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
The difference is that, in the 3-3-5, there are two safeties playing closer to the linebacker level (one on either side).
In a 3-4 nickel package, there are five defensive backs, but two safeties (presumably playing normal safety positions) and a third cornerback. This defensive set would be more slanted toward pass coverage than the 3-3-5 base set, because that third cornerback is on the field rather than an additional strong-safety-type player who can come up closer to the line in run support.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
A 3-4 with the Nickel Back in has 3 DL-3LB-3-CB-2 Safeties
The 3-3-5 has the same except instead of calling the Nickel Back a CB they call him a hybrid LB/CB. The 3-3-5 would most likely move the hybrid to the 3-4's Nickel Back position of being over the slot. It's the same positioning as the 3-4 w/ NB. However, the bodies (player) are different.
In the 3-4 the NB (nickel back) is a smaller guy who is basically your third best corner. There are more complications than that, but we'll keep it simple. In the 3-3-5 the guy covering the slot (the D's hybrid) is basically a bigger Strong Safety.
In summation: the guy covering the slot in the 3-4 is a CB and the guy covering the slot in a 3-3-5 is approximately a SS type player. However, if you took a picture of the line-ups before the snap you'd see the same "look" from the D.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
SLABBA JABBA DOO FOOTBALL HAHGGA XS AND OS
October 18th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^
You know I don't speak spanish! In ENGLISH please!
You pooped in the refrigerator?!?! And ate the whole... wheel of cheese?!?! Actually, I'm not even mad... I'm impressed.
October 18th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
The difference is that it gives the haters something to bitch about. We have problems tackling and we have a ton of freshman and sophomores so it really doesn't matter what scheme we run.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
Again, not taking a hit at the scheme. But, you have to think we have the availability to recruit (haha I know) a quality secondary and linebackers. In college, it seems those two areas, mixed with a solid front four does a lot of damage.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:35 PM ^
Wait...so if you have a good front four, a good secondary, and a good linebackers, you'll have a good defense?
October 18th, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
Haha....good point.
what I was trying to say is, seems there is a big debate in the NFL on which 4-3 vs 3-4 works better. I think it is easier to maintain a 4-3. and that you can build off a 4-3 easier to adapt.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
No offense, but that doesn't sound anything like what you were trying to say in that first post....Sorry, just sayin'
October 18th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
One of my buddies knows an offensive lineman who is redshirting this year and he said that GERG wants to run a 4-3 but RR insists on running a 3-3-5. So take that for what its worth. I know there was an emphasis on the 3-3-5 in the spring because it was simpler to run with the young guys. We'll see what happens in the future.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
thats my worry more then one scheme over another. unknown direction
October 18th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
So your buddy knows Christian Pace? Isn't he the only lineman from the 2010 class?
October 18th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
Ya, didn't wanna name names. Don't know the protocol on that. He went to HS with him down here in Ohio.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
Sorry, didn't mean to rat out your buddy/Christian. It's sorta like our client confidentiality clause when I was in consulting. We couldn't name our clients but you could give vague descriptions like "I'm working with a pharmaceutical company in Indianapolis" that basically give it away.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
October 18th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
bend but don't break. Still and don't see a Big ten team scoring 40 points on this defense. This is a young team, KISS thats what the defense scheme is. Keep it simple stupid. Whether or not its 3-4 or 4-3, tackling plays such a huge key! Once they grasp that, filling the right gaps, coverage assignments. All will lead to a stronger and more confident team. One that will have that "swagger" back!
October 18th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
My boss also says to me "Don't be an idiot". Before I do something, I ask myself "would an idiot do this?"
October 18th, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^
problem is Obi askes that to himself 3 times before reacting. Then says, oh yeah....I forgot....DONT do the stupid thing
October 18th, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^
We have played a 4-2-5 for the most part the past couple of weeks.
All of our DT's besides Mike Martin stink, so there isn't a lot of depth to do much else exclusively.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:47 AM ^
Bring Roh down to an end position and move RVB back inside like he was last year?
October 18th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^
I'm guessing the 3-3-5 is out of necessity and not preference but what do I know?
October 18th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
We are not a 3-3-5 defense! WVU is a 3-3-5. We are a multiple defense. Being a multiple defense means we adapt to what the offensive formation. We have played our 4-4 Eagle or whatever you want to call it against the jumbo sets the last 2 weeks. Why does this stuff getting posted. Many teams go with 3 lineman against spread teams..
October 18th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
It's clear to me RR prefers the 3-3-5. Look back at the UFR against ND and how often we were in 3 3 5. Look at our recruiting. Look at Purdue two years ago when we switched to 3-3-5 for most of that game when it was clear DC was going bye bye. RR (and more importantly his assistants that oversee D) likes the 3-3-5 to stop the spread. Speed.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
It's our preference against spread teams. Against pro-style teams we favor a four-man front.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
....as long as he is the head coach. Should he defer to GRob on D and focus on his Offense? Thats up for debate I suppose.
The 3-3-5 does allow for a lot of flexibility and, as a concept, flexibility is good.
Maybe when all of the youth on D matures, they will grow into definite D-linemen, or definite LB's and it will move us to use a standard D set again.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:24 AM ^
Stupid computer...I'll go sit in a corner now.