Why We Shouldn't Freak Out About the 3-3-5

Submitted by Magnus on

I have seen several comments on the board, on the main page posts, and on The Fort where people are getting a little upset about the switch to the 3-3-5.

First of all, Brian posted a year or two ago some defensive statistics from WVU. And while I have had a long day and don't feel like going back to find that post, you may be happy to know that the 3-3-5 actually worked well for WVU. They had some good seasons defensively. The 3-3-5 is not necessarily a death knell.

But that was the Big East, so maybe you think it just won't work in the Big Ten...

HOWEVER...

The thing that most people seem concerned about is the fact that we will only have three linemen on the field, and that somehow such a personnel package will turn our defensive line into pancakes. To that I say...have you heard of the Pittsburgh Steelers? How about the San Diego Chargers? New England Patriots? Alabama Crimson Tide?

Now, all those teams run a base 3-4, but those are all good run-stopping teams (since many seem worried about Wisconsin's power run game) or have been in the recent past. And some people view a 3-3-5 as practically a 3-5-3, since those two spurs/box safeties/overhang players/whatever you choose to call them are sort of outside linebackers.

There's no reason that Ryan Van Bergen can't be Aaron Smith, that William Campbell can't be Casey Hampton, and that Mike Martin can't be Kimo Von Oelhoffen. Meanwhile, you have between 3 and 5 linebacker types shooting in and out of gaps to fill the running lanes or blitz the quarterback.

I understand the concern about having a fourth defense in four years. But the choices are as follows:

1) Play a 4-3 with an underprepared SAM such as Hawthorne or Furman.

2) Play a 4-2-5 (which would be a new defense) where you have two box safeties and still have Mouton uncomfortably playing inside.

3) Play a 3-3-5 (which would be a new defense) with the same personnel as a 4-2-5, but with different alignments.

I am not thrilled with the idea of a 3-3-5 because the assignments will once again be new, but I'm not thrilled about the other two options, either. We are severely limited by our personnel, because we lack depth at DT and at the SAM linebacker position.

We are not removing a defensive tackle. We are re-allocating said defensive tackle (likely Martin eventually; Banks in the meantime) to a 4- or 5-technique end and moving our defensive end (Roh) to OLB. The personnel stays the same. It's just a matter of how those personnel are deployed.

Any defense can be successful if it's run right, just the same as any offense can be successful. Offenses can run the triple option, the read option, I pro, run-n-shoot, etc. successfully if the execution is good enough. We can run a 3-3-5 or a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 or a 3-4 successfully, as long as we execute.

I apologize that this is probably a little disorganized. It has been a long day, and I have not been sleeping well. But hopefully it helped somebody a little bit.

Irish

March 24th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^

What I would be uneasy with is changing defenses again. I don't disagree with the 3 options that you listed but like you said it comes down to execution, and the more the players see the same plays, the better they know their assignments and theoretically they execute better. From last year you guys lost your 2 starting corners and a DE, but return 8 guys who ran the 4-3 for most the season last year.

I can see the switch being the better option if the coaching staff has zero confidence in running the 4-3 with the personnel available, but I just don't see it. Correct me if I am wrong but the 3-3-5 is a 2 gap defense, while the 4-3 was a 1 gap defense, doesn't that make the ILB's (Ezeh) decision making at the line even more important? and that wasn't really a strong point.

My impression of the switch right now is 2 fold: RR knows his job is on the line this season and is directing the switch to a scheme that he was successful with in the past and is also familiar with. If he is unsuccessful this year he wants to make sure he put everything he could on the field to win. Also I think they plan to use a lot of zone in the secondary with all the young talent and will try to create the pressure up front, with the disguised looks you were talking about.

Irish

March 25th, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^

OLB.........ILB.........OLB
DE...........DT,,,,,,,,,,DE
OT...OG...C ....OG...OT

DEs go outside the OTs, is the DT supposed to cover both sides of the C? that would leave the OLB to cover the final gaps between the OG and OT. If thats right about the DT, I was probably wrong,

MCalibur

March 25th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^

Yeah I think that's right except the DE's are in a 4 tech rather than a 5 tech. So, Nose Tackle lines up right over the ball and ends line up right over the tackles. The d-line then stunts or whatever depending on play-call.

burntorange wi…

March 25th, 2010 at 1:39 AM ^

play a 1 tech rather than a 0? i thought 0 tech was generally a goal line only technique.
im lost about ur DT comment. with how i first read it i thought u mean that the DT will play a 0 tech. but the "ends line up right over the tackles." i dont understand that part. that would mean hes lined up as a 4 tech...unless im misunderstanding wat u mean. if i am, then sorry.

