(I'm reposting this comment so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle)
Hey Brian,
I just wanted to let you know that even though I'm a Buckeye for life, these last two weeks have turned me into a diligent mgoblog reader. I didn't come here to gloat, just for analysis, and I'm going to stay for the humor and the wit. Keep up the good work, and even though I hope to continue our spirited rivalry, I look forward to doing it in a spirit of mutual respect.
Jeff, you forgot to say: "1-5 !!!! We own you !!!!"
Brian, I really wish you would do someresearch before posting, this is starting to get a little silly.
DanK, I will never argue with you again.
This is an example of the superiority of the new media.
Holy frijoles, that was awesome. Brian (and DanK), you're setting a new standard for sports blogging. Great stuff!
Great stuff. I'm going to read most of it again when I have more time. I still think the bottom line is that this is a poor scheme to fit the personnel problem.
Unbelievable.
God, I feel like Unfrozen Caveman Football Fan after reading that, but it was persuasive as hell. Then again, your modern ways confuse and frighten me. Excellent work, and one of the non-kitten related reasons I come here every day.
My only question is presuming that the strength, and by "strength" I mean "area of the defense that sucks the least" is the DL, the coaches may feel that taking a DL off the field in favor of another soft and nummy DB-type is not putting the best players on the field. I'm by no means defending this decision, I'm just saying that may be the justification given if one were given.
That was all great stuff. It bummed me out more somehow...? but good stuff none the less. I would however like to know from someone why our highly touted offense is tanking to such a crazy extreme as well. I mean excluding the fact that we run a predictable offense, Henne being out with injury and Mallet mach 4 passes. WHY? WE SUCKA SO BAD!...?
Interesting analysis but I'm pretty sure that losing Branch, Harris and Barringer also has something to do with being soft up the middle.
More on the 3-3-5. If the DL goes one on one with the G-C-G trio and the tackles can release, as long as the OLBs line up wide enough there is still contain (or at the very least the T is occupied blocking him) and the MLB is still free to flow to the ball. The likelyhood of a run up the gut is greatly lessened because the there is alot of traffic. If either end can force a double team the OLB is completely unblocked. The D can also run blitz one of the 3 LBs who should be able to get into the backfield fairly readily, especially once it's established how the OL is trying to block the play.
Taking it one step further, when you play a spread O with a dual threat QB, you want to stop the run AND make the QB stay in the pocket. I'd rather not even rush the QB aggressively for a sack but instead keep the pocket contained and try to collapse it enough to make him feel the pressure. How many times in the past 2 games did a UM defender break into the backfield, bear down on the QB and get juked, allowing the QB out for a big ground gain? You still gotta cover downfield but I'd much rather the QB be forced to stay home and throw. Added benefit is the DBs can fully concentrate on coverage. It's definitely on their minds when the defensive front can't contain and the QB could be running up their backs at any moment.
Very nice analysis from DanK. There are *many* defensive coordinators out there that believe the 3-3-5 nickel is the best defense against the spread. However, I think it's probably more common in a 3-3-5 to see defensive ends with two-gap responsibility (controlling the guard-tackle gap as well as keeping containment on the pocket). What the defense has to avoid is letting the offensive tackles release onto the outside linebackers; otherwise, outside containment is too easily broken. And you can bet that the alignment of the defensive ends is one of the first two things that the quarterback checks at the line... which is why I wish we would run more pre-snap shifts to confuse the blocking.
It's also worthwhile to note that an even front formation can be overshifted or undershifted to change the dynamics of the line play. It's too much to explain without diagrams... maybe I'll blog about it myself a bit later. In the Herrmann days we would often play an undershift. I don't think I see that as much under English.
I think that guy with the slides is an idiot. /self-dep. humor.
aside from other unimportant typos/mispellings, the 2nd slide should read:
Tackle & center wash out MLBs.
sometimes it was the center, other times it was a guard. but the slide showed the center releasing.
a couple more points Mr. Weymouth suggests:
1) DEs overrunning the play: this was certianly true most/all of the time. but i wouldn't describe Crable as irresponsible here. he had to hold his ground in case the QB kept the ball. in just about every play i saw, Crable was in the correct position for the potential QB keeper. i suspect that's part of the reason dixon optioned to hand off 99% of the time: Crable's proper positioning made the descision for Dixon. the other DE (BGraham?) however.....
Although I will say this: in this skeme (the 4-2) positioning Crable as the DE responsible for the QB is a good move personnel-wise. he's the best athlete, and you can't put him in the middle.
2) blitzing vs the spread-option QB: i tend to lean against it. at least sending 5-6-7 guys every time. sure you have to blitz, but do it situationally and responsibly. my point here is this: according to anyone (i'll refer to brian's preview specifically) you'd rather have dixon throw than run. i know those long passes looked pretty, but i think they were the result of blow coverage in the secondary. safety help over the top* would have helped and certainly better coverage/technique by the CBs would have been nice. plus, i think they were fairly easy (primary) reads.
* due to the success of the running game, our safety may have had to worry about the run more than one would like.
but i digress...the point is, all out run blitzing sounds good, but the spread option relies on short routes (for the most part) in the passing game. if you all-out blitz, you better play the WRs tight to the LoS at the snap..otherwise it's troy smith '06 all over again (quick 'dink-en-dunk' passing). if you blitz and lose contain, it's VY '05RB all over again. i'd guess that for QBs like Dixon, blitzing == pull it down and make a play w/ your feet.
if i were to blitz vs the spread-option, i'd send 5, maybe 6 on occasion, but keep a spy (Crable) back incase containment is broken. I'd rather have Dixon-type QBs beat me by making reads, checking down, and throwing between LBs, than running.
or, i'm completely full of (sh)it.
Ideally the defensive scheme should be mixed up. Don't use either the odd or even man fronts exclusively (unless one of them just keeps on working). Remember, the D wants to confuse the blocking assignments of the O-linemen, too. The perfect scenario is to have one of their big uglies drfiting out into space confusedly looking for someone to block. Gee, haven't we seen OUR o-linemen do that a whole bunch the last few years?? Predictability kills on both sides of the ball when there isn't a dominant talent advantage. Michigan does not have a dominant talent advantage this year.
We did have that advantage last year. Hence, this year we have to mix it up: odd-man fronts, even-man fronts, safety blitzes, etc.
Finally, after (painfully) watching the game again with TiVo/slo-mo, I think the Ore-groan game would've been competitve if #1) Henne didn't have his head up his ass, and #2) we could fucking TACKLE!
re UM CAUP '91: It's usually difficult to switch from an odd-front to an even-front, because it requires different personnel. If you don't have much depth at the defensive line, and you don't have the luxury of shuffling different guys in for the different fronts, then having your starters learn all the correct techniques and keys for both styles is probably too much to ask.
The thing that bothers me the most is that, IF we have a shortage of talent on defense, we are the worst judges of talent in college football (or the best at transforming talent from potentially good to crap). And last year's studs refute that (unless the trend just kicked in magically all at once for everyone). I break this down in this post, and not only was our talent vastly superior to Wisconsin at the start, it is currently far more experienced at linebacker and safety (and just as experienced at corner)! We had better raw material than LSU, for chrissake. So what gives?
