My guess is that 3-3-5 is a perfectly good defensive scheme when Jeff Casteel, not Greg Robinson, is running it.
If the 3-3-5 is so terrible, why does WVU have a top-10 ranked defense?
Does this tell us that it is not the scheme buy rather the execution (eg this week's picture pages) and/or the players?
Will be watching the Pitt-WVU game with interest this afternoon.
Because they don't play downhill running teams like Wisky, MSU, PSU and Iowa.
Perhaps watching today's matchup against Pitt will give some insight into the effectiveness of the 3-3-5 against more "power-running" teams. I understand that Pitt is not very good, however they do like to run it a lot with dion lewis and ray graham in a power style. Just a thought if you were really looking to watch the 3-3-5 in action...turn on ABC.
So Pitt and UConn aren't downhill running teams?
Remember, Michigan held uconn to 10 points. That is the mark of a shitty offense if you ask me
OK?!! I ADMIT IT!
go get the teddy bear!!!!!
What an avatar. Just a great performance.
I love the retro Syracuse uniforms.
As bad as our D is we held Uconn to ten points. There is no doubt that experence and coaching play a part in WVU having the 3-3-5 work for them but if they were in the big ten they would not be a top ten D.
I am pretty sure we would win the Big East this year instead of sitting 6th or 7th in our own conference.
Their defense isn't comprised of freshmen, sophomores and walk ons.
Their defensive coordinator isn't Gerg
Their head coach pays more attention to defense than offense
And yes, the big east sux ballz, and their 3-3-5 scheme would probably get thrashed in the big ten.
They've had an easy schedule. The best team they've faced is LSU and LSU has a fair offense (52nd scoring) at best.
Its' coz the 335 is being used in the Big East and being used against powerhouse teams like Louisville and South Florida. The only team in the conference with a decent offense is Cincinnati. Granted WVU beat them, Cinci is no good this year.
I love how the responses stating that it's because the BigEast sucks are getting negged. The only problem is that those posters are 100% correct. Michigan's defense would be top 30 if we played in the BigEast. It's a pathetic conference this year not worthy of a BCS bid.
Amen. You sir, are correct!
Yes, they are being negged because they are indirectly claiming that Rich Rod's scheme (that he is forcing GERG to run) isn't a good scheme.... and OMG YOU CAN'T BE A REAL FAN IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT RICH RODRIGUEZ!!!
They feel that by ignoring Rich Rod's shortcomings they are better fans; it's truly airtight logic.
This is a desparate plea for a coach (not just some random ran who gets tumescent when thinking of road graders and POWER football) to explain why the @#$% a 3-3-5, when staffed with appropriate players, will be lousy against the run.
I still haven't heard a rock-solid argument.
He waxed eloquently about the "bubbles" in the defensive zone.
You can eliminate those bubbles by blitzing a LB or Spur/Bandit on basically every play. Watching Gerg's 3-3-5 this year, other than the obviously insane RPS with the MLB alignment, that has been the biggest problem I've noticed. We are far too prone to dropping 8 into coverage at any and every point. That's a great way to have your D picked apart on the ground and in the air.
I agree. When we were being sold the 3-3-5 during spring practices, it was all about the confusion caused by multiple blots packages. The problem is that we have not been blitzing, hence the bubbles and complete inability to defend the run. Perhaps this is due to personnel inabilities, but the whole point was to fit our personnel.
Can't blitz with our young/questionable backfield. When our corners get better, you will see more blitzes and confusion. Less bubbles. Better defense.
At some point you have to trust your db's. They may be inexperienced but how do they gain experience with the current schemes? Our D is not effective so i dont see how it can be any worse. Just put pressure on the QB and see what happens.
Is Rorschach gonna be our new DC?
He waxed eloquently about the "bubbles" in the defensive zone.
Yeah, and then he proceeded to draw the "bubbles" over a 4 man front (with a 5th man on the line ready (or threatening) to blitz ).
You've just stated that the 3-3-5 won't work at Michigan because we would have to get the cream of the crop at LB for that scheme to work properly. I agree and it points to the fact that there is more room for error with it. The diary about the correlation between TAMU and Michigan had some good information. They stated that TAMU switched to a 3-4 to counter the spread teams in the Big12. I wouldn't be against that but I'd like to see a 4-3 so we can make those running lanes smaller.
I think it boils down to the fact that our D sucks, we couldn't stop anyone if we ran the 3-3-17
Because people who listen to ESPN bloviation and actually believe it are fucking stupid. That's why.
Almost as fucking stupid as not answering the OP's question and deflecting to people who have differing opinions. Actually it's not even close to almost.
Cry onto your daisy dukes.
but it doesn't seem like we run it correctly. I read an article link from Smart Football this summer, just some high school coach - he went to the 335 for one season and moved back to the 43. He liked the scheme and its potential, but finally decided he didn't have enough knowledge/experience to run it properly. Left a lot of open gaps and had too many blown assignments and confused players.
There is nothing wrong with the 3-3-5. We ran it in college and shut down power running teams. Its a matter of having a defensive coordinator who understands how to run it and talented players to execute the scheme.
When does TCU ever use a 3-3-5 except in extremely obvious passing situations? And even then, I'm not sure it's anything other than a dime defense with 3 rushers, which is not the same as a 3-3-5. Can you show any evidence of this?
