Of Coordinators and Such

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2012, 02:32:04 PM »

I liked the 1-10 defense we had in 2010.

GH2001 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2012, 02:34:44 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on January 04, 2012, 01:06:29 PM

The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box. Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6. The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments. Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is.

The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back. If they can't, then you're screwed. So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR. Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur.

It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes. Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a man so the spurs can play closer to the box. They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense. The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing. If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play.

I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route.

The key piece is "threatening" the box. Not "in" the box. The base set of it is 6 in the box thus it's name. You are right though, it is risk/reward but from what I have seen it do against decent teams, it seems to be more risk than reward. Good teams with good OL's will be able to adjust. Especially if they also have a decent WR that can burn someone in one on one coverage and the QB is bright enough to recognize it quickly.

AU_Tiger_2000 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2012, 02:59:21 PM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on January 04, 2012, 02:25:49 PM

Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.

You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.

From what I remember it was a DC at Washington State that first started running the 3-3-5. The head coach asked him if the defense would be better next year and the DC said not unless they changed something drastic since it would be the same players running the same schemes as the year before. So the HC told him to try something drastic.

Really it is just a version of an old school 3-5 that has been used since guys wore leather helmets.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2012, 03:05:04 PM »

I think it's a given that the 3-3-5 requires slanting of the main 2-guard while the linebacker keys on the tight end read. But, that can only be effective if the corners, which in this defense are really hybrid end strikers, recognize the split in zone and off-pressure coverage. You don't necessarily need big linebackers to fill the mesh as long as a quick weakside safety is consistent with his kick outs.

It's a fairly simple concept but I wouldn't trust a walk on to call it.

The Six · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2012, 03:07:05 PM »

Quote from: AU_Tiger_2000 on January 04, 2012, 02:59:21 PM

Really it is just a version of an old school 3-5 that has been used since guys wore leather helmets.

My high school ran what our coaches called the Split Defense (4-4-3) because nearly every team we played was running the Wing-T, the Wishbone, or the power I. I can count on one hand the number of teams I saw in four years that every lined up with more than 3 WRs or in the shotgun and one of those teams was my high school who ran a version of what the Bobby Ross Chargers were running at the time.

ssgaufan · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2012, 03:32:03 PM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on January 04, 2012, 03:07:05 PM

My high school ran what our coaches called the Split Defense (4-4-3) because nearly every team we played was running the Wing-T, the Wishbone, or the power I. I can count on one hand the number of teams I saw in four years that every lined up with more than 3 WRs or in the shotgun and one of those teams was my high school who ran a version of what the Bobby Ross Chargers were running at the time.

We just called that the 4-4 stack and it was our base defense. The two meanest motherfuckers on our team were the MLBs.

The Six · « **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2012, 04:01:04 PM »

Quote from: ssgaufan on January 04, 2012, 03:32:03 PM

We just called that the 4-4 stack and it was our base defense. The two meanest motherfuckers on our team were the MLBs.

Stack. That's the word I couldn't remember. Thanks. Yes, two baddest dudes were the MLBs. I recall one being used in the occassional 5 man front as the "quick nose" who's job it was to disrupt and destroy.

I'm amazed how many of the high school teams in this state (particularly in 5A and 6A) run the "spread" or some version of it on offense. When I was in high school in the 90s that would have gotten you fired just for suggesting it.

GH2001 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 04, 2012, 04:06:06 PM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on January 04, 2012, 04:01:04 PM

Stack. That's the word I couldn't remember. Thanks.

I'm amazed how many of the high school teams in this state (particularly in 5A and 6A) run the "spread" or some version of it. When I was in high school in the 90s that would have gotten you fired just for suggesting it.

As JR has said 1000 times, its just the Wing T in different clothing.

My HS still runs the same Wing T that they did when I was there in 1994.

JR4AU · « **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2012, 04:22:32 PM »

Quote from: J. Newcastle on January 04, 2012, 02:25:49 PM

Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.

You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.

There are some different variants of the 3-3 defense, but for the most part, the one thing that holds true is that they want to confuse blocking schemes with slanting and blitzing from different spots. I don't like it for an SEC defense.

Bottom line, defense is about "want to" first and foremost, getting lined up right, and tackling. We've not tackled well the last 3 years, and we were not aggressive under Roof.

JR4AU · « **Reply #29 on:** January 04, 2012, 04:36:30 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on January 04, 2012, 04:06:06 PM

As JR has said 1000 times, its just the Wing T in different clothing.

My HS still runs the same Wing T that they did when I was there in 1994.

What I said was what Malzahn runs is largely based in the Delaware Wing T. What he does is quite different from most of the pass oriented spreads IE Air Raid, but you're seeing his influence in a lot of other teams too.

Which HS?

The Wing T is probably one of the most prevalent HS offenses today. Some are just getting in the gun to run it though, but some are true to the Delaware version too.

At the college level, the Wing T is like the Run and Shoot. Nobody runs either exactly as it was designed, but you see elements of both in almost every offense out there. June Jones is the closest to running the "real" R&S, but even he's added his own touches.

Personally, I'd like to see someone brought in to run the offense that is a Lonesome Polecat Offense guru.

War Eagle!!! · « **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2012, 05:45:38 PM »

Quote from: Snaggletiger on January 04, 2012, 03:05:04 PM

I think it's a given that the 3-3-5 requires slanting of the main 2-guard while the linebacker keys on the tight end read. But, that can only be effective if the corners, which in this defense are really hybrid end strikers, recognize the split in zone and off-pressure coverage. You don't necessarily need big linebackers to fill the mesh as long as a quick weakside safety is consistent with his kick outs.

It's a fairly simple concept but I wouldn't trust a walk on to call it.

I guess everyone glossed over this one...

Nice hustle dog...

Godfather · « **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2012, 06:05:27 PM »

How about a 5-2? Seems to work well for me and my 7 time NC Auburn Tigers!

JR4AU · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2012, 06:19:19 PM »

Quote from: War Eagle!!! on January 04, 2012, 05:45:38 PM

I guess everyone glossed over this one...

Nice hustle dog...

That's cuz everybody knows you don't run a 2-guard with off pressure coverage. Sheesh!

jmar · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2012, 07:38:45 PM »

Well the 3-3-5 will be in play against Dabo tonight.
Also WVA doesn't recruit like Auburn
and Casteel was never at Michigan AND LSU made most look bad with superior talent.

I like McCall for OC moreso but I'm for most any defensive scheme that leads us to recruit larger talent in order to stay competitive.

AWK · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:18:18 PM »

Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:21:57 PM »

I hear that they're going to give Neiko Thorpe the DC position.

Buzz Killington · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:23:05 PM »

Like I have said many times before, that 3-3-5 is awesome...

JR4AU · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:23:46 PM »

Quote from: AWK on January 04, 2012, 10:18:18 PM

Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?

I've been saying that a while. Just need a guy on the sideline to relay the play calls off the innerwebz from all the football geniuses.

War Eagle!!! · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:23:47 PM »

Quote from: AWK on January 04, 2012, 10:18:18 PM

Why hire out when we have like 13 Defensive coordinators in this thread?

Word. I vote for snags...he seems to have a good grip on the 2 guard slant, off pressure coverage and hybrid end strikers...

JR4AU · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:25:51 PM »

Quote from: War Eagle!!! on January 04, 2012, 10:23:47 PM

Word. I vote for snags...he seems to have a good grip on the 2 guard slant, off pressure coverage and hybrid end strikers...

It's that gawd dang tamper 2 we a been running!