Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

OK. Here's a philosophy check. When defending the passing game, do you prefer rushing the passer or covering the receivers? The first reaction is "Duh, you do BOTH." Yet all too often, we see teams pull out LBers and go to nickel and dime alignments. What about an extra DL? Many offensive lines already have issues handling three or four good DLs, so why not a fifth? It's often easier to find a decent DL than a decent LBer, anyway, given that a LBer is expected to cover the run AND cover a zone at the same time. A DL can usually just tee off on the QB on third down.

That's one reason I'd like to start experimenting with a revival of the 5-3 defense. Many teams already run various forms of Cover 3, either through rotation (the Cloud and Sky variants) or through invert (the Robber variant). Why not just formalize it with a three-man defensive backfield and use the line to get after the QB?

Sound like suicide? Or does it sound workable? Would your response depend on the level of the league?

Some interesting things to ponder....

SuperHornet wrote:OK. Here's a philosophy check. When defending the passing game, do you prefer rushing the passer or covering the receivers? The first reaction is "Duh, you do BOTH." Yet all too often, we see teams pull out LBers and go to nickel and dime alignments. What about an extra DL? Many offensive lines already have issues handling three or four good DLs, so why not a fifth? It's often easier to find a decent DL than a decent LBer, anyway, given that a LBer is expected to cover the run AND cover a zone at the same time. A DL can usually just tee off on the QB on third down.

That's one reason I'd like to start experimenting with a revival of the 5-3 defense. Many teams already run various forms of Cover 3, either through rotation (the Cloud and Sky variants) or through invert (the Robber variant). Why not just formalize it with a three-man defensive backfield and use the line to get after the QB?

Sound like suicide? Or does it sound workable? Would your response depend on the level of the league?

Some interesting things to ponder....

If you're coverage is good you don't necessarily need 5.

EWU switched to a 52 two years ago using a rover and has seen some progress. It seems advantageous to have that extra defender be a Deone Buccanon type skill set that can come up into run support or cover rather than a 3rd LB that gets torched covering the slot.

To me, whether you blitz or not depends on how good your front-4 is at rushing the passer. The holy grail of pass defense is getting pressure with just the D-Line (or with 1 blitzer if you're running a 3-4). If you can do that consistently, you don't have to be very creative as a defensive coordinator. That was the foundation of the Monte Kiffin, Cover-2-era Buccaneers.

I'm skeptical running a true 5-2 or 5-3 is a good idea with all the teams playing spread these days. It just makes the defense slow. 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 seem better against spread teams, though they are more vulnerable to power teams like NoDak State. Flexibility might really be the best approach.

Nice discussion, guys. You both make good points. I like the Cards' idea of a safety-type playing the Mike Backer; that harkens back to the days when LBers were about the size of quarterbacks and they could ALL (not just a few superstars) go sideline to sideline. (Of course, they didn't have to deal with 400-lb linemen on running plays back then.)

I've always been skeptical of ANY form of Cover 2, even the Tampa 2 you mention, Venus, that Tony Dungy loved. While it might be a bit harder to split the safeties than in a traditional double zone, it's still easier to split two guys than it is to split three. You're probably right about using a base nickel to cover the modern spread, but one DOES have to be aware that there are teams out there that will spread the field and then run up the middle, which is USUALLY where the extra DB came from. Then, when you spread to defend THAT, they'll come out in a double-tight Ace look or a double-tight wing set (often with a DL playing that third TE as a wing back) and run wide. It seems to me that, as long as the flanker and split ends aren't speed demons, a 5-3 set would be a bit more flexible to handle that sort of multiple alignments. But if a team is so set on the spread that they don't do that, then six-man box alignments you mention would probably do fairly well.

Do we have any more responses out there? These two are VERY good. I'd like to hear some more.

Super Hornet are you a fan of the famed 46 defense used by '85 Bears '99 Titans in both cases they were beaten by pass happy squads '85 Dolphins,'99 Rams with two HOF signal callers Kurt Warner&Dan Marino.

dal4018 wrote:Super Hornet are you a fan of the famed 46 defense used by '85 Bears '99 Titans in both cases they were beaten by pass happy squads '85 Dolphins,'99 Rams with two HOF signal callers Kurt Warner&Dan Marino.

