Seriously.. 3-3-5 etc.
So I was sitting in a restaurant tonight and this group of 40-50 year olds(can't tell age) were standing there talking about Michigan.
Now normally they discuss how Rodriguez needs time and how he "Didn't have his QB's" as their excuse to this past season. But tonight, I heard them remark (one of the women, mind you) -
"Oh they fired their defensive coordinator"
"Well they're going to run this 3-3-5, it's terrible"
"Yes they're going to get shredded this year".
Seriously? When did any form of defense become more useful or efficient than another. And when did people become so uninformed? Especially Michigan fans. With all this garbage people have been regularly complaining to me how the 3-3-5 "sucks" and how we're doomed.
What evidence is there for it? We played a team in high school that ran it and we lit them up. Only a handful of college teams run it because it's more complex/less effective? I need some reasoning here, aside from the fact that a few shitty schools (Tulsa, Ball State) run it. Why is there this conception that it's so bad?
December 18th, 2008 at 9:32 PM ^
works very well actually, UM fans think it sucks because of the purdue game. no need for them to be so shortsighted. there's actually DCs that know how to run it...
December 18th, 2008 at 9:45 PM ^
People are afraid of the unknown. They're afraid of change.
When Rodriguez brought the spread, Michigan fans (and others) said, "It can't work in the Big Ten." Well, it can and it has.
If Paul Johnson had been hired, people would have said, "The option is dead in Big Time football." Yet Georgia Tech has been running all over the ACC.
If you run a defense other than a 4-3 or a 3-4, people are going to be scared.
Also, in my opinion, older fans are uninformed. It's very rare that I meet an older person (let's say 45 or older) who knows exactly what's going on. The older people get, the less they pay attention to sports. They have wives, kids, bills to pay, stressful jobs, etc., and much of the inside information is disseminated on the internet, which is beyond the interest of older fans.
So they read what's in mainstream papers, watch the games on Saturday, and think they know everything.
For example (and this ventures into another sport), a couple weeks ago, I was talking to an older gentleman and he said, "Man, that Coach BAY-LINE has got those kids playing well," and he went on to say how Michigan is going to have an excellent basketball season. I just smiled and nodded.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:56 PM ^
I'm one of the old guys you're talking about. Busy job, 4 kids, 2 dogs, one wife (and one ex-wife). Not a lot of time to keep informed, but seriously, 45 year old people don't use the internetweb? I'm on the damn internet all day long at work, and when I have a moment, I check things out. Damn right I know it all, I read Drew Sharp and Mitch Albom - what more could I possibly need to know?
December 18th, 2008 at 10:03 PM ^
Notice I said older people "rarely" - not "never" - know what's going on.
Most of the frequent commenters on here could talk circles around the middle-aged Michigan fans I know.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:08 PM ^
That's why I read this blog and wla. Actually haven't read a physical newspaper that wasn't given to me free in years. Pay to read something less intelligent than I can get here for free? Kind of scares me, though - what the fuck am I doing reading things posted by teenagers? What does that say about my pathetic, sad life?
Coach Bay-line lives in my neighborhood, though, so I figure being old gets me a bit of the inside scoop that these young whippersnappers don't have.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:11 PM ^
As you read this, I'm logging into your brain.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:44 AM ^
what?
you are really funny
also it seems to me that thetimes wasn't actually offended
December 18th, 2008 at 11:19 PM ^
42, married (but no kids), busy job. The truth is, though, I'm not as well-informed about Michigan football as I used to be. Up until the end of the eighties I could have described in detail pretty much every game of the Schembechler era. Now I can barely remember the last couple of seasons. Can't wait to see what Henne and Hart do next year...
December 19th, 2008 at 10:53 AM ^
Magnus, WTF? This 47 y.o. web designer/VB developer begs to differ. I know you've addressed the "rarely" statement but you should know better than to make a generalization like that. It seems you need to get some new "old" friends that are more knowledgeable about the "interwebs". Not all of us are 'ancient', stupid (about UM football), busy and ill-informed. Just most of us... =P =D (and, I'm not mad, I'm just razzing ya).
December 19th, 2008 at 11:16 AM ^
Yeah, but did you know that Boubacar Cissoko's middle name is Albert?
THAT'S the kind if hard-hitting inside info geezers like you don't know.
I win.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:49 PM ^
I've been told by a few players that the 3-3-5 is complex, is that a part of it too? I know we sucked it up at Purdue, would that be a reason why?
I've watched WVU for many years (as a native of Pittsburgh, we've kicked each other's asses over the years) and it seems to work quite well there. If their players don't make bonehead mistakes (Paging Stevie Brown).
