Base Defensive Alignments used in FBS (DI)

[samparnell]

With the draft coming up and with the Denver Broncos now using a base 3-4 D, I began to wonder exactly how many of the college teams use which base defensive alignment.

I say base because anyone who has played or coached D knows that a base system can have wrinkles, personnel packages, etc. as a result of game planning and scouting.

Using Phil Steele's excellent book (calling it a magazine would be an understatement), I learned the following:

SEC They all use the 4-3 except Alabama which uses the 3-4;

Big Ten They all use the 4-3 except Michigan which just went to the 3-4 after using the 3-3-5;

Big XII They all use the 4-3 except Texas A&M which uses the 3-4 and Kansas State which uses the 4-2-5 disguised as a 4-3;

ACC They all use the 4-3 except Virginia which uses the 3-4;

PAC-10 They all use the 4-3 except Cal. which uses the 3-4;

Big East They all use the 4-3 except West Virginia which uses a 3-3-5 and Cincinnati which used the 3-4;

Mountain West Utah, UNLV, CSU and UNM use the 4-3, BYU, Air Force and Wyoming use the 3-4, TCU uses the 4-2-5 and SDSU uses the 3-3-5 (Rocky Long);

Conference USA UTEP and Tulsa use the 3-3-5, SMU uses 3-4, Rice uses 4-2-5 and the rest (8) use the 4-3;

WAC They all use the 4-3 except SJSU which uses the 4-2-5;

Independents Notre Dame and Army use the 4-3 and Navy the 3-4;

MAC Akron uses the 3-3-5, Toledo the 4-2-5 and the others (11) use the 4-3;

Sun Belt Louisiana-Monroe uses the 3-3-5, Western Kentucky the 3-4 and the others (7) use the 4-3.

OBSERVATIONS
Half of the 3-3-5 schools have Rocky Long connections (i.e., SDSU, ULM and UTEP).
It appeared that the New Orleans Saints used the 3-3-5 for much of the Super Bowl, raising the question of where did Gregg Williams acquire the X & O expertise?
With only 12 FBS schools using the 3-4, NFL teams using the same D must extrapolate and project DEs to OLB and 3 techs. to 5 tech. or NT.
Is the 4-2-5 closer to being a 3-3-5 or a 4-3?
Bronco Mendenhall at BYU was Rocky Long's DC at UNM before he became DC at BYU. He originally installed the 3-3-5, but switched to a 3-4 after he became HC.
The Mountain West is the conference with the most variation of defenses (i.e., four 4-3, three 3-4, one 4-2-5 and one 3-3-5).
The 4-3 defense is used by 97 of the 120 FBS schools (six 3-3-5, twelve 3-4 and five 4-2-5)
The 3-3-5 and its companion the 3-5-3 is much more prevalent in HS football than at any other level.
The 3-3-5 gives a name to the fith member of the 5. When Rocky Long was at UNM, that player was called the "Lobo". During Long's tenure, the most famous "Lobo" was Brian Urlacher.

I used to equate the 3-4 with the 50 D (aka Oklahoma 50) as it has many similarities to the 3-4. However, my football mentor (Vince Collins) informed me that the two standup DEs in the 50 play much differently than the OLBs in the 3-4.

I don't know about defensive alignments in the FCS, but I'll assume the 4-3 is as prevalent there as it is in the FBS.

High School and college defenses used to be more varied, but with the advent of spread and spread option, the old 50 and split-six (designed to stop Wing-T and option/bone) have gone by the wayside for the moment. NFL fans would be surprised at how many HS football teams run a no-huddle spread O.

It's interesting that the so-called "Wildcat" bears more similarity to the Single-Wing, invented by Glenn "Pop" Warner a hundred years ago, than anything else used in the meantime. If it continues, a visit back in football time might be necessary to learn how to better defend it.

[GatorChomp]

Good interesting read. There will always be the teams that run the "traditional" defenses, but with the emergence of the spread I'm sure we'll see even more wrinkles and different defensive packages created and implemented. In 2006 Florida ran a a base 4-3 defense, but since then have moved to a 3-3-5 in order to work against the new spread packages. I really like it (especially for a college team). Dropping a DL in order to add an extra safety adds a lot of speed, and also allows to switch up blitz packages. The other positive is that it takes a little more time to game plan for. With so many teams running different defenses it forces the Offensive Coordinator to spend more time breaking down tape and planning on how to attack it. Too bad for the NFL scouts, fewer cookie cutter defensive players. They really have to research to make sure they're getting what they want.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Boise State uses a 4-2-5 as their base defense. The have a hybrid safety\OLB position.