The aggressive cover-0 man D that the Cards/Todd Bowles have made popular in recent years seems to be a current version of the 46, at least philosophically. You need a good secondary, though, or you'll eventually get torched.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:To me, whether you blitz or not depends on how good your front-4 is at rushing the passer. The holy grail of pass defense is getting pressure with just the D-Line (or with 1 blitzer if you're running a 3-4). If you can do that consistently, you don't have to be very creative as a defensive coordinator. That was the foundation of the Monte Kiffin, Cover-2-era Buccaneers.

I'm skeptical running a true 5-2 or 5-3 is a good idea with all the teams playing spread these days. It just makes the defense slow. 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 seem better against spread teams, though they are more vulnerable to power teams like NoDak State. Flexibility might really be the best approach.

I'm a fan of Gary Patterson's 4-2-5 Spoke defense. You have 3 safeties so it isn't a nickel and you can vary the coverage on the strong and weak side. Your strong and weak safeties can come up and essentially play like outside backers in a pseudo 4-4 against a power team. It worked well for TCU against Wisconsin in the 2011 Rose Bowl.

http://www.afcaweekly.com/2015/01/multi ... 5-defense/

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

dal4018 wrote:Super Hornet are you a fan of the famed 46 defense used by '85 Bears '99 Titans in both cases they were beaten by pass happy squads '85 Dolphins,'99 Rams with two HOF signal callers Kurt Warner&Dan Marino.

The aggressive cover-0 man D that the Cards/Todd Bowles have made popular in recent years seems to be a current version of the 46, at least philosophically. You need a good secondary, though, or you'll eventually get torched.

Well I guess the Jets will go shopping on the 28th for DBs since Revis island is closed up.Somebody had the Jets taking a DB in the 1st round of a mock draft.

dal4018 wrote:Super Hornet are you a fan of the famed 46 defense used by '85 Bears '99 Titans in both cases they were beaten by pass happy squads '85 Dolphins,'99 Rams with two HOF signal callers Kurt Warner&Dan Marino.

Not really. A few teams we faced while I was at UOP ran that. The Bear works well ONLY against stubborn pass-only-in-an-emergency teams. A Rice slant will beat it every time, and if you want to run, you can check-with-me to the bubble in the alignment.

It also requires a Cover Zero. If you keep the backs in to help with the rush, there's the possibility of getting a wide-out past the coverage, and THAT will torch the secondary. Mix that with the Rice slant and the check-with-me run to the bubble, and you have nothing to worry about from the Bear defense.

SuperHornet wrote:

dal4018 wrote:Super Hornet are you a fan of the famed 46 defense used by '85 Bears '99 Titans in both cases they were beaten by pass happy squads '85 Dolphins,'99 Rams with two HOF signal callers Kurt Warner&Dan Marino.

Not really. A few teams we faced while I was at UOP ran that. The Bear works well ONLY against stubborn pass-only-in-an-emergency teams. A Rice slant will beat it every time, and if you want to run, you can check-with-me to the bubble in the alignment.

It also requires a Cover Zero. If you keep the backs in to help with the rush, there's the possibility of getting a wide-out past the coverage, and THAT will torch the secondary. Mix that with the Rice slant and the check-with-me run to the bubble, and you have nothing to worry about from the Bear defense.

I remember when Marino torched that famed '85 Bears defense for 400+ passing yds and Warner made history in '99 throwing for 414 yds against a Ryan deciple Jeff Fisher in SB 34 in Atl.

UNI88 wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:To me, whether you blitz or not depends on how good your front-4 is at rushing the passer. The holy grail of pass defense is getting pressure with just the D-Line (or with 1 blitzer if you're running a 3-4). If you can do that consistently, you don't have to be very creative as a defensive coordinator. That was the foundation of the Monte Kiffin, Cover-2-era Buccaneers.

I'm skeptical running a true 5-2 or 5-3 is a good idea with all the teams playing spread these days. It just makes the defense slow. 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 seem better against spread teams, though they are more vulnerable to power teams like NoDak State. Flexibility might really be the best approach.