Personally I like it. It's flexible, very hard to read (Watch Oklahoma last year). With speedy DE's and a big DT, with mobile linebackers and some big safeties (wait.. that sounds like our current recruiting class) we could do it.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:00 PM ^
I'm by no means an expert on the 3-3-5, but I'll take a shot.
First of all, it would be complex because of so many moving parts. You have eight guys in the box and to get pressure on the quarterback, you often need to blitz at least one guy. So you have five guys who could blitz, not to mention stunts by the defensive line. When you run a 4-3, you basically have 3 guys who might blitz, along with the occasional safety.
Also, from my understanding, the 3-3-5 stack requires the DL and linebackers to be two-gap players. Instead of a NT filling the "A" gap in a 4-3, he plays head up on the center and shares responsibility for BOTH "A" gaps. The defensive ends, as well, would be lined up over the tackles and be responsible for the "B" and "C" gaps. The linebackers behind them would have the same responsibility, so there's more reading and reacting than just simply filling gaps.
Now, with slants and twists and such, I'm sure there is some one-gap play. But in the base defense, from what I understand, they would play two gaps and be responsible for reading the play correctly.
Anyone with more knowledge of the 3-3-5, please feel free to correct me or add to what I have said. I have a very rudimentary understanding of the defense.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:26 AM ^
I have heard 3-3-5s coached where there is only one gap responisibility. Nose has one "A", the MLB has the other. Ends have "B" or "C", with the stacked SLB or WLB responsible for what the end doesn't cover. Dogs/SSs have outside of TE, "D" gap, or is just a contain guy. In this way it is very simple.
With coverages it is mostly a cover 3, or a man-free, but it also depends on where the Dogs/SS line up. The weakside Dog can drop back and play a deep zone at the start of the QBs cadence. Then the defense resembles a flexed 3-4. From this you can have a cover 2 or 4 look.
This is some of the reasons why I love the 3-3-5, its adaptability. Against power run teams you have 8 in the box to stuff the run. Against passing teams you can send anywhere from 3-8 players after the QB from different areas to create pressure, but you also have 5 DBs on the field to cover.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:52 PM ^
By the way, my biggest concern with the 3-3-5 (if it comes to Michigan permanently) is that the players will not buy into it. By installing it for one game against Purdue and failing miserably, I'm afraid some of the holdovers might say, "This defense sucks. We tried it last year and we got shredded by a shitty team." That may have done some damage to the psyche of these kids.
But perhaps with so many young guys and so many kids wanting to make an early impact, their enthusiasm for getting on the field might overcome their attitudes about a defense that could be perceived as a failure.
I don't know, but it's something to consider.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:02 PM ^
i really wouldn't worry about that, all someone like casteel would have to do is show that he had the number 4 defense in the country in '07 and had another top 25 defense this past season.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:07 AM ^
I get your point about the kids not buying into it, but the Okie defense and the 4-3, and the nickel and whatever else we had didn't work either.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:15 PM ^
nearly as bad as robots. Anyway, my dial-up connection is about out of my monthly minutes, so I'll have to log out soon.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:18 PM ^
We ran the 3-3-5 in college very effectively. I think we finished in the top ten in the country in rush defense one or two years. People seem to be scared of it because its a 3 man front. However, against I-form type offenses we would usually have our "bull" (strong side hybrid type) up on the line making it look more like a 3-4. I think if you watch the Purdue film, you will see Harrison do this against Purdue's I-form. Our FS was also more of a run first player. He would take a slow drop on his deep third and read run or pass and make a play. We were fortunate to have an outstanding player there for three years while I was there. He literally knocked a guy unconscious on a slant route. It was nasty. As far as pass rushing DE's, it is possible to get one-on-ones on passing downs. There are so many different blitzes to run out of this defense that it is easy to confuse the opposing O-lineman. IIRC, we also liked to stunt our d-line on passing downs. We had a guy that played in the 3-3-5 for three years and tied the career sack record for the school. He probably would have broken it, but his senior year, he had to switch to nose due to personel issues. Coverage wise, we were almost exclusively cover 3. This left weaknesses in the flats and against 4 vertical. To play the 4 vertical, our corners would sink to the middle on their drop to help the FS on the two going down the middle of the field. It got beat sometimes, but was also pretty successful. We had athletes at corner that were good enough to get back to the outside on the throw. The flats were the responsibility of the two SS types, and if a team hit it quick enough or threw there on play action it was open. However, if you have guys there that are fast enough, you can bait qb's into those throws and get a lot of picks. The key is for those guys to get out to the flat and underneath routes to that area. We also ran some man coverage in short yardage and goal line situations. The year after I left, they also started running some quarter, quarter, half coverage rolling that to multiple reciever sides. That worked pretty well for them as well. Also we had the conference defensive player at MLB my sophmore year, and the year after I left. I think LB's can make a ton of plays in this defense. As far as Michigan's personnel, I think it would look something like this:
CB: Warren, Cissoko
FS: Brown/B. Smith/ Williams
Bull/Bandit: Brown/B. Smith/ Williams
Sam: Fitzgerald
Mike: Ezeh
Will: Mouton
T: Graham, Van Bergen
N: Martin
I don't think thats a bad lineup.
