New DC and the 3-3-5
I participated, as a silent member, in last night's Worker's Congress. The conclusion that was reached, concerning Shafer's resignation, was that we will implement the 3-3-5 Stack defense next year. If this is true:
1 - How does that affect the search for a new DC? Do any of the coaches in Brian's list have experience with the 3-3-5? Or, was it also decided that the new DC is already in-house?
2 - Do we have the players to implement the scheme? I seem to recall Purdunk and their third sting QB having a field day when we experimented with the 3-3-5 alignment.
3 - Can the 3-3-5 'morph' into a 3-4(-4)? Does that have any bearing on the DC? Do we have the players for that scheme?
I would love to have a dry board or chalk board session with GSimmons. I'm a tard when it comes to offensive and defensive alignments. TIA for the replies - Dave.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:31 AM ^
game goes, thats what is going to happen when you decide to change your entire defensive philosophy during game week.
yes, if you take one the 5's and make him a LB you have a 3-4. and based on the last couple of seasons I don't yet think we should be figuring out ways to put more LBs and safeties on the field, so no I wouldn't say we have the personnel to run that defense effectively at the moment.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:39 AM ^
Actually if your lb's and Safties are bad, its a good idea to have MORE of them on the field, so that each of them have a lesser job to do, and can do things faster.... its complicated...
December 17th, 2008 at 10:44 AM ^
makes sense, but it still goes against my better instincts when I take all the bad angles and missed tackles into consideration.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:22 AM ^
that no matter what you have to have a safety to make a tackle in the open field... doesnt matter about anything else, no matter what you have to have first level people 2nd level people and thrid level people.... just a matter of how good you are at those three levels to determine how much help you need there... if we are runnign a 6-2 split eagle... you still have to have a safety that can make plays in space...
December 17th, 2008 at 11:29 AM ^
I understand that you're right. Get over yourself. My point was that maybe our LBs are worse than our safeties or vice versa. Putting more of the weaker position on the field just doesn't feel like its going to help even if a tactical assessment suggests that each player's job will be easier.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:30 AM ^
huh? i wasnt saying anything about myself, i was simply explaining things a bit better... what the hell warranted that response?
sorry i was trying to have a discourse with you..
December 17th, 2008 at 11:38 AM ^
"except that no matter what you have to have a safety to make a tackle in the open field" was totally condescending and smacks of "I have to get the last word in to show you I'm right, so I'll make a ridiculously obvious point that you weren't even contesting"
December 17th, 2008 at 11:41 AM ^
For what it's worth, I didn't think Gsimmons was being condescending. As he said, I thought he was just explaining his point further.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:50 AM ^
that I just read too much into it. I just shudder at the thought of two John Thompson's on the field in a 3-4 or two Charles Stewarts in a 3-3-5.
Gsimmons, sorry about my reaction. You were well within reason with your follow up.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:52 PM ^
Agreed. And I do get sick of some people nitpicking to death.
I dont mean nitpicking on facts, but bickering I guess.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:46 AM ^
im sorry my friend, i wasnt trying to at all. I was just illistrating that no matter what, you have to have certain jobs covered.. if you can do it with less players then great, if you need more plyaers to do it, then you have to do it. the best lb's in the world are playing in 3-4 and 5-2 sets becasue if you have great lb's you only need 2 of them on the field at a time....
once again, i appologize, your opinon is valid and is just as relevent as mine...
December 17th, 2008 at 10:44 AM ^
I tend to think the 2009 personnel will be a better fit than the 2008 personnel, because our best unit was the DL so they needed to be on the field at all/most times.
We have a couple strong safety types (Brandon Smith, Williams/Brown), and Williams/Brown could play FS. We'll also have Martin/Campbell to play the nose and then Graham and Van Bergen to play the 5-techniques. Our depth is questionable at DL, but it would be questionable in the 4-3, too.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:08 AM ^
dont you need stud linebackers to run the stack? seeing as how everyone has been ripping ezeh and our linebacking corps this year it doesnt seem like we got the personel on that part of the d
December 17th, 2008 at 11:16 AM ^
Read the gsimmons reply above.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:45 AM ^
am i the only one who saw relative success with using the situational 4-2-5. I personally prefer it to the 3-3-5 because it gets a bit more pressure on the qb, and still has a lot of db's in coverage. the important thing wen u have two lb's tho is that they are fast. I think that the converted safeties (mike jones or isaiah bell) might be an asset in this type of formation because they can cover a bit more ground than thomason could and ezeh can, and hopefully hold coverage longer. althou mouton was a converted safety and his pass coverage skills are meh.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:50 AM ^
Just because I'm a negative guy, I'll ask a negative question. What makes people think that Campbell, Roh and LaLota would WANT to play in a goofball defense like the 3-3-5 "stack" on almost every down??? I understand its merit against certain offenses, but, if RR is hell-bent on installing it as an every down defense, I think we'll suffer in our Dline recruiting and wouldn't be shocked if Roh, Campbell or LaLota look elsewhere.