Scheme, as DanK says and others have proposed. Has to be: Ockham's Razor. Which is more sensible - that a team with a recent history of great defensive players (meaning good recruiting judgment) suddenly does a 180 and lands only overrated, sucky recruits, or that the current scheme is confusing, inappropriate and poorly taught?
Meaning if Brett Bulimia or Bo Pelini were coaching our players, we would be talking about how nice our defense is. True? If true, there is hope for a turnaround and this talent to shine. If not true, if Graham sucks and Thompson sucks and Engleman sucks and Adams suck and Ferrara sucks, then WTF? Did we hit the lottery of bad recruiting right on the heels of the jackpot? Of course not.
I have hope this defense does not suck, this COACHING sucks. Hopefully Carr puts his hands back on the when and, since he does know defense, salvages this season.
NOTE: I don't discount losing a lot of key players or suggest that there wouldn't be a dropoff from last year's defense, but from all-world to totally horridness? I don't think so.
Also, re blitzing: I agree with DanK that we can't afford to blitz that much; we don't have the lockdown corners that can cover one-on-one if the blitz gets picked up. But we should have a few blitz packages that bring pressure from different places. There was a lot of criticism of the "Taylor drops back as a spy" play from the App St game, but I think that was English's attempt at a zone blitz to confuse the offensive reads. Hey, at least he tried.
more... yea talent, tackling, experience have alot to do with it. my point is this: when Michigan plays ASU,UO in 07, NW in 00, MSU a couple times....giving up 40-50pts and 5-600 yards can't be attributed to ONE single thing (talent, tackling, skeme, AMSHG). it has to be LOTS of things (imo, skeme primarily) that lead to a team like M giving up 8-9 yards/play. as good as oregon looked (especially #10 + 28) they are not USC/the Colts. as bad as M looked, we are not EMU/Buffalo.
Jason- actually it doesn't require a change in personnel... it's just a matter of having crable standup, and shifting the other 3 guys to an odd-man front.
Ken- i agree: a 4 man line can certainly move to an 'odd' line up. but M didn't even do that. not once. according to the book listed, that's exactly what Herrman did vs purdue at some point, iirc. one sad conclusion i made after thinking about this stuff is that herrman may have been a better choice for D-coord for these 2 games.
One weakness I have noted... UM needs a viable sub for Taylor. He is quick off the ball and has good power, but he is bulky and runs out of gas on these long drives. If the defense is getting 3-and-outs, it's no big deal. Maybe the coaches have no other options.
ken, i think i saw the only one who bitched about dropping TT as a spy.
Mdan...i really don't think it's an either/or situation. iow, player talent/experience and coaching are not mutually exclusive. it's a melting pot if different individual deficiencies that has led to these 2 defensive buttnuggets. on D, we're not as talented/speedy as USC, but we do have more talent than EMU et al.
inexperience at key spots, 'meh' talent at others, and poor skeme decisions by the staff are all culpable.
I thought we used a lot more 3-3-5 vs. spread option teams last year. I know we'd always show some nickel, too. But I thought the bulk of it was 3-3-5.
If only there were a blog out there that charted these things ...
DanK-
So the question is Crable down vs Crable up, and not Crable vs add'l DB?
FWIW, West Virginia runs a 3-3-5 and they'd give up 400 ypg to the Little Sisters of Charity. I believe Bama ran a lot of 3-3-5 last year too, without much success. On the other hand, last year's excellent Florida defense spent a lot of time in 4-2-5, including in the game against OSU.
No doubt much of the difference in results can be attributed to personnel (Reggie Nelson makes any scheme look good), but I would suggest that the 3-3-5 should not be seen as an instant solution to your problems.
DanK, you're right, of course. I am being simplistic, but mainly to refute the idea that we just don't have any talent, which is the direction the talk goes when we refer to Graham and Sears and Adams and Thompson and others. I think that's a cop out. We have talent enough that a clever scheme and good coaching could make it serviceable in 2007.
BTW, having missed the game on Saturday (a blessing), did BGraham and Mouton get any PT? Seems to me that a D (3-3) of
BGraham-Taylor-Jamison (Johnson subbing the tiring Taylor)
Crable-Mouton-Thompson (CGraham and Ezeh subbing)
could be serviceable.
I have a friend who played SS for Bo in the mid-80's. He said what Bo always used to do when they played against one of these little darty QBs is put his fastest, hardest hitting tackler on him. The whole week of practice before the game Bo would scream at this designated Wolf (and I paraphrase): "Son, you hit that MOTHERFUCKER in the MOUTH on EVERY fucking play! Do you HEAR me!! The quarterback is LIVE on every goddamn play! Understand?!?! So you HIT that FUCKER every SINGLE play!! You make that piece of shit stop wanting to run around out there! GOT IT?!?!"
(He said that in practice Bo had the filthiest mouth of anyone he's ever met.)
My friend also said that this would've caused Dixon to be DECAPITATED on those cutesy Statue of Liberty plays where he's just standing there with no blockers protecting him.
He also reminded me that English bragged last year that his defence would be "violent." So where is the violence, Ronny??!?!?
How many QBs did we knock out of the game last year? A BUNCH.
So how come we didn't KNOCK OUT these two little fucking piss-ants who TORCHED us this year?
Crable in particular was the most fundamentally sound DE we had. However, at only 245 pounds, if an offensive linemen gets his hands on you, it's very difficult to seperate and make a tackle. Crable's game is speed.
I'd actually use a 5-1-5 defense if I had the choice...and I agree with DanK, that a man over the C is very important. Stress on the snapper can lead to errors. It would also lead to an easy read for our LB, who doesn't have to worry about OLs getting on him.
I agree with the general approach of keeping a running QB in the pocket, depending on how accomplished a passer he is. Vince Young was able to pick apart zone coverages. There is a delicate balance between getting good pressure on the qb, which is essential, and playing with too much abandon up front, creating lanes the QB can run through.
If you use a 4-2-5, your LBs need to be able to fill quickly. Or, like DanK said, you ask your DTs to play two gap..which IMHO is ridiculous.
I would be inclined to agree with most of Alan Weymouth's analysis..
I have some issues with DanK's analysis:
4 man fronts are generally superior against the run in ALL cases. However as stated by Alan previously, OUR DE/DTs aren't successful in either creating penetration, or engaging reading the flow and disengaging properly to attempt to make a tackle.
For the sake of simplicity and to argue the point - I will assume a "balanced" front that DanK assumes, even though such is not always used.
DEs should not run upfield and out of the play as DanK states they are doing - that is crappy DE play and is not a scheme issue - it is a player execution issue. C or Gs should not be free to immediately release to the LB - if the DTs are penetrating, the C will have to double up to help one of the guards (rarely do you have a DT who doesn't at least require a "chip" from the C or G). Again this also is an issue with a players potential to do the job and execution and not an issue with scheme.