[samparnell]

So, ...

Good interesting read. There will always be the teams that run the "traditional" defenses, but with the emergence of the spread I'm sure we'll see even more wrinkles and different defensive packages created and implemented. In 2006 Florida ran a a base 4-3 defense, but since then have moved to a 3-3-5 in order to work against the new spread packages. I really like it (especially for a college team). Dropping a DL in order to add an extra safety adds a lot of speed, and also allows to switch up blitz packages. The other positive is that it takes a little more time to game plan for. With so many teams running different defenses it forces the Offensive Coordinator to spend more time breaking down tape and planning on how to attack it. Too bad for the NFL scouts, fewer cookie cutter defensive players. They really have to research to make sure they're getting what they want.

... another team in the 3-3-5 column.

When I saw Rocky Long, Bronco Mendenhall and Osia Lewis chalk it up at the Lobo coaching clinics, I was mystified at how it could be effective against the run. But after watching UNM all those years with their great D, I became convinced.

After the HC at the school where I teach started using a form of it (he called his 3-5-3), he broke it down for me. It's all based on calls. Each d & d/FP situation is called. There are no keys. Each call has gap assignments for run D which constantly change with each call. It's difficult for OL to block because there are only three DL across from them and they have no idea who else is committed to the run on any given down. Pass coverage is even more confusing. Even Peyton Manning had difficulty with it.

If an NFL team wanted to go to the 3-3-5, they should get Rocky Long as a consultant or even DC.

[samparnell]

Ok

Boise State uses a 4-2-5 as their base defense. The have a hybrid safety\OLB position.

Another team to add to the 4-2-5 column.

Al, do you think the 4-2-5 is more like the 4-3 or the 3-3-5?

Some 3-3-5 Ds play their fifth guy like an extra DL, like Troy once did.

Others like a LB.

When Urlacher was the Lobo back at UNM, he could be anywhere and usually was.

When a 3-3-5 is called properly, that fifth/Bandit/Rover whatever, is not the key. If he was, then it might be readable.

What does Boise call their fifth guy in the secondary? Is he more like a S or a LB sizewise?

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Another team to add to the 4-2-5 column.

Al, do you think the 4-2-5 is more like the 4-3 or the 3-3-5?

Some 3-3-5 Ds play their fifth guy like an extra DL, like Troy once did.

Others like a LB.

When Urlacher was the Lobo back at UNM, he could be anywhere and usually was.

When a 3-3-5 is called properly, that fifth/Bandit/Rover whatever, is not the key. If he was, then it might be readable.

What does Boise call their fifth guy in the secondary? Is he more like a S or a LB sizewise?

The one BSU runs is more like a 4-3. They have always run a 4-3 under Peterson, but in 08 they started playing Ellis Powers who was a smaller linebacker with decent speed at the position (205-210), and essentially made the WLB position a hybrid safety\LB position.

This last year they played a JC transfer named Venable at the position. He was around 215. I guess it's hard to say if they are more like linebackers or safeties. The two guys BSU has played at the position have both been "tweeners".

It's a position that requires a lot of coverage, but usually they are the first secondary person to respond in run support. It's almost a position created for guys like Dawkins and Atwater. I wonder if we will start to see more of it in the NFL. It works well if you have physical guys up front to go with athletic LB's.

It's funny how the NFL is taking some schemes from college. Good ideas don't always start in the NFL. The 3-3-5 that confused Manning in the Superbowl is something that Denver used successfully against him earlier in the year and a number of college teams run it too. BSU used it to confuse TCU in the Fiesta Bowl, playing Kyle Wilson at safety.

[CoryWinget81]

Boise State uses a 4-2-5 as their base defense. The have a hybrid safety\OLB position.

... another team in the 3-3-5 column.