Which would be super awesome except neither plays a 3-3-5. Boise State and TCU both run 4-2-5's as their base defense, with Boise State shifting from 4-2-5 to 3-3-5 on occasion.
I would also somewhat disagree that they can compete with the big boys on a regular basis. While TCU is a legitimately good football team, Boise State is a pretender. Sure, they can get up and beat good teams in a one game situation. But put them in an actual conference where they have to play actual teams week in and week out? No way. In the only two games against BCS conference opponents this year, they've given up and average of 27 points per game. In their other 8 games? 7.6 points per game.
Not to mention they've only played 4 teams with a winning record this year, with the highest rated team being Virgina Tech (and only currently ranked team on their schedule actually), a team that lost to James Madison and is currently ranked 13th, that they managed to beat by 3 with an entire offseason to prepare.
To put that in perspective, Michigan has played 7 games against teams with a winning record. By the end of the season, Michiganwill have played 4 ranked teams with a combined record of 37-7. Wisconsin (#5), Ohio State (#8), MSU (#11), and Iowa (#24). Now imagine you only played, say, MSU, and the other three were replace by WAC teams with a losing record. Yea, I think Michigan would likely finish the season with at least 10 wins and look pretty damn good too.
If Boise or TCU plays Wisconsin, they will give up 300 yards rushing. They play noone on a week to week basis. It's a lot easier to scheme the 335 up for one tough opponent (bowl game, for instance) than it is to play a db against a power game week after week.
So hang on, if they played WIsconsin they would be able to scheme for them or no?
i'm sure Casteel has the right guys in the right spots. If they can execute their assignments, there's no reason it can't be successful.
As Spielman pointed out so f-ing often during the Wisconsin game, the stack has the potential to allow too many bubbles of space for linemen to get to the second level against linebackers. Given that our Linebacker play has been largely terrible, the combination of the two makes the stack very questionable against teams that pound downhill and can get their big-bodied linemen to the 2nd level.
Couple all that with a serious talent/experience deficiency, and you can see why we are not successful on D. If we had the talent and experience to execute the stack, we'd be a lot better. I still do think it would be chewed apart by the big teams, but maybe not to the tune of 35+ ppg.
I definitely prefer the idea of 4 down linemen, though.
The defense is way too inexperience and we lack the personnel. A good point was brought up during the UW game. The comment was that a young inexperienced secondary cover their spots in the route/scheme rather than covering open offensive players. Once they hit their spot, they stop rather than finding a player to cover. You can see that with our players - they lack the instinct and the experience to cover properly. Fortunately, this can be corrected with a new DC who can run the defense his way, experience for our players, and the fact that they practice against one of the most dynamic offense.
I just want a 60-70ish ranked defense. That should keep our opposites below 24 pts and we can easily go 10-2 next year.
I've asked Santa for a Top-40 defense. I hope he doesn't think I'm asking for too much since I also asked for a bowl victory this year.
+ a zillion for the use of tumescent in the post below.
Schemes are overrated, especially if you don't have the players and/or don't execute.
Hell, I don't care what we run tomorrow, as long as it nets us a victory!
The only knock against the 3-3-5, is the replacement of an OLB, with a tweener safety who might have difficulty holding up against the run. Also, it's a little harder to adjust to a two tight end set.
Our problem with the 3-3-5 is that our players don't understand it, aren't fundamentally sound within the scheme and lack sufficient depth and in some cases, don't fit the scheme very well.
One of the only problems I have with Rich, is not deciding this is what he wanted, and getting players recruited to the scheme earlier..thus avoiding our depth issues.
Right now, on Michigan's roster, that player is Cam Gordon. I think he can hold up just fine against the run.
Second, your second paragraph is chock full of assumptions. I imagine it's difficult for guys who have been in a system for 18 months to play against guys from Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. who have had the same system for 3-4 years at least.
As for your last paragraph, the 3-3-5 has ALWAYS been his preferred scheme. Remember Purdue 2008? As for getting players recruited to the scheme - that's been done for years, the issues of attrition, players leaving, and not qualifying are more the reason for the depth issues, not the 3-3-5.
There's nothing wrong with the 3-3-5. It could work if we had a) the personnel to run it and b) a coordinator who understands it.
What type of defense do you feel we have the personnel to run? I think this is an important factor in judging the selection of our next defensive coordinator, yet I'm really not sure what defense we would most effectively run with our upcoming rosters.
What type of defense do you feel we have the personnel to run?
Actually, do we have the personnel to run any type of defense, or is it just a ugly mix of leftovers and inexperience?
running a base 43, particularly against power teams. We have enough defensive lineman to do it. Our linebacking deficit would look better. Against spread teams you could shift to a 425 or even a 335 as necessary. I've got a fundamental problem playing 3 linemen and 3 linebackers against a team that you know is going to pound it. It's the same effect as the spread in reverse. The big blockers and power backs simply outnumber the guys available to take on blocks and tackle. I like Ray Vinopal as a player, but to bring him into the linebacker spot against Wisconsin is just crazy.
I think we should have been playing a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 all season long.
Next year should be a 4-3, IMO.
Great, thanks. Do you have concerns that Michigan lacks the bodies up front to run a four man front? Hopefully we can get some solid depth out of Ash, Talbott, and Washington at the tackle positions, but there is very little experience in that group. Plus, with Martin and Van Bergen gone after next year, we'll really be lacking at those positions.