JMHO
December 17th, 2008 at 12:15 PM ^
I have wondered this, too. However, I think it would mostly affect weakside defensive end types. So out of all our commitments so far, the only one I see it affecting (if we do indeed go to the 3-3-5) is Craig Roh.
Campbell would play the nose in a 4-front or a 3-front.
Lalota, Graves, and perhaps Jones would probably play like tackles or like 3-4 DE's (i.e. occupying linemen while the linebackers and strong safeties make the tackles).
So everyone fits, in my opinion, except Roh.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:04 PM ^
Why is everyone so scared of the 3-3-5? Its just a different defensive front. Granted not many teams run it, but its not like Michigan will only be sending 8 guys out there to play D.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:12 PM ^
Agreed. There are lots of offenses and defenses out there. Any one of them can be successful if it's run well.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:20 PM ^
i'm no DC but i don't like the 3-3-5. seems too fundamentally weak against the run since it puts 6 guys in the box in the base set
December 17th, 2008 at 2:57 PM ^
It actually puts 8 guys in the box. If you read the article linked below or if you watch the Purdue game, there are 8 guys in the box - 3 linemen, 3 linebackers, and 2 strong safeties (called "hangers" by the analyst, who was Andre Ware, I think).
Anyway, it can be soft against the run, but it can also be a good defense if it's run correctly and we have the right personnel. As Brian has pointed out numerous times, WVU has had success with it.
Regardless, if we're scoring 40 ppg like we should be once Rodriguez gets "his" guys in here, it won't matter what type of defense we run.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:28 PM ^
on the Interwebs using the Google.
http://blog.dallascowboys.com/forums/p/39601/1256926.aspx
Basically a reprint of a Bob Davie analysis on the 3-3-5. Simplified explanation I'm sure but I'm not familiar with the scheme so it helped. I would like the input of others on the scheme though.
Sounds like it puts more pressure on the safeties and we cannot afford that. It also kinda explains why we had 3 safeties in the game instead of 3 corners last season, I think Shafer was getting pressure to switch all season.
Sidenote, didn't we see this against Florida for a few plays in the bowl game last year?
December 17th, 2008 at 2:22 PM ^
It seems that we don't really have a concensus that the 3-3-5 fits the current roster of defense players. Is it possible that we'll hire/promote a DC that's capable of scheming multiple alignments (4-3, 3-4, 3-3-5)?
December 17th, 2008 at 2:34 PM ^
I'd wager we'll either be in a 3-3-5 Stack or a 4-2-5 Nickel, depending on what shows more depth and functionality.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:33 PM ^
It sounds like the 3-3-5 would be fairly successful in the Big Ten. Think about it: now, MOST teams in the conference are running the spread. This defense allows us to have a lot more speed on the field and could work very well against the types of run games we would see in the conference.
Now, I have my doubts about the scheme's ability to stop power running teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State. HOWEVER, I do seem to remember watching a WVU defense physically pound Oklahoma pretty recently.
In terms of effectiveness of the scheme, I think the sample size is entirely too small to make an accurate judgment; Michigan will be the first program to implement it at this level of talent (even if we are talking about Stevie Brown).
We all believe the spread offense to be a genuinely innovative and (in our case, hopefully) effective scheme. There are still questions about its ability to defeat a physical defense, but teams like Florida disprove this repeatedly.
All I'm saying is that perhaps an innovative defense is not necessarily that bad of a thing - particularly because our defense will walk into EVERY game with an advantage because the scheme is so rare.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:25 PM ^
4 front vs 3 front... playing OSU for instance, there o-line dominated our d-line last few years getting buncha td runs up the middle. If we had 3 d-line, theyd only have 3 lineman to block and push outta way compared to 4. now we got 1 extra guy at LB position to block the middle runs... i dono, complicated to talk bout..
i guess what im trying to say is, when they block all of our d-line very well, now we got 1 extra guy there not blocking at the snap of ball.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:24 AM ^
3-3-5 is a RUN defense IIRC. The team that ripped it up, Purdue, beat it in the air.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:15 PM ^
for all of the replies. I have learned something and have more questions. That's OK, I'll figure it out eventually. =)
December 19th, 2008 at 3:52 AM ^
the 3-3-5 is certainly not a run defense. the 4th man the would normally be on the line in a 4-3 is not dropped back to lb, hes dropped back to safety. soo yes it may stop beanie from taking it to the house, but its also gonna make it easier to get into the secondary and go against our safeties, who cant tackle a guy on crutches.
if u want an extra lb u go to a 3-4.
if you want better pass coverage against a spread, id go to a 4-2-5. that way we maintain pressure and have more speed in the defensive backfield.
Otherwise i stick to a 4-3
December 19th, 2008 at 5:50 AM ^
Sorry, but the displaced lineman is NOT dropped back to safety. He's dropped back to basically an outside linebacker. I think Brian put this in one of his posts, but somebody calls it a 3-5-3. If you watched the Purdue game, you would have seen how these strong safeties lined up. They're at the same depth as the linebackers and just outside the TE.