*I'm just trying to share my experiences to give an insight some may not have. I'm not trying to talk down to anybody or trying to appear smarter than anyone else. I just like to talk about football.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:27 PM ^
From what I've read/deduced, it seems that one of the weaknesses of the 3-3-5 is the inability to disguise coverages. You're either in a Cover 3 zone or you've got man free (and obviously some other variations), but for the most part, there's not a ton you can do to confuse the QB other than blitz from different angles. Is this a fair assessment?
December 18th, 2008 at 10:40 PM ^
yeah thats fair. I think the philosphy is to get to the QB by confusing the O-line before somebody comes open. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But we always ran some type of 3 deep coverage. I suppose its possible to bring one of the SS types back to a 2-deep look but that seems like it would be difficult unless he just lines up deep.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:43 PM ^
Yeah...he'd have to be a hell of an athlete to get to his deep half after the snap.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:32 PM ^
Hey, I'm 44 with an ex-wife, a 10-yr old, a golden retriever and I have been working IT for 11 years. I may not be GSimms or Brian, but I follow every move Michigan football makes. I have a subscription to GBW and since RR was hired I have followed recruiting religously.
My dad took me to my first game in 1971 and we tailgated on the golf course with a another UM former graduate and life long friend of my dad's that also had season tickets. We sat in 44 38 seasts 19, 20 for 40 some years before they moved us down to row 33. My brother has my dad's old seass and I have the two right next to them.
The only school and team I ever knew growing up was Michigan. Most of the IT guys I work with are 25-34 years old and play WOW at night and on the weekends. I scour the web, MGOBLOG, WLA and GBW for anything I can get to ffed the need for Wolverine football.
I'm not an "old" guy. Although I am losing a lot of hair and what's left is gray, going white.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:37 PM ^
In another year, you're gonna be fuckin' clueless.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:47 PM ^
I was skeptical of the 3-3-5 until I saw WVU play against Oklahoma last season. They have had one of the best defenses in the country the last few years. The results speak for themselves. If that is indeed the direction our defense is heading, it can work.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:58 PM ^
where does everyone keep getting these defense stats? im looking here and wvu is 35 in total defense...
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2008&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:21 PM ^
And top 10 in PPG.
In two of the past 5 years they have been in the top 10 in yards per game and in three of the last 5, they've been in the top 10 in PPG. If you look at the "test case" thread I put all the stats there. They have succeeded at WVU. Period.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:20 AM ^
WVU was #9 in scoring defense last year:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2008&div=B&rpt=IA_teamscorde…
Here's the truly surprising stat:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2008&div=B&rpt=IA_teamnetpun…
They beat us in net punting!
December 19th, 2008 at 4:04 AM ^
U may be able to make an argument for the formation, but certainly not for the formation fitting our current personelle. The 3-3-5 takes pressure off the quarterback and gives him more time to find an open reciever. granted we have an extra safety in coverage, it still demands a lot of the db's and lb's.
It wasnt just the purdue game wer the 3-3-5 showed up, it was also on a lot of 3rd and longs, many of which were converted.
The reason that implementing it this past season was such a bad decision, is that our strength was in our dline and our pass rush, certainly not in our coverage. our corners underachieved and our safeties all looked lost. not to mention our lb's strengths are in run support, not in pass coverage.
so we gave quarterbacks all day to find recievers, and given the time, most recievers were able to break coverage.
the system demands fast lb's that are good in coverage, and safeties that are quick to diagnose the run.
given our personelle this past season, that was certainly not us.
i strongly prefer the 4-2-5 against spread offenses. that gives us more speed in the backfield than a traditional 4-3, and still puts pressure on the qb. that type of formation puts a lot of pressure on the lb's tho. it might be a good formation to utilize our converted safeties (mike jones, isaiah bell) who are a bit quicker and more geered towards pass protection.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:54 AM ^
The 3-3-5 would fit our personnel better in 2009 than it did in 2008.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:24 AM ^
You're confusing the 3-3-5 defense with the more generic "three man front". The only game in which we played a 3-3-5 was Purdue.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:22 AM ^
MUSIC:
"I've been listening to the rock and roll since Buddy Holly, and I've never heard of this Nirvana racket before, so it is clearly not good."
MICHIGAN FOOTBALL:
"I've been following football since Bump Elliot was coach, and I've never heard of the 3-3-5, so it is clearly not good."