Why We Shouldn't Freak Out About the 3-3-5
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.
'97 was a very odd year in that all three defensive linemen (Glen Steele, Josh Williams, and James Hall) were future NFL players. They were much better than the no-name "pluggers" usually thrown out there in the BoMoCarr years (Norman Heuer, anyone?). That changed near the end of Carr's run with the arrival of Gabe Watson, who was the first dominant DT in many years (when he bothered to show up, anyway).
March 25th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
I think it was pretty normal for us to churn out NFL-bound D-linemen at the time. It was more that our DL recruiting in subsequent years fell off.
BTW, don't forget Rob Renes, our NT that year. Hall was technically a LB.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:36 AM ^
I agree with Magnus on this one in that I don’t think this is all that big a deal. I’m sure he’s relieved about that. I don’t know very much but, from what I’ve read, it sounds like this could work out given the make up the team this year. Obviously the scheme has its advantages and disadvantages.
To the good: it’s supposed to be simple to implement, versatile, get’s athleticism onto the field, provides pressure from many different positions without creating a huge hole in the D, and guards against the big play.
I think the simplicity is huge because of the fact that it’s a new enough system that it could get confusing as well as the fact that a lot of the recruits we’ll need to play early are not on campus yet; hopefully they can pick up the base D quickly and start refining technique and the finer points right away.
The versatility will come in handy for making in-game and week-to-week adjustments. So that should help the young guys spool up quickly and not have to remember different assignments; the game plan should work out the necessary adjustments as opposed to relying on player experience and specific coaching points for a particular opponent.
Hopefully the multi-directional pressure and athleticism will combine with an emphasis on sound fundamentals (read: sure tackling) to produce more TFLs and improve our TO margin.
As for guarding against play, all I can say is: yes please. I can see this as good and bad in that while it forces other team to play mistake free for a long stretches, it has the distinct sound of a prevent D. It could get annoying if our blitzes don’t get home in time.
To the bad, it sounds like you’re screwed if the players don’t identify and shift correctly; that doesn’t mesh well with an overall lack of experience but hopefully the simplicity should leave more time for drilling and coaching.
Also the over aggressiveness could lead to containment issues or backside gashers. Again, I think coaching could mitigate some of this concern.
Finally, the biggest weakness is what many have mentioned already: power running teams and double TE formations. That means Wisconsin and OSU for the former and Iowa and MSU for the latter. Here again, versatility should go a long way to neutralizing this issue and, in MSU’s case at least, they typically shoot themselves in the foot enough that we should be able to make them pay for those mistakes.
Again, I’d like to hear from some coaches on this because, all of this is just from some reading I’ve done and while I think it makes sense, I have no idea how valid those strengths and weaknesses are.
Well our defense didn't exactly play well last year, so we don't have much to lose by trying something new. Our secondary got burned pretty bad on a regular, so having the 5 back there should help.
The hope going into this season was that retaining our DC and scheme would lead to significant improvement in year 2. Now, that may be a complete pipe dream, but that's why some people (not I) are upset.
Since I don't really understand defensive schemes, I look at the players on the field and since the 3-3-5 keeps the same guys as last year's D, I'm fine with it.
I don't have a coach's knowlege of football, but I did notice that the Saints played some 3-3-5 in the Super Bowl. It worked out pretty well for them, IIRC. As more offenses start to spread the field, whether they are playing the spread option or just variations of the NFL "two-minute offense," the 3-3-5 should be more appropriate in more situations.
This team will be better than last year, and we will probably all be quite entertained by the end of the season by both sides of the ball.
What we were doing wasn't working. Will this? I sure hope so.
My gut tells this this won't work, but I am not on the field, I don't spend my life designing football defenses professionally, so I really hope they are right in doing this.
I love defenses that give flexibility. The zone blitz gained so much prevalence in part because it confused quarterbacks. Ends and Tackles started making INT's because the were standing where the QB never bothered to look. Uncertainty can create hesitation, happy feet, and trying to place the ball instead of throwing it. All of these are good for the D. When the field is full of folks who could be twisting, stunting, blitzing, dropping, or playing straight up the OC can't necessarily call plays against personnel groupings (4 wides v. 4 down, power v. 3 down, etc) and the QB has extra mental pressure put on him. Add to that the fact that bad decisions are more likely to become turnovers or even points and it's beautiful.
For reference, think of the punt block formation the Broncos successfully pulled on key third down stops two years ago. The QB and O Line had no way of knowing who was coming and who was dropping, since there were 9 guys within two yards of the LOS, all capable of blitzing or covering effectively.
That being said, I also love having speed on the field so that winged helmets can fly more quickly to the football. Having more speed on the field marginalizes the ability of the Offense to get wide. The effectiveness of the screen to the RB is minimized, since the athletes rushing the QB can more quickly reverse course and locate/track down the receiver.
Think like a junkie: the more speed, the better.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
IMO, Michigan will more than likely run more of the 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 depending on which team we face. Your Purdue, Minn., Northwesterns would get the 3-3-5 look where as O. State, Michigan St. and Penn. St. would get more of a 4-2-5 look.
When watching TCU or Nebraska's defense, the 4-2-5 works really good, but has some holes for spread type offenses. When Rich was in the Big East, the 3-3-5 worked well because almost everyone ran the spread in that conference.
With the class that we had I was almost betting we were gonna be converting to this defense full time, we have ALOT of athletes at DB coming in.
http://ezinearticles.com/?4-2-5-Defense---Five-Reasons-to-Use-It&id=200…
March 25th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
The biggest reason why we shouldn't freak out is it is just a package that they are adding to the mix for the Purdue and Illinois of the world, or anyone else that decides they want to spread it out on a given day.They are not running it exclusively. Sam Webb has mentioned it various times on his radio program that it was just a package, when people were calling in with mass hysteria on that program.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
Now I'm not certain, but didn't Florida (the number 1 or 2 defense in the country last year) run a 3-3-5??
March 25th, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
Florida does run the 3-3-5, but I'm not sure if they are the best comparison. They have enough talent to be dominant with a variety of schemes.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the 3-3-5
(insert MS Paint here, I'm wise enough to leave that to the pros)
I see what you did there...and I like it.
March 25th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
My Simple worry is this...when Gerg arrived last year we were told he is the master of the 4-3 under defense and we spent all of last year for the most part implementing this defense. So now we are putting in a defense our D coordinator is unfamiliar with and has never used on a consistent basis in his career which has spanned, what 30 years? Freaking great! This is honestly the first time I have a real concern about this staff, I am still confident things work out, but putting in a new defense for the umpteenth year in a row seems like a joke to me...
Aug
March 25th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
The only thing is it's the easiest to teach and for alot of new freshman coming that we want to contribute, it is the easiest to learn aswell.
We taught the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 to our little league football team in 9 practices and they did very well with it. You as a player have 1 or 2 assignment and it allows you to play faster but gives you alot disguises and crazy blitz packages you can put in.
but I think there is simply way too much anxiety and stress about defensive scheme. Our issues on D have mainly revolved around tackling (or lack thereof), lack of talented depth (and depth could possibly explain poor tackling late in games) and mental lapses in the back seven. How much of this stuff can be attributed to scheme? Not much, IME.
When we win the Rose Bowl, you will all forget we ever had this conversation.