If this is executed correctly not only should the D Line make its share of tackles, they should help defend both the inside and outside run adequately.
Also DT's would not have "two gaps" as DanK states - they have the responsibility to penetrate into the backfield, occupy the Gs and C, and to slide off and make a tackle if it comes to thier inside. The penetration lessens the size of the outside G/T gap as Alan stated, and helps occupy the C and Gs and keep them off the LBs. As Alan also stated, the ends must also penetrate, driving the Ts upfieled - if the play is flowing outside, they must then disengage to contain - if the play is flowing inside they must fight across the face of the OT to get to the play (tackles also should not be coming down on backers unempeded)
In addition, there are some inherent issues with the 3-3-5 idea, ESPECIALLY with regards to the performance of our personell.
-You now have 2 uncovered offensive linemen - which not only leads to a 5 on 3 advantage for thier OL, but an inherent weakness to the outside and off-tackle run. Thus much more opportunity to double team at the POA, and either slide off onto backers or trap against our D. Also unless the MLB is a super stud (and maybe has wings), he is most likely going to get trapped inside in the trash of what is going on around him (due to weakness at the edge) If someone ran this front against us (even in 4 wide sets) our offensive line would have a heyday and no doubt hart would get about 500 yards to the outside and off tackle.
-Taylor SMASH? What are you basing this on - besides - run to the outside and he will never get there.
-Our backers have not shown that they can fight off any blocks, fill a hole instinctively or scrape to make a play in the adjacent hole - putting them at this kind of disadvantage (in terms of more free OLmen) would be even more devastating. Again - with our MLBs I can't see them getting out of the plays wash to even attempt t
continued -
-Our backers have not shown that they can fight off any blocks, fill a hole instinctively or scrape to make a play in the adjacent hole - putting them at this kind of disadvantage (in terms of more free OLmen) would be even more devastating. Again - with our MLBs I can't see them getting out of the plays wash to even attempt to make a play.
-Our ends can't maintain the simple job they have now - you are asking them to actually try to take on a G or a T or a combination of the two and try to create penetration? Jesus. Not to mention they are too small/weak to do this.
-At best this front can hope to achieve is a stalemate at the LOS (occupying all 5 O linemen) - which equals a RB with a head of steam against 1 MLB who has no instinct to flow to the play. +6 yards every play minimum. And this is against a small OL, against a line like Wisc or one of the other stronger teams it would be a massacre.
Could Dan's idea work? Possibly - if you had a Branch in the center, two fast DTs or 300lb ends at the "end spots", a couple Woodleys as the OLBs and a 4.4 running sure tackling MLB. We don't have any of those however.
In short, it isn't scheme fellas (as Alan stated) it is crappy DT and end play (lack of penetration) ill-advised stunts, and backers who don't fill instinctually and can't tackle that one play out of ten they get to the hole as they should.
Posts like this one is why I love this blog (and Brian).
Brian:
Personnel-wise, I believe we do have the horses for the 3-3-5.
DL: BGraham-Taylor-Johnson with Ferrara (a old Herrmann-mold DL if I've ever seen one), Patterson, Slocum, maybe RVB at the end spots, and Kates & Slocum spelling TT inside. I agree that Jamison is a poor guy for this type of attack, as he sometimes struggles at POA with one guy, much less a guard & a tackle.
LB: Crable (much better in space than at POA...he'd be my spy if I were running things), Thompson/Ezeh and Mouton. I'm inclined to cut CGraham down to second string in favor of Jonas. Depth is a major issue here.
But like I said...I think we have the necessary horses to make the DL work.
Four-man fronts are NOT better against the run in all cases. It obviously depends on your personnel, but one purpose of a 3-4 defense is to have your NT double-teamed and let the linebackers flow to the ball. In a 4-3 or a 4-2, if the DT's can be handled one-on-one, then somebody can get out on the MLB and you're screwed.
Four-man fronts are generally more effective against the pass, unless you have some awesome blitzing OLB's.
WolverineKeith/Brian:
Any word on why Mouton is listed as third string behind CGraham and Logan on the depth chart? Injury side effects?
Great work, guys.
You fellas are amazing ... great work.
What I find really discomforting is that I find myself hoping that Lloyd will step in and fix our playcalling on offense and especially defense. That's how fucking bad Ronnie and MDB have been. For pete's sake, we're close making the claim here that we wish Herrmann was back to handle the spread. Anyway, if it actually comes to pass that Lloyd's X's and O's turn the season around ... my universe will be completely turned inside fucking out.
My other great hope is that Marques will be allowed on the field and will say Fuck Dat Spider to whoever dare cross his path. And that Mallett's extreme cockiness will light a fire under the offense, instead of inspiring the line to ritually sacrifice him a la Willie Beamen.
Jesus, I hope we can right this ship.
The center could never release to block last year because alan branch was double teamed on every play. That freed up a linebacker, david harris, who also happened to be awfully good.
Threadjack:
Did dumbfuck Tom Lemming really say that Mallett vs. Clausen is just like Marino vs. Montana?
"Mallett's arm strength is unbelievable," Lemming said. "I compare him to Jeff George and Dan Marino. Clausen might be the better quarterback, though. When he's healthy, he is the best precision passer I've seen. So it's like [Joe] Montana against Marino."
My head is spinning.
Great stuff, but you guys make it sound like hey, snap your fingers and we'll go from a 4-man to a 3-man front. If it were that simple, why don't NFL teams switch back and forth from a 4-3 to a 3-4 every play and just confuse the hell out of the offense? Because you can't, even with the NFL's unlimited practice time there's such entirely different techniques and personnel involved that it's impractical.
Michigan used to be 3-4 for ages under Bo because it's very effective against the run, but we started getting killed by the passing game once holding rules changed. I think it was under the knuckledragger Mo that we finally evolved into the 4-3 in order to get more consistent pressure on the QB, and we've been in some variant of the 4-3 ever since.
So we've been recruiting athletes to fit the 4-3 since then. On top of that English's background is in the 4-3, he's not the guy you use to convert the D to a 3-4, WTF does he know about that defense? It's moot to say, "this scheme will be much better against the spread". Basically our defenders are doing a horrible job of beating their man on the LOS this year. If ASU can OU dominate our defensive line we've got much more serious problems besides our basic defensive scheme. Probably one reason English was stunting so much is because our linemen suck so bad he's desperately trying to do something to get them free. We looked somewhat respectable last year vs. the spread last year because we had a couple guys named Branch and Woodley on the D line with Harris standing behind them.
Does anyone remember what Florida used to pummel tOSU last year? I'm pretty sure it was 3-man front + odd blitzers, IIRC it was mainly berzerker linemen pushing between tackles that wreaked havoc, they were collapsing the pocket on every play with outside contain giving Smith no sanctuary but the turf. It's nice to have stud linemen no matter what scheme you're running.
How irrelevant is Brandon Graham? He seems so...useless.