I'm a fan of Gary Patterson's 4-2-5 Spoke defense. You have 3 safeties so it isn't a nickel and you can vary the coverage on the strong and weak side. Your strong and weak safeties can come up and essentially play like outside backers in a pseudo 4-4 against a power team. It worked well for TCU against Wisconsin in the 2011 Rose Bowl.

http://www.afcaweekly.com/2015/01/multi ... 5-defense/

That article had the feel of a convention transcript, and it had no diagrams. I can imagine playing a base Cover 3 out of that with the two short safeties covering the outside short zones like outside backers or perhaps playing some form of bump man, or even bump on one side and zone on the other. Faking bump and blitzing would also be a great move as it would be much harder for the backs to pick that up if they're staying in to block. (Most backs are trained to look at the A gap on their side before moving out.)

Given the clear descent from the old 4-4, with the eight-man front Patterson describes, one could easily shift from that to a 5-3 look by replacing one of the backers with a middle guard, resulting, in Patterson's terminology, a 5-1 front, 5-spoke alignment. You'd lose that second inside zone, giving the resultant Mike Backer a ton of responsibility, but it COULD work.

Nice work, 88....

SuperHornet wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I'm a fan of Gary Patterson's 4-2-5 Spoke defense. You have 3 safeties so it isn't a nickel and you can vary the coverage on the strong and weak side. Your strong and weak safeties can come up and essentially play like outside backers in a pseudo 4-4 against a power team. It worked well for TCU against Wisconsin in the 2011 Rose Bowl.

http://www.afcaweekly.com/2015/01/multi ... 5-defense/

That article had the feel of a convention transcript, and it had no diagrams. I can imagine playing a base Cover 3 out of that with the two short safeties covering the outside short zones like outside backers or perhaps playing some form of bump man, or even bump on one side and zone on the other. Faking bump and blitzing would also be a great move as it would be much harder for the backs to pick that up if they're staying in to block. (Most backs are trained to look at the A gap on their side before moving out.)

Given the clear descent from the old 4-4, with the eight-man front Patterson describes, one could easily shift from that to a 5-3 look by replacing one of the backers with a middle guard, resulting, in Patterson's terminology, a 5-1 front, 5-spoke alignment. You'd lose that second inside zone, giving the resultant Mike Backer a ton of responsibility, but it COULD work.

Nice work, 88....

I actually have a 57 page .pdf of an old TCU defensive playbook. The 5-spoke alignment is in the backfield with the 2 CBs and 3 Safeties.

The best defense is a good offense. The Patriots proved that again and again.

SuperHornet wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I'm a fan of Gary Patterson's 4-2-5 Spoke defense. You have 3 safeties so it isn't a nickel and you can vary the coverage on the strong and weak side. Your strong and weak safeties can come up and essentially play like outside backers in a pseudo 4-4 against a power team. It worked well for TCU against Wisconsin in the 2011 Rose Bowl.

http://www.afcaweekly.com/2015/01/multi ... 5-defense/

That article had the feel of a convention transcript, and it had no diagrams. I can imagine playing a base Cover 3 out of that with the two short safeties covering the outside short zones like outside backers or perhaps playing some form of bump man, or even bump on one side and zone on the other. Faking bump and blitzing would also be a great move as it would be much harder for the backs to pick that up if they're staying in to block. (Most backs are trained to look at the A gap on their side before moving out.)

Given the clear descent from the old 4-4, with the eight-man front Patterson describes, one could easily shift from that to a 5-3 look by replacing one of the backers with a middle guard, resulting, in Patterson's terminology, a 5-1 front, 5-spoke alignment. You'd lose that second inside zone, giving the resultant Mike Backer a ton of responsibility, but it COULD work.

Nice work, 88....

When you talk about looking hard at the A gap...are you talking about watching women's flag football?

Cluck U wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The Patriots proved that again and again.

Tell that to the '80s Huskers, who ran up huge scores with their vaunted Wishbone attack, only to get shut down in the bowls.

Cluck U wrote:When you talk about looking hard at the A gap...are you talking about watching women's flag football?

I've never seen a women's FLAG game in my life, Cluck. Quit trying to crack weak jokes. The Sacramento Sirens play TACKLE football with a youth-sized football under a mix of NFL and NCAA rules.

Cluck U wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The Patriots proved that again and again.

And Eastern Washington. And Oregon. Shall I go on?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:The best defense is a good offense. The Patriots proved that again and again.

And Eastern Washington. And Oregon. Shall I go on?

Not to mention the Patriots have had a good defense most every year under Belichick.