MCalibur

March 25th, 2010 at 1:48 AM ^

First you need to know that I'm way over my head here. Magnus or some other coach would be better served to answer this but, I'll give it a shot.

NT lines up over the ball. From what I understand, that's a 0 technique. This is just what I read in a few spots; don't know if its right or not. A 1-tech would be the inside shoulder of one of the guards.

The DE's line up directly over the OTs; a 4-tech.

burntorange wi…

March 25th, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^

about 0 tech. 1 tech lines up on either eye of the center. 2(eye) is inside eye of guard. i reread ur comment about 10 times and i finally made the connection that u were talking about the d ends and not that the NT ends up on the tackles. im pretty sure that the DEs line up in a 4(eye) or 5 tech rather than heads up, but im not 100% positive.

Magnus

March 25th, 2010 at 5:47 AM ^

The way we play the 3-3-5 at my school (and it's only a package, not our base defense) is the following:

NT = 0 technique, head up on the center, plays both A gaps
DEs = 4 techniques, head up on tackles, play B gap
MLB = 0-off, 4 yards off center, reads and reacts, plays both A gaps
OLBs = 4-offs, 4 yards off tackles, responsible for C gap
Spurs = 4 yards outside last man on LOS, 3 yards off LOS, responsible for outside contain

So the only "2 gap" players are the nose tackle and the MLB, but it's a fairly easy read for the MLB.

Obviously, you can run all kinds of slants and stunts, but in our standard 3-3-5 package, those are the alignments and run responsibilities.

Magnus

March 25th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^

For the past couple years, we've had a couple 270- to 280-lb. monsters to put at nose tackle. One was all-district on offense and defense, and his backup was all-district on offense only (but still a good defensive player). A few years ago, we had a kid who had FBS offers but chose not to play football in college.

Before that, I don't know because I didn't coach here.

However, this year we won't have a big guy to play there. We'll probably end up playing a 185-lb. wrestler at nose tackle and slant him one way or the other.

MGoObes

March 25th, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^

this'll be the last time i say anything about this. they're not changing the defense, they're adding to it. they won't run just the 3-3-5 and even if it is the base defense, that doesn't mean they'll be in that formation every play. i've said my piece

Irish

March 25th, 2010 at 12:46 AM ^

I don't disagree and I don't expect them to run out of the 3-3-5 exclusively but there wasn't a revolution in execution when UM ran the 3-3-5 previously. This year was either 8 starters who ran a 3-4 a lot or 0 starters who ran the 3-3-5 or another new D.

MCalibur

March 25th, 2010 at 12:49 AM ^

The huge difference being that the last time Michigan ran a 335 was while there was still a huge buy-in issue on the team and after only 1 week of installation. I don't care how simple a scheme is, you need more than 1 week to debug.

I think the differences between the 344 and 335 are being overblown...from my lay perspective it seems like a simple change in nomenclature.

Magnus

March 25th, 2010 at 5:49 AM ^

I agree that we won't be exclusively 3-3-5, but Brian usually has good info, and he said that from what he's heard, that's all they've been practicing.

Anyway, whether it's a package or our base defense, I'm not too concerned.

MGoAlumnus

March 25th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

Perhaps they've been exclusively been practicing the 3-3-5 because it is the defense that needs the most work?

If you have Defense A that the team is pretty familiar with, and you have Defense B that the team has very limited experience with, and both will be used in the fall, why would you be practicing Defense A this early into Spring?

Maize and Blue…

March 25th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

right now could be lack of DTs and trying to put it in. In reality if you consider Roh a LB and Stevie Brown a box safety this looks the same as last year without the stack. Per Sam Webb on WTKA (3/25 podcast) this is a tweak not the base D.
I would suspect it to be the primary D against ND and other teams that spread the field and throw it.

burntorange wi…

March 24th, 2010 at 11:44 PM ^

hes gonna play shallow zone in coverage or put his hand in the ground and go wide? similar to sergio kindle and orakpo for texas? basically a 4-2-5 then? or is roh gonna be completely moving to a OLB. i feel that, while hes explosive, he doesnt have the elite speed necessary to cover guys on a consistent basis. he is of course plenty fast to play DE and be extremely effective. i feel that it would be too much of a change to ask a young man to do over a season when he can be put at another position and be much more effective(if he moves to OLB).

i think that the change could work. its not like u had much success(no offense, i dont think any will be taken tho) with the 4-3 defense. might as well get ur most talented players on the field(ur secondary).