Sweet Jesus (not of the Touchdown kind), I've been able to comprehend everything on this site....up until now. You guys are incredible, nice work. Time to re-read this post a couple hundred times.
I'm forwarding on to Lloyd and English - hopefully their email addresses still work.....
lloydc@maybeillprepareforthisgame.edu
ronalde@spreadoffense.org
I think you'll see B.Graham alot this week. He won't be a liability, because the running QB fear won't be on us as much.
Regarding changing from odd to even fronts...Michigan often undershifted Taylor last year..he was over the C as often as not..surprised we havne't seen some of that this year. Also, it's probably easier to shift between the two in college, because you have an extra 30+ guys on the roster. It's not like the techniques are so different, it's more that you may or maynot think you've got a guy up front who warrants a double team...essential for the guy playing at the Nose.
CanWe...
Probably one reason English was stunting so much is because our linemen suck so bad he's desperately trying to do something to get them free.
I don't buy it. You're saying Terrance Taylor was only good because his teammates made him look good last year? Now he sucks? And Johnson, too? And Brandon Graham, one of the most OMG Shirtless recruits we've landed in years (more so than Branch, as much as Woodley) also sucks? And the rest - all highly regarded talent - all now suck?
This is not only not likely, it's not possible. I am in business and we have a litmus test for problems with personnel. If it is individual performance at issue (i.e., this person or that group sucks), you will get a distribution (Bell Curve likely). If it is system-related or demographic, it will affect the whole population.
EVERYONE SUCKS = BAD COACHING
Man, you guys know waaaaay more about football than I ever will. I'm limited to Charlie Weis fat jokes, but we all have our strengths, don't we?
IIRC, Herrmann switched to 3-4 for the 2004 season, though I believe it was mainly due to a perceived strength in LB talent. This would also be the year when Pat Massey lined up at DE and was somewhat respectable. The next year it was back to 4-3, Massey slid inside and was transformed into a folding chair.
Anyway YPG rushing for '03, '04 and '05 were 117, 133 and 137 respectively.
Also, while refreshing my memory, I came across this quote: "Blitzing Wolverine linebackers encountered multiple open-field opportunities on Quinn, but could not capitalize, missing a slew of tackles."
Should be "YPG rushing allowed"...
Dan, I'm trying to give English the benefit of the doubt. Stunting is usually high risk/high reward, I'm hoping HOPING he had good reasons for doing it so often versus a 1-AA team. You'd assume we line straight up and beat the shit out of most 1-A schools. You usually stunt on passing downs anyway, but based on the UFR seems like we were doing it consistently on first down, I mean this is Michigan and English was being hotly pursued by the NFL wasn't he, we can't be that stupid can we? Can we???...Oh shit.
I'm trying this on NCAA 07 and it sort of works, even on Heisman mode! Thanks, mgoblog!!!
Stunting is a great change of pace move. Should be used with caution. Twisting is even more chancey and should be used rarely.
It's my opinon, that the first half of the ASU game was some really unsound defensive scheme. We didn't need to stunt or twist to do what needed to be done. We needed to play our responsibilities, and keep a weak throwing QB in the pocket and let him throw passes to Trent and Englemon all day.
Then, we needed to fix our head case QB inside the redzone, and quit fumbling the stupid ball.
97Alumni-I will be the 1st to admit that it's certainly possible i'm 110% wrong. but based on what i've read/heard, the 3-4 (or 3-man front) is better suited to defend the run, not the 4-3 .
1)"C or Gs should not be free to immediately release to the LB"
it happened so often vs UO, i didn't bother to count. against ASU, they stunted so much the Olinemen hardly needed to engage them at all. maybe it really is talent, but all these guys had offers from all over, and they were all 3-4* guys, if not 5*s. it's illogical to think that these guys, highly regarded by just about every expert,guru,coach, all of a sudden suck at football. and i generally disagree with the role of the Dlinemen:
2)"If [what you describe] is executed correctly not only should the D Line make its share of tackles, ..."
ABranch & TT executed very well all last year, but didn't really make alot of tackles, iirc.
3)"3-3-5 idea...[has] an inherent weakness to the outside and off-tackle run"
yes, but these spread-option plays are not designed for off-tackle runs. sure, the QB might keep it and run around the end of the line. but i think the LBs need to have that responsibility. i'd rather keep the ball carrier running E-W than N-S in any case.
4)"If someone ran this front against us ..."
i only argue this front is good vs the spread-option exclusively. M runs much more of a passing offense where the 4-man front is the best D, imo.
5)"Our ends can't maintain the simple job they have now - you are asking them to actually try to take on a G or a T or a combination of the two and try to create penetration?"
well, if anything, one DT in the 4-man would become a DE in the 3-man front (the other DT, Taylor, becomes the NG). so the only issue personnel wise is B Grahm (who seems to be a rush the passer guy). but, i'd guess that these guys (the DEs) would have 1-gap responsibility as stated in the post. so, it's my reasoning that one guys job get easier. only one guy in the front has 2-gap-responsibility, as opposed to 2 in the 4-man.
6)sure, having Branch, et al back would be ideal in the 3-man. but it would be ideal in the 4-man too.
7)"At best this front can hope to achieve is a stalemate at the LOS (occupying all 5 O linemen)..."
it's the same for the 4-2.
and i guess i agree with magnus. the 4-3 defense, as i understand it, was developed to defend the pass and the "run to a specified hole" pro-set/I-form running skeme. these offensive skemes make it necessary to defend or fill holes between the O-linemen. 4 gaps between 5 OLs == 4 DLs, lined up on the holes to defend it. the Spread-option offense is actually a retread of the old single wing offenses of the 30s-early 50s. in this type of offense, there are no designated holes: it's run right, left or up the middle.
magnus: "In a 4-3 or a 4-2, if the DT's can be handled one-on-one, then somebody can get out on the MLB and you're screwed."
that's exactly what happened time after time after time.
"Four-man fronts are generally more effective against the pass, unless you have some awesome blitzing OLB's."
iirc, this is why the 4-3 is so dominant in the NFL. the QBs are all pocket guys, thus the running is all lane-based running, thus 4-3 (plus, there's more pressure up front w/ 4 guys). re:great OLBs, this may be why the giants played in the 3-4 when LT was L-MF-T.
oh, and Jason......personnel-wise yes, but it's also about shifting TT to a NG position and the other 2 guys to defend the middle.
Jeez, that was good guys. Dan, that really covers a lot of little points I've made to myself and sounds very right to my ears.
First, I agree that the ASU game was literally the function of every single error. How many plays in that game were worth 2 points? If average starting field position is the 30, then 70 yards is 6 points. That's quick-and-dirty, but there were soooo many plays of 23 yards (or quickly added up to that) that didn't need to be in that game.
The other bit that could have been mentioned about the 3-3-5 is that those 3 linebackers are in a much better place to cover the drag and the slant, two bread and butter spread pass plays that are designed to get a WR on a single LB. With 3, they have to run across or near 3 instead of 2 and your success rate increases.
