Will the 3-3-5 Stack Hurt Recruiting?

Submitted by jokenjin on
First of all, this is not a thread that is designed to bash the 3-3-5, merely a concern that I have that on how it will affect recruiting and some larger scale issues in college football. Also, this post will be moot if we indeed are not running the 3-3-5. I have long held the belief that college football is a farm systme for the NFL (kind of a "duh" comment here) and it is virutally every kid's dream to make it to the next level, whatever it takes. While kids are going to go where they want to go, for whatever reason, be it early playing time, systems that will fit their playing style or something under the table, they want to end up in the NFL. With that said, Michigan used to be an NFL factory, sending backs, quarterbacks, receivers, offensive and defensive lineman and linebackers to the NFL. Safeties not so much and except for three people (Law, Woodson and M. Jackson), not so much for cornerbacks either (yes, I know Leon Hall was drafted in the first round, but he's not doing so well). We used to run "pro-style" offenses because they were pretty similar to what was run in the pros, but with the implementation of the 3-3-5, that's going to change. NO ONE runs the 3-3-5 in the pros and with the exception of the Ravens who come up with the most ridiculous defensive alignments I have ever seen (see Haloti Ngata drop into coverage or rushing just one down defensive lineman and dropping 10 into zone coverage), it's just not seen in the NFL. Will us running this system affect recruiting to a certain degree? Personally, I'm torn. It depends on what the various responsibilities are for the positions. I'm convinced that the 3-3-5 is pretty much the 3-4 defense except for an outside linebacker has been converted into a safety (a robber/rover type). It does seem that a lot of the defenders we have are 3-3-5 type players (see all the safety/linebacker hybrids that we're recruiting). Could RichRod and whomever recruits the defensive player convince recruits that the 3-3-5 is just a variation of the 3-4 to alleviate concerns that they're being recruited into running a "gimmick" defense? The other stance I have is that if you're a great athlete, then it's going to show, no matter what system you run. You will perform regardless of the situation, so running the 3-3-5, 4-3 or whatever won't be an issue. That being said, I admittedly used to watch WVU football long before RichRod came over to see their offense and never really paid attention to their defense. I feel as if the 3-3-5 was notoriously easy to run against, but I'm not positive. It just seemed like physical teams would be able to drive the lineman off the line of scrimmage and get their hands on the second level defenders to create running lanes. I really wish I could rely on the whole talent-level argument for this, but after seeing the team this year, I am reluctant to use that argument. Also, we need to tackle, as in wrap up and not this crap where people are just throwing shoulders into people. I'd love to hear other comments and thoughts.

Magnus

December 18th, 2008 at 10:19 AM ^

The only defensive position where the 3-3-5 defense might hurt us is the weakside defensive end position. However, if we don't have that position on our team, then what does it matter if it hurts our recruiting? Also, please review WVU's run defense statistics from the last several years. People say it's weak against the run simply because there are fewer "big guys" on the field. If that were the case, the Pittsburgh Steelers wouldn't have one of the best defenses in NFL history while only using three linemen.

Magnus

December 18th, 2008 at 10:21 AM ^

I didn't see many instances where we tried to tackle by "throwing shoulders into people." I saw bad angles and an unwillingness to drive through ballcarriers.

mstier

December 18th, 2008 at 10:26 AM ^

Nick Saban implemented a 3-4 defense this year and currently has four 4* DL recruits and one 3* DL recruit. Given the performance of their defense, I see the 3-4 staying and they've still been able to recruit great guys. Anyway, I don't just want good "talent". I want the best talent that will fit our system. I don't need guys to be superman, I just need them to keep their assignments and make tackles. That said, what qualifies as hurting the recruiting? I'm not concerned with the NFL. I don't watch it. I watch college football. So if we lose out on some NFL caliber guys I'm okay with that as long as we have the guys to make the plays their asked to make because that is what wins games.

Magnus

December 18th, 2008 at 10:30 AM ^

I posts this yesterday on another thread, but... Plenty of NFL teams run 3-man fronts. So that won't be a problem. Plenty of NFL teams use three linebackers, and these linebackers will even understand the 4-LB schemes better. So that won't be a problem. Every NFL team uses a strong safety. We'll have two! And every NFL team uses corners and free safeties. Check.

dex

December 18th, 2008 at 11:30 AM ^

The NFL is paying DTs more and more and more each year - and the guys making the big money are the monsters that you have to put two blockers on at all times. Knowing that, what exactly is there to deter a DT from playing in a 3-4 or 3-3-5 defense? Scouts who see, hypothetical example here, Will Campbell come in, bulk up more, and consistently force a double team in a 3 man front are going to draft him and pay him for that ability. And pay him very, very well.

drewsharp64

December 18th, 2008 at 11:35 AM ^

but not everyteam runs the 3-3-5. the argument is a fair one, with the fact that rich just does not put alot of talent in the pros. the bottom line is college football is a springboard to the pros for these kids and the best athletes are going to want to play for a coach and program that is known as nfl pipelines. i dont know what the other guy was saying. i like to see wolverines in the pros. who doesnt love watching woodley on the cover of si. or tom brady and his three super bowl rings?

chitownblue (not verified)

December 18th, 2008 at 11:36 AM ^

The first priority of Michigan football is to succeed at being Michigan football - not to put players in the NFL. Thus, since the 3-3-5 succeeded at WVU, it stands to reason that it CAN succeed at Michigan. That is the primary concern. And the idea that scheme somehow dictates how the NFL thinks kids can play is wrong - as if kids playing a 3-man front won't be considered by NFL teams that run a 4-man. LaMarr Woodley was a college defensive end (after being a college OLB in a 4-3) drafted to play LB - do you think he knew ANY linebacking schemes? Cato June and Brian Urlacher were safaties drafted to play LB. Antwan Randle-El was a QB drafted to play WR. The point is that all these kids played in schemes that in no way prepared them to play the specific assignments that they received as pros. Rather, they were drafted based on their TALENT.

turbo cool

December 18th, 2008 at 2:09 PM ^

i agree. i feel like this argument is just another issue for michigan fans to bitch out. the 1st priority is to be good at michigan. and if you excel and are great at michigan, i'm confident that you'll get a shot in the pros.

Magnus

December 18th, 2008 at 11:39 AM ^

Yeah, just look at the other Big East teams pouring talent into the NFL! UConn with Dan Orlovsky, Rutgers with...uhhh...Ray Rice. Cincinnati with...uhhh...erm...Kenyon Martin! Rich Rodriguez only produced Steve Slaton, Adam Jones, and Chris Henry. Rodriguez blows. Let's fucking fire him. Has anybody heard if Gene Chizik needs a job?

dex

December 18th, 2008 at 11:50 AM ^

Brian Brohm! Getting beat out by Matt Flynn in training camp with the Packers! Rodriguez not only put his share of guys in the pros with the minimal talent at WVU, but Pac-Man is an All-Pro DB when he isn't suspended (not Rod's fault, before sharp chimes in), and Slaton has been a war machine since Houston really unleashed him. Do you people really think that if a kid comes to Michigan, the team on TV every single week even when they blow, and is a standout, that he won't get the pub and won't be drafted? You've gotta be kidding me.