MaizeNBlue

March 25th, 2010 at 1:30 AM ^

i'd imagine since Roh was a freshman last year, he'll have plenty of time to become more explosive. he did as good a job as you could ask of him last year, and was one of the few defensive players to have several positive games in the UFRs (scores and comments designed specifically to analyze how each player did by reviewing every play, all done by Brian)

MaizeNBlue

March 25th, 2010 at 1:31 AM ^

There's a huge difference between switching near the end of the season (when you've presumably practiced it relatively little compared to your base defense) and using it from from spring onward...

Magnus

March 25th, 2010 at 5:51 AM ^

Yeah, they switched to the 3-3-5 for ONE WEEK late in the 2008 season. We really shouldn't judge by that game alone, since it was an experiment. Having an entire off-season to implement a defense or a package is a little better situation.

kman23

March 25th, 2010 at 6:08 AM ^

And Michigan didn't have the right personnel for it. The key to a 3-3-5 is the NT and if your NT is under 300 pounds you're in trouble. The NT needs to eat 2 blockers (center and guard) allowing the MLB free access to the RB. If the center or guard can handle the NT by himself then the other lineman can get to the 2nd line and block the MLB. That leaves a huge hole up the middle and if you have a fast RB you can split the deep safeties (or run up and out at the diagonal between a deep safety and a CB). The key is the NT and if he can take 2 guys with him the MLB is sitting their clogging up the middle, which forces the RB outside, which then allows the speed (5 DBs) to swarm.

Maize

March 25th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^

I am under the impression that it isn't going to be completely new to us as you mention the 2008 switch and also this quote from the front page.

"Michigan used the 3-3-5 from time to time last year, most prominently in the Ohio State game when it was an effective base set that shut down Ohio State's I-formation"

That, plus this team has been practicing the majority of the spring in this formation. These guys know their responsibilities. We just need them to execute on the field.

michiganfanforlife

March 24th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^

The fan in me will follow whatever this team/staff does and assume that whatever decisions are made are the best options for the guys we have in there. I agree that it's more about he Jimmy's and the Joe's than the X's and the O's. However, the rational part of me is screaming, "Another new defense???" - I don't know what is really going on, but don't you have to give your schemes a chance to gel in the minds of your players? I feel a bit schitzo about this topic becuase I have so many conflicting thoughts. If they get Dorsey, Woolfolk, and Turner all playing at the same time out there at Safety, it could become a ballhawking secondary. Then again, great football players react on defense, and bad ones have to think and then move. How can our defensive players build up good instincts if they keep changing responsabilities every year? I can't really articulate how I truly feel about the change, but I hope it's for the best.

funkywolve

March 25th, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^

Your points about the pro teams are interesting, but those teams also have or have had some absolute studs (all-pros) on the dline. I think UM has some solid dlineman but at this point nothing that makes me think 2010 All-American.

That being said, I could not care less what they run (4-3, 3-4, 3-3-5, 2-9) just as long as they have a decent defense.

Magnus

March 25th, 2010 at 6:00 AM ^

Well, one thing about those Steelers defensive linemen I mentioned:

They're well respected because people know they're good, but not necessarily because they rack up all kinds of tackles and sacks. Their job is to take up blockers and be disruptive. The ones who are supposed to make plays are the linebackers and strong safeties.

kman23

March 25th, 2010 at 6:17 AM ^

Yeah this is key. I remember the Michigan 97 defense did this too. The d-line didn't put up huge numbers but they were respected because they made sure the LBs had nobody on them. As a result our linebackers that year racked up tackles.

If any Michigan D-lineman has near 10 sacks then something isn't right. I know Graham last year had near 10 but the scheme is different. The 3 d-lineman (RVB, Campbell, and Martin) need to clog the gaps first, then worry about the RB/QB. As a result none of these guys should have big days (10 tackles/2+ sacks) unless we abandon this scheme, we are playing an awful o-line, or a team decides to throw 80% of their offensive plays. If the d-line does their job then Roh, Mouton, and the box safeties should have huge years (75-120 tackles and 4-8 sacks).