We haven't covered English's version of the 3-3-5 that featured the stand-up DT. I think this more or less accomplishes the same thing, though differently. Having Taylor lining up to attack the center (either from a 0 or 1, shaded away from the standup) means that the middle of the OL is vulnerable to what we saw last year: the delayed blitz. Crable can cover whatever hole opens up and use his speed to track plays down behind the line of scrimmage. It's really a perfect usage of him as an athlete, because he is definitely quicker than college guards and centers. Crable, with his speed, can also make an effective drop to underneath routes from that spot on the field. The Bears have their LBs do such things very regularly, because they are so fast they can be started closer to the line of scrimmage.
As to whether we have the personnel, I would go Johnson-Taylor-Jamison/Ferrara/Graham/Gallimore/
Slocum. Every non-Jamison of them run 6-3+ and 280-300, except Graham, but I would bet on his strength. Plus, he looks bigger than 270 to me. That's perfect DE size. I wonder if Jamison is strong enough to play that position all the time, but if we start to become effective on first down, we'll have plenty of playing time for him.
Crable should also be substituted back and forth with Mouton, depending on situation.
What's really scary is that Panter is somehow worse than Thompson. He's terrible. So is Graham, but we've known of that for a while. Mouton and Ezeh are probably stronger and faster and less stupid, so they should play.
re : CanWeWinSomedaySoonPls UM'81
Florida played (and plays) a four-man line - I believe the 4-3 is usually listed as the base defence, but they used the 4-2 a lot last year, with only Everett and Siler at LB.
four man front, or three man front doesn't matter. What matters is, do your guys know and play their gap responsibility as they should.
Yeah, it would be great if Taylor or Johnson could demand a double team on every play. Put it doesn't happen, and it didn't happen last year with Branch on every down. If your LBs fill their gaps quickly, you don't have this problem. If you fill slow, even if your DTs aren't being moved, a natural gap occurs between the first and second level of the D, and a back can get through that.
I can show you instance after instance of our LBs reacting too slowly, and getting blocked on the second level instead of at the LOS as it should be. That can't happen, regardless of the style of offense you are playing against. If ND starts getting guys out on our LBs 3 yards off the LOS, you'll see much the same result.
CanWe, re:English. the only logical conclusion i come to is that English just isn't familiar with the spread-option. he's a younger guy, so maybe he never heard about the single wing (which is basically what the spread-options is) and how to defend it. also, he's an NFL guy and probably thought, "hey, we don't have the LBs for the 3-man front."
basically, i think he might be unfamiliar with the spread (specifically, he doesn't know that it's purpose is to run up the middle). Carr might know this (and Herrman too, btw) but i think LC is letting RE do it his way.
again, i could be 100% wrong. maybe running a 3-man front gets us 0-3 after the 1st 2 games. no, seriously: maybe the 3-man front gives up 700-800 yards to Oregon and 50-60 points to ASU. but it's my opinion that the 3-man front is the best way to attck the spread option.
One more thing, about Taylor. His function last year WAS to attack the center. Check out the ND and Wisky games (I've got em, so that's why I'm referencing them). You'll see Taylor geared up to beat his man and get into the backfield. His encroachment penalties were all a result of his love of count-guessing. When you watch him an entire game, you can just see him twitch with anticipation. He's not going to be able to take on two guys, just because he doesn't have the frame to beat them, but give him a guard or center to beat and you'll do very well.
Just learn to tackle in space and shed off blockers. How hard can it be?
OK. You made some good points, but we have a "laboratory" conditions issue here. You need to consider various blocking schemes. I will suggest to you that a 3-man line is easier to run against than an even man line as the gap control becomes even more confusing and LBs get more responsibility to contain holes, which we have witnessed to be catastrophic. This switching Crable from a DE to a LB depending on the situation is getting moronic and has been ineffective.
My best bet for a defense against a spread is to run press coverage of the edges, even man line with a "pocket control rush, (see Idiana game from last year), MLB has to control middle of the field, and employ LB/Rover to cover underneath depending on offensive alignment...the spread is a read and react offense...so don't think you're going to disguise to the point they don't know what we are trying to do(i.e., stunts, twists, B Harrison unsuccessful NB blitz), put shorten the reaction time to force errors and indecision....pressure is the key..not necessarily blitzing.
A quick glance through the UF-OSU highlights confirms my (wonderfully pleasant) memory of the game - UF was mostly in 4-2, and on most passing downs there's two blue jerseys in the middle of the field absorbing blockers, and two blue jerseys on the outside one-on-one with the offensive tackles. On most running downs you can see six blue jerseys, with the LBs moving up. Not a lot of blitzing - when your front four can't be stopped, why bother?
Thanks Peachy, all I remember in my mind's eye is wave after wave of large angry men breaking through and getting in Smith's face. DL pressure usually blows up any offense, doesn't matter what the scheme is.
Let me tell you this. All this is not intelligent talk. It's talk of losers trying to find reasons.
Go State! Sparty will bite you this time, ya know.
No prob. I miss those guys - the new crew are talented, but dear god are they young.
Re: Mouton vs. Logan vs. Graham
I think Logan played pretty well against Oregon. I was surprised to see him in there, but nobody else was really getting the job done. I think he deserves some more PT based on what I saw last weekend.
Has anyone else been somewhat impressed with John Ferrara? I expected NOTHING from him. In fact, I thought the backup DT spots would be limited to Kates and Slocum. I think he's played pretty damn well for being a 3-star redshirt freshman.
The 3-4 v 4-3 scheme debate is great and educational. Just for S&G, see what the big news was in ND this past summer. New DC Brown switched to a base 3-4 D (to stop run)... still not working so hot. Its a team game and takes the right mix of scheme, fundamentals, players, etc. = CHEMISTRY, which we are still trying to find. Hopefully this weekend...
Magnus -
Sorry - I stand corrected - 4 man fronts are not always superior - I was thinking in tunnel vision in terms of the 4-2-5 vs 3-3-5 idea - Obviously a lot of NFL teams run the 3-4 with success great success against the run. I personally believe the 4-3 and 3-4 can be equally effective however, IMO the main determining factor being personel you have on hand.
I really don't feel that there are many teams in college ball that can field the 3 man front successfully against the run due the the kind of athletes you need in the front 7. You may disagree.
The 4 man front is a better approach against the run for US in all cases because I frankly don't think we have the LBs for it (can't fight off blocks, don't fill quickly, don't flow well, and god forbid if we asked them to contain).
PS-I also noticed I didn't get pissed and yell at the screen as much when Logan was in intead of Graham...
Dank- Been thinking about your scheme.
Going back over our posts, I think our disagreement lies in that you are arguing a hypothetical D against a spread option and I am arguing employing this scheme with our personnel.
With our personnel -
by going to a 3 man front you are lessening the DLs responsibility and simply asking them to occupy the center of the field. This I think is a good idea. Much more achievable probably than what we are asking them to do in the 4-2-5 (since they obviously can't handle it). Still don't believe Taylor would have been a force in the middle, but against a center who is slow after the snap I give you the benefit of the doubt.
