Technical Question: 3-3-5 vs. 4-2-5
With the goal of continuous education, I've been trying to learn more about defensive schemes, so I took Brian's (?) recommendation and read: http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/10/5/1731787/fixing-the-michigan-defense…
Here's where I get lost: If a D switches to 4-2-5 from 3-3-5 b/c the linebackers are the weakest link, doesn't this leave more of the middle of the field open (the territory the LBs wold be responsible for covering)?
Perhaps the 4-2-5 is based on one of the following assumptions:
1) the DBs would step up and cover the middle?
2) The added rusher will take more time away from the QB, so it'll be harder to execute plays?
To counter, since the DBs are in soft zone, unless the DBs are better in coverage - even on a TE or a short crossing route over the middle, I don't see how this is an improvement. Taking time away from the QB makes sense, but wouldn't he just check down to the middle LB territory where there are now only two bodies instead of three?
Maybe the goal is simply to have the best 11 out there and let their talent compensate?
I'm not for or against one way or another, but simply trying to understand the theoretical rationale. If anyone could help that would be excellent.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^
4-2-5 and 3-3-5 are simply alignments, and any combination of coverages etc can be run out of them.
I think what maize and brew is asking for, is more 4 man rush and less three man, as this will theoretically give the qb less time to pick apart our defense.
However, if our secondary doesn't get properly dropped into their zones, and/or recognize what is happening on the field, alignments won't matter and neither will the number of rushers. In the case of Indiana last week, Chappell was able to see our blitzes and hit hot routes pretty effectively when we came at him.
Now, a 4-2-5 defense would give us some added "beef" up front and theoretically make the running game more difficult for MSU for a variety of reasons.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^
I see, so we could line up 335 and then play 425 by adding another pass rusher. Thanks.
October 6th, 2010 at 9:04 PM ^
absolutely, and y'ou'll see Michigan do this a good bit. One of the features of the 3-3-5 is it's "flexibility"..and Roh can move from 3-3-5 LB to DE in a 4 man front easily.
One of the real questions is, is Roh effective enough as a LB in the 3-3-5 and would he be more effective playing DE/deathbacker in a 4 man front and occassionally droping into coverage as a suprise.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
I could be wrong, But I think the 4-2-5 was one of the reasons we kept getting gashed up the middle by Appalachain St. One of their players even mentioned how on film we always left the middle of the field open, and that was how they prepared for us. In GERG's case, one of those DBs is a hybrid safety/linebacker anyway so I guess we are covered either way? I probably have no clue what I'm talking about.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^
It's not about the scheme or alignment, It's more about maintaining gap resposibility against zone read teams. Against Appy state, our defense was unprepared (IMHO) to face a squad that ran their offense very effeciently and was better than Michigan anticipated.
Teams that run option oriented offenses really stress you ability to play gap sound defense and your players ability to be disciplined. If you miss assignments or "free lance" you'll get burned.
Schemes should "fit" your teams talent. In rare instances, they can be more effective against certain styles of offensive play.
Personally, I think you'll see more 4 man fronts this week against MSU. Probably the under shifted front with Roh as the stand-up death backer. Mostly, because this makes it more difficult to run some of MSU's favorite power run plays, and gap block us up front.
October 6th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
Whether they call it the 3-3-5 with another rusher or simply the 4-2-5, the point seems to be that UM needs to send more pressure against QBs, especially ones that are not threats to run frequently. Right now, the LBs are simply not good enough in coverage to hold up with a 3-man rush in front of them, so sending a hybrid DL/LB guy will hopefully give UM enough of a push to either record some sacks or rush throws. At this point, the defense is only going to slow down good offenses if they can generate turnovers or put offenses in long downs and distances. The 4-2-5, if employed in specific circumstances, will help to force throws or create turnovers, and that is probably the only way the defense will succeed consistently all year.
I know, not a particularly insightful response, but that seems to be the point of the Maize & Brew article, and is one that I agree with.
October 6th, 2010 at 8:17 PM ^
I would like to see a 4-2-5 this week that at times will look like a 4-4 by putting T. Gordon/Johnson and Kovacs in the box on running downs. Along with helping stop the run, this would also allow us to play Cover 3 with Cam Gordan having deep middle of the field, and our 2 corners having the other deep 3rds of the field.
Even if we stay in a 3-3-5 I would like to see us rush at least 4 a majority of the time. If you rush 4 people you still have 7 defenders to cover at most 5 wr's. If we can even get a little bit of pressure on Cousins that would play to our advantage.
October 6th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
I think the coaches are either afraid to expose a reall weak secondary by rushing more and dropping fewer, or they are trying to keep some of their blitz packages hidden for future use.
By dropping eight and rushing 3, theoretically you put the most pressure on the most talented Michigan defenders, the front 3, so I see some of the logic involved here. Against some QBs I think you'll see more blitzing..especially guys who don't seem able to see the blitz coming and make the right throw. Chappell did a really good job against our blitzes.
October 6th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
The MaizenBrew article made a good point about watching how effective Roh was in the UConn game. I'll bet we run more 4-man fronts against Sparty to counteract their power runs, just like against UConn. We'll switch to a 3-man front if up enough and MSU has to go strictly to the pass. I've heard scouting that says Cousins shows a dramatic deterioration in the face of pressure.
As for the point above on spread teams and option responsibilities, McShay had a great piece on one of the collge football shows. (Yeah, I know; I was surprised too.) He showed a video where Wisky ran outside. MSU's end crashed hard inside; the corner crashed so hard he took out Jones, and the run went for an easy td. He then showed a second one, and said, "No, this isn't a replay. It just happened again." It did.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:45 AM ^
Or at least ignores what the coaches have been saying from Spring Practice to the present. Which is that the scheme is to have 3 hybrid positions and be very flexible game to game and within a game.
Also the MaizenBrew article mentions Brandon Herron as an asset at Linebacker but doesn't mention that he's been injured for 3 games. So what brilliant conclusion are they coming to that the coaches don't already know?
I think it's pretty simple. we are slowly seeing the young secondary players make an appearance, one of our talented LB's has been missing, and forcing Roh and Kovacs into positions that they aren't the best at.
It did mention that an experienced QB was able to punish most of our blitzes. Yet everyone is saying "put more people against the QB". I just don't get that idiocy. I mean 3 men on 6 is a struggle, but what I thought was amazing and a positive sign was that by the 4th quarter, occasionally the 8 players dropping into pass coverage, actually covered everyone until the 3 on 6 could hit the QB.
Moving to the MSU game I expect to see a 4 man line almost the entire game. Mostly because MSU doesn't have the same talent at QB and WR, and does want to run the ball. Double hurray that Herron will be back. Expect to see Obi out there trying to not get blocked and plugging some run holes. And for me the most exciting part, I'm hoping to see Black and Roh on opposite sides of the D-Line.
I don't expect any of the secondary to be ready for Man Coverage at the MSU game, but I am excited to see how much before the OSU game it could happen. Did anyone catch that Floyd at Safety was faking blitz from the middle, then sprinting back to coverage? What's going to happen when the corners can lock down and we can gamble on one safety as well as leave the 3 LB's back to cover the flats?
Stop arguing the scheme, the limitation is the players experience and speed. With very little of it combined in single players. But that is slowly changing game by game.