But you are increasing the responsibility of the LBs - who IMO have performed much more poorly than the D Line, bordering on incompetency - when our D line has created an opportunity for a LB to make a play in the hole, they either haven't filled quickly enough, didn't flow or scrape well, or missed the tackle. You want to add the responsibility of asking them to contain, avoid or fight off an OT and offer up the opportunity of long outside runs? Yikes.
Pulling back crable off the line would help and he probably has enough experience and speed to do the job (even if not very strong). The other two would worry me however. Which means they would make an adjustment to minimize crable (other coaches adjust theory) Also your MLB would have to be a dominant tackler (ours aren't)
In reards to using your idea with a hypothetical team vs the spread option-
Hell I probably felt at one time that a 3-3-5 would work great for us against the spread option (and offer better pass coverage underneath to boot). With the right guys (hell, maybe just what we had plus having slocum functional, b graham and mouton actually performing to expectations/hype and a d harris), you could throw in some overload blitzes and some zone blitzes and I bet it would be fun and terrifying at least till someone figured it out. But with the personnel we had I don't see how it would work (B Graham limited and potential largely unknown, Slocum no where to be seen and potential unknown, Jamison/Taylor mostly disappointing, C Graham inept, all MLBs close to inept, and Crable with potential but wasted at DE due to B Graham being limited)
---
My point is that this plan also has weaknesses (as does any) - any good coach can find the weakness and exploit it (except us apparently).
In retrospect, would it have resulted in less of a whipping the last two weeks?
Hell if I was coaching and some fan from the stands handed me this before halftime, I would have tried it - if nothing more than the other team wouldn't have expected it, sounds good on paper, and what we were doing didn't work (although a worse result is also possible)
Consider your argument won (at least in theory with better LBs)
well.... in terms of LB responsibility: i'd say that moving from 2 to 3 LBs in the front 6 puts less pressure on any one LB. i mean, CGrahm as 33% is waaaaay better than CGrahm at 50% of your LB corps. now, as a guy who's studied alot of physics, my gut tells me that responsibility is conserved. iow, the 3-man front just puts more responsibility on the DLs to hold the line so to speak. but, as stated in the post, the fact that the OC is put under so much pressure kind of evens the playing field. and assuming the DEs have 1 gap responsibility, it makes the player less passive than if asked to keep contain. imo of course.
in terms of personnel, in some ways it would be tough. BGraham and Jamison are pass rushers not quite suited to be on the interior line. but they probably can't move to OLB either. as stated, Crable is best at OLB. still, in terms of who is actually on the field, that doesn't change. Crable moves to OLB (+1), and the other DE moves inside (-1) along the line(net effect == 0?). and when it comes to LBs shedding blocks: i can't see any LB shedding an interior lineman easily. that's alot to ask. according to Brain himself, Our linebackers hardly ever had the luxury of flowing to the ball without dealing with a blocker in the 4-2. it's up to the DL to keep the LBs clean. last year in the 4-2, branch was outstanding at that. this year, no Branch. so, i might suggest that a 3-man line might actually mask attrition along the line, from a certain PoV.
and: there is a common line of reasoning thaat LBs need to 'fill a hole.' i think this applies to defending the I-form/pro-set offenses where the runs are designed to go to specific holes (the vert. lines) between the OLs (x's):
X | X | X | X | X
traditionally, theres a pulling guard or a FB for the RB to follow thru the hole. thus, a LB, if met by the guard/FB just needs to plug the hole. also, it's best to have a Dlineman for each hole (thus, the 4-man front becoming popular in the 50s-60s until today)
BUT: the spread option (like it's father, the single wing) is designed to run L,R, or up the middle (primarily). there are no 'holes' to plug necessarily. as the slides suggest, the 3-man/odd line clogs the middle more effectively than the 4-2. on runs toward the outside, the LBs need to, if not kepp contain, then 'maintain the line' or 'stretch the play out' to the sidelines (where 2-3 CBs are). Safeties also help wrt 'stretching the play out.'
anyway, i still think that the 3-man odd front contains runs up the middle better than the 4-2. it's also my argument that the spread-option is designed to run up the middle. thus, we should use the 3-man front.
Interesting post, but I have to make one correction: Woodley, Branch, Taylor, Biggs, Johnson and Jamison all committed when Herrmann was our DC, so the line about his schemes discouraging DL recruits from committing is really not true.
Woodley committed as a LB. Biggs was a little known LB. Branch was also not a highly regarded recruit until fairly late in the process. Only Johnson, Taylor and Jamison were highly regarded.
Michigan did not consistantly recruit the DL positions well.
DanK,
Regardless of the offensive scheme, gap responsibility by the LB stays the same. The role of a LB is to 1. first and foremost, cover the gap he's responsible for. 2. flow to the ball or drop into coverage. The versatility of a good athletic LB is what makes them precious.
The difficulty in the zone blocking scheme used in the "Zone/Spread" makes the LBs job more difficult. Where the hole develops is indeed a mystery to everyone. But, maintaining the integrity of your gap responsibility actually becomes MORE important against this attack. The keys that LBs use to diagnose plays aren't neccessarily there. With Man schemes your keys are easier to read, with zone, every play looks the same.
Keeping OL off our LBs would be nice. Demanding a double team up front would be really nice, and I agree the easiest way to command a double team, is to place a guy over the center, because the center has the extra responsibility of snapping the ball. However, the inside zone play has specific blocking assignments for odd fronts also, and they are just as effective, so I'm not so sure that this alignment would be more beneficial.
The two schemes (3-3 and 4-2) don't really matter all that much. Its more about the personnell than scheme. If you have a dominant NT type (motivated Gabe Watson) and some good LBs, 3-3 is good. If you don't have a dominant NT, than 4-2 is good. But with either scheme, the gap responsibility is the same and the problems with zone blocking are going to be there.
I see no alignment of the front six that will instantly give us success. Instead, I think the defensive scheme we use, must first fit the talent at hand.
Our LB crew is the least talented unit on the field IMHO, and it wouldn't be very effective to put even more of them out there..again, who would you use?
alan, i don't propose this to be a 'magic wand' that fixes everything. certainly, personnel matters. and i haven't said anything about the secondary. but in this case, with Crable playing DE, the personell on the field doesn't change. use the same 2 LBs + Crable as the 3rd LB. then use the same 3 DLs. Crable just stands up and the rest of the line shifts over. NOTE: i DO NOT think we should go to this formation vs every opponent, just spread option teams specifically. using this formation against Wisc would mean a 3-4 of course, and that's not good personnel-wise or tacticlly vs a pro-set/Iform.
i think the key for me is to clog the middle. sure, blocking skemes from the OL will change. but with the 3-man front, running between the guards is severely problematic for the offense. assume NO doubles are executed on the DL:
-OGs must engage the DEs, otherwise the OTs would do so. but since the DEs are shaded inside the OTs, that gives the DEs leverage toward the inside (disrupting the inside run).
-so, if the OGs are forced to engage the DEs, that frees up the OTs to get to the OLBs right? so on a run up the middle the MLB is untouched, free to make the tackle (as long as he reads & reacts properly).
this is the strength of the 3-man/odd front: middle run D is strengthened. perhaps outside runs become a weakness, but think about this:
the zone read in the spread option where the QB keeps and runs around the right end. basically, in the 4-2 it was #2s (DE positioned to the RB side of field, ie, rightward in the slides) responsibility to position himself to tackle the QB in this eventuality. now look at #2s position in the 3-man slides compared to the other OLB. Crable is subtly, but intentionally, positioned outside the RT. he will probable NOT make the tackle here, but at least the other 2 MLBs are free to move playside (the other OLB should be free of the LT, since the LB has presumably flowed to the ball carrier, away from the LT. the positioning of this other OLB is even with the LT and very intentional as well).
i still think the even front we used puts the DEs in 'no mans land.' in the odd man, i think *maybe* the non-playside OLB might be out of position. but this if he doesn't read + react properly/quickly.
the one thing i was thinking about was this: same formation from the O, but it's a QB keeper rightward from the start. imagine the RG pulling around the RT to engage Crable. the RT can shove the DE inward, then disengage to take on the MLB (the DE in this case is useless if the QB immeadiatly takes it wide right...so a quick push from the LT should neutralize the DE). this would be a BIG problem for the D, but maybe shifting DEs outside or even with the tackles would help. man, in general, pulling linemen are tough to deal with tactically for a D.
DanK -
To your first post DE's in maintaining contain should be anything but passive. They should attack, not play patticake while waiting for the play to develop. They should also not rush so hard to the outside as to ignore the inside gap.
In regards to the pulling blocking schemes - A defensive end (from a 4 man front) should be able to take on and at least stalemate a pulling OLinemen (I said should, not always does). As you point out, I don't think you could ask the same of an OLB.
The recurrent issue I can't get away from is that although the center of the defense is shored up, there is a LOT of field on the outside (esp if the ball is on a hash). In addition, as I thnk you are starting to see, there are ways to wall off or delay sufficiently the MLB and opposite OLB and either isolate or attack the OLB on the side that is targeted.
The OT could block down on the end and slide off to take out the MLB(and obstruct flow from the far side) leaving the OLB isolated to make the play. I don't think you can always expect CBs/S to help make the play or else you will be setting yourself up to bite hard on play action. And then as you mentioned there are pulling schemes which are a whole other can of worms and could potentially also account for the play side OLB as well.
There is a reason defenses try to "contain" runners - you try to force them towards other tacklers. Similarly defenses string out plays towards the sidelines (another tackler). I just don't know how confident I would be with one of our OLBs isolated to make the play, or counting on CBs and S to come up and help make the play or string it out. (Although Trent and Warren are better than I expected so far)
Consider this - GCG occupied By NT and two DEs. OT helps RG destroy DE and then slides off and takes out MLB (and obstructs flow for OLB of opposite side) Leaving playside OLB isolated - Now Dixon and HB run old school pitch option off the right side. One man to tackle both. (or set yourself up to get burned on play action)
It would be much easier if our DL/LBs could just execute what they are in now.
BTW this stuff is much easier to discuss w diagrams and that is hard over the net without being excessively time consuming
DanK,
Agreed on how hard it is to talk without a chalkboard...
Your first paragraph, concerning DE play. You cannot be, both aggressive in the rush, and cognizant of the inside gap as a DE. You must be a bit passive in the one, while accomplishing the other. If you rush aggressively, you run the risk of opening up the gap between DE and DT..if you you are passive, you give up outside contain. A very delicate balance here..but a doable one if you use the right technique.
As I stated as well, it helps alot if your DTs are able to push the pocket back and keep the QB contained.
On Zone Read plays, our DE play was way, way too passive. When you are unblocked, you have responsiblility to either take the QB, or the RB. The technique I was taught was to attack the outside shoulder of the QB..if you had the RB you "peel off" and strike him..if you have QB, you strike him instead. The technique is much different if you actually have a pitch man who is an option threat..but the Zone Read doesn't have a pitch guy.
The Zone Belly play that Oregon ran is another matter. On this play, Oregon doesn't leave the DE unblocked. This is nothing more than a variation of the zone running that Minnesota gashed us with a few years back. We had trouble then, we continue to have trouble here. Defending the Zone play is much more about gap integrity than anything else..I don't care how you align yourself to begin with.
97Alumni,
"...there is a LOT of field on the outside (esp if the ball is on a hash). "
but, in the spread option, there are alot of defenders to the outside of the field (the DBs). plus, the zone read executed by UO had 2 options: handoff up middle (RB, it happened alot) or QB keeper to the side where the RB was lined up presnap (didn't happen b/c Dixon keyed Crable, and #2 was in good position to handle the QB, but NOT the RB). so on runs to the outside, there's 2 things that aren't the preference of the O: 1)run outside where most of the D is, 2)the primary ball carrier (the RB) is not utilized.
"I just don't know how confident I would be with one of our OLBs isolated to make the play, or counting on CBs and S to come up and help make the play or string it out."
in the 4-2 vs the spread these 1st 2 games, the LBs didn't even get a chance to be isolated to make the play: OLs washed them out. it was basically a 'hat-on-a-hat' in the 4-2. as i saw it, there were 2 reasons: the DEs overran the play and the middle was weak allowing inner OLs to engage the LBs. i think the 3-3 solves both problems. and i'd rather be weak to the edges (where most of the other 5 defenders are) than weak in the middle (where none/1 of the other 5 defenders are).
i think the point that alot of people forget is that there are 5 other guys out there. they are just not pictured. it's not like we're in a 4-4 or even 3-4 or 4-3 where there's only 3-4 other guys, 2 of whom are in the middle of the field (the safeties). in those D allignments, an uncontained run to the outside == jailbreak. sure, in any D you'd prefer to keep the RB 'bottled up.' but in the 3-3-5 vs the spread, you have to have Safites wide and closer to the LoS. and there are 3 CBs out wide too. stringing out these plays to the outside is alittle more doable. perhaps anyway.
also, the pulling OLs make it more complex, but i'd bet there are ways for the D (the LBs specifically) to 'key' on guys to read a pulling guard and then know it's an outside run, for example.
alan - i think most of your comments were directed to 97alum. and perhaps you are right about gap control being the true issue, indep of skeme. but, can you agree that the middle gaps (A&B gaps) are easier to control in the 3-3-5 vs the spread option?
DanK..sorry, my mistake.
A&B gaps easier to conrol yes, but really only at the expense of less control at C. Now, shifting one of the DTs to a 3 Technique might help, but then you have what UM ran alot last year basicly, a 4-2 with an Undershift.
With the Spread portion of this offense designed to simply things for you OLs..and to make things more 1 on 1..I'm in favor of simply mirroring what the offense does...Run a 5-1-5.
O O O O O
E T N T E
B
I'm leaving most of the secondary out, because it depends heavily on formation from offense. On passing downs, I'd sub a S in for the Backer.
With this formation, I make things easy for my backer..who can now flow freely to the ball. I should be able to stuff the run inside and be strong on the edge to contain the nifty Dixon. I'd let Crable play OLB/DE because he can drop in coverage, spy or rush easily from the edge. Secondary would have 4 CBs, and 1 S.
Also, I think this fits our talent as well. We've got several guys who could man that middle LB spot at least decently. We have three tackles who could play..You'd have to let Slocum out of the Doghouse..use Gallimore a bit at the NT. Sub in Graham some at DT on passing downs. Perhaps...*gasp* even use Kates or Sagesse.
well, as long as there's a man over teh C, i'm ok with that. but it puts alot of pressure on the LB, as he'd have to worry about the QB and RB. although, the DEs have contain and the interior line can conceivably glog the middle. interesting...
but the only reason i don't like it is b/c of personnel: that's alot of DLs on the field vs an O with such speed (4 wide, RB, QB). with my 3-3-5, i can glog the middle and still match speed with speed.
i'd still give up the C gaps/contain for strength in the middle vs the offense: the other half of the D lies outside and the LBs can still flow to the ball.
Alan -
I was aware how to balance the rushing the passer and controlling the run as a DE and also how to play a pitch option without help (I also played DE)
I was simply trying to point out to DanK the fact that our ends weren't being aggressive enough against the run and that there is a happy medium -and yes an all out rush isn't good either, and i think our ends demonstrated that several times as well.
Also as for the pitch option - yes, it is possible to defend with one man, but that isn't preferable, and it is better to have backup - I know it is not used in that offense, but there is no reason why it couldn't be, and just one possible idea I had as to how the defense scheme Dank had proposed could be exploited.
As to your 5-1-5 idea, I also think that has potential, but again the personnel - first having enough guys to rotate in, and second, I don't know that I would still want Crable down at DE. Who would you put at MLB? If that guy can't get there and make a tackle, it would be a world of hurt. Also I think we would be even more pathetic on the pass underneath (slants etc) than we already are. With subs based on situation (crable types at end on passing downs) it could have potential at least as far as creating a pass rush. But shouldn't we able to do the same out of the 4-2 front by bringing an unbalanced blitz (if the ends could just contain and we could get something out of the DTs?)
DanK-
I hope you realize I am not attacking your idea and just trying to give you things to think about.
I understand that there are guys outside the tackle box. Asking CBs to make the tackles (more than just supporting backers) on outside runs isn't my preference personally. I just feel it is a disadvantage, especially with a dual threat QB, the questions about our pass coverage abilities, and the fallibility our safeties have demonstrated thus far.
Yes, pulling a guard will give backers something to key on - but you usually accompany that with a guy blocking down on that flow from the attacking side (OT/OG on MLB etc)
------
The more I think about all these schemes and ideas the more I am just concerned that we aren't getting enough out of out front 7 and that there is no reason to believe we wouldn't have the same execution issues we have now in any other scheme.
97alum..
didn't mean to come off as a know-it-all. You could get much of what I propose done out of the 4-2-5 with LB blitzing and/or stunting. BTW, my example of alignment above is all out of whack..this Haloscan thing wouldn't let me put spaces between all my O's etc.
As to Crable at DE, in a perfect world, I wouldn't have used him there either..though his ability to drop into coverage is a plus for my scheme.
The MLB in this alignment is a problem. Graham has the best skill set..fast, and pretty good in coverage, but I need a better tackler. Thompson has decent speed, but not the cover guy I need.Ezeh might have the best all around package.
I actually think this alignment takes pressure off the LB, as he need not fear alot of OL interference. Yes, a tackle might block down from the play side, but he then frees the DE to make the play and allows an aggressive approach from the DE. I would have to rely on DB support to catch up with the QB if he kept on the Zone Read, but by funneling the QB to the outside..and hopefully being held up by the aggressive approach of the DE, we'd be able to get the needed support to leverage him against the sideline.
Rotating guys into the game might be a problem. However, as the NT and both DTs are really run cloggers, pursuit from these guys in minimal. Johnson could play DT or NT. Taylor DT or NT. Ferrara DT. I'd only play Gallimore at NT, because his feet don't move so good. Sagesse/Kates/Slocum would have to play.
Another benefit imo, is that it does free up the DL to get aggressive on pass rush a bit more. This too can be accomplished in the 4-2-5 by utilizing blitzing LBs.
My 5-1-5 idea was really born from the realization that our LBs didn't do a good job working through the "TRASH" inside and making plays..so, I want to keep the OLs off em if I can. Let them fly to the ball with little worry.
Alan-
I know you weren't trying to be that (another issue with posts - no tone)
Speaking of - I have noticed C Graham filling fairly instinctually at times - but he usually misses the tackle. Too bad or we could move him inside.
RE your 5-1-5
Why not put crable in the middle (reqs another end)?
1 on 1s across the line would hopefully allow guys to break free up front...
Of course what happens with the middle lb in your scheme when the qb turns to make the handoff and the qb and the rb go opposite ways(did he make the handoff or not)? He would have to read off the blocks.
And then the issue of the shallow passing game. The pass rush should do well though.
This also would be an interesting experiment as would the 3-3-5 - too bad we don't have a bunch of robots around to test all these theories out.
Crable at that spot would be very interesting..dude can really run.
If they threatened both ends, that would be difficult..the LB would have to make the read from the direction of the OLine movement if zone or off down blocks or pulling if man blocking..Hopefully, the ends could contain enough to turn this back inside where the LB could find the ball. All the other gaps are covered, save either A/B..NT has one, and the MLB would the other.
97Alumni, no worries. i've enjoyed the thought experiments.
"too bad we don't have a bunch of robots around to test all these theories out."
...well, that one guy up in the thread somewhere said the 3-man worked pretty well for him in NCAA07. wow, my contribution to society is helping some dude play better D in NCAA07 on the XboX. when my time is up, at least i'll have that going for me. really, that's as good a simulation as we can get. but i don't recall alot of pulling linemen playcalls when i played the game. i might try it one day.
with no chance of seeing another ASU game, i'm REALLY curious to see how other teams defend oregon now. USC could put anything out there and probably dominate. but, if oregon somehow shreds them too....i need to record that game. plus, i'd like to see what teams with less talent do against them: WSU, OSU, Stanford. who else does M play that runs the S-O? NW i think. IU is off the sched right? MSU dropped it. Purdue tends to pass out of it more, so that's apples-oranges. OHHH Minn runs it. yea, i saw some of Minn-MiamiU. lots of 4-man fronts led to lots of points & yanrds. talent was certainly lacking however.
i should probably start a blog. there's no way Brian would post my crap every week. anyway, this sure was fun. thanks!
DanK...just for your info, I'm watching Troy vs Okie State. Troy runs a very similar scheme. Okie state mostly in the 4-2-5. Score at the half Troy 27....Okie State 10
alan, did you notice that M started out in an odd/unbalanced 4-man line? it was in the 1stQ. i'll have to check the tape when i get a chance.
Commenting by HaloScan