When I saw Rocky Long, Bronco Mendenhall and Osia Lewis chalk it up at the Lobo coaching clinics, I was mystified at how it could be effective against the run. But after watching UNM all those years with their great D, I became convinced.

After the HC at the school where I teach started using a form of it (he called his 3-5-3), he broke it down for me. It's all based on calls. Each d & d/FP situation is called. There are no keys. Each call has gap assignments for run D which constantly change with each call. It's difficult for OL to block because there are only three DL across from them and they have no idea who else is committed to the run on any given down. Pass coverage is even more confusing. Even Peyton Manning had difficulty with it.

If an NFL team wanted to go to the 3-3-5, they should get Rocky Long as a consultant or even DC.

I hate the 4-2-5. The "antler"back is the position you are thinkin of. It's good against spread teams, especially getting pressure with monster/antler backs from the mid to deep outside. But if this is your BASE formation, you're gonna have a pretty difficult time stopping any team with a decent run game.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I hate the 4-2-5. The "antler"back is the position you are thinkin of. It's good against spread teams, especially getting pressure with monster/antler backs from the mid to deep outside. But if this is your BASE formation, you're gonna have a pretty difficult time stopping any team with a decent run game.

You're right, unless you are very talented and physical up front, which BSU is. They struggled in 08' against TCU's run game, but in the Fiesta Bowl they essential shut it down. That was largely due to the different players up front.

Essentially, I agree with you, but BSU makes it work because they have the right players for the scheme. Last year they were too small up front to make it work against good running teams like TCU.

[CoryWinget81]

You're right, unless you are very talented and physical up front, which BSU is. They struggled in 08' against TCU's run game, but in the Fiesta Bowl they essential shut it down. That was largely due to the different players up front.

Essentially, I agree with you, but BSU makes it work because they have the right players for the scheme. Last year they were too small up front to make it work against good running teams like TCU.

It really shows how offenses and defenses adapt.

[iowabronco24]

IMO, any team in the NFL that ran a BASE 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 would get ran over. I could see a team implementing it for special situations or a change up look for spread passing teams, but no way they would draft players that would just fit that kind of scheme and go with it solely.

I think most college teams that run those gimmick defenses can get away with it mostly because college is a very different game than the NFL, as there is a lot of gimmick offenses, especially in smaller conferences. That is why you notice that in much of the BCS conferences they either run a 4-3 or 3-4.

[samparnell]

You may be right.

IMO, any team in the NFL that ran a BASE 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 would get ran over. I could see a team implementing it for special situations or a change up look for spread passing teams, but no way they would draft players that would just fit that kind of scheme and go with it solely.

I think most college teams that run those gimmick defenses can get away with it mostly because college is a very different game than the NFL, as there is a lot of gimmick offenses, especially in smaller conferences. That is why you notice that in much of the BCS conferences they either run a 4-3 or 3-4.

The "special situation" in which the Saints used the 3-3-5 was the Super Bowl.

[GatorChomp]

Give it a few years, and teams are going to have to go back to pounding the ball up the middle. Defenses keep getting smaller and faster to defend against the spread pass attack, pretty soon the power running game will come back. Georgia Tech sure loved it this year.

[samparnell]

You got that right.

Give it a few years, and teams are going to have to go back to pounding the ball up the middle. Defenses keep getting smaller and faster to defend against the spread pass attack, pretty soon the power running game will come back. Georgia Tech sure loved it this year.

Option, baby.

I would need to check the game stats from when Rocky Long was at UNM, but Air Force used to run a lot of option, even wishbone.

That would indicate how well a 3-3-5 could do against an option team.

Playing D vs. option usually requires disciplined assignment D (i.e., who has give, keep, pitch).

Against an option or predominantly running team, you usually don't have a plethora of formations to worry about. I think the 3-3-5 could be adapted to defend the option. The scout team would need to bust their butts during practice to give the D a good look.

We used to play a number of Wing T teams with their four plays (trap, sweep, counter, boot). Against that type of running attack, the DL cannot stand up or look in the backfield, and the DC should not blitz a Wing T team ... ever. We ran a split six/60 D against that (looks like a 4-4).

[CoryWinget81]

Option, baby.

I would need to check the game stats from when Rocky Long was at UNM, but Air Force used to run a lot of option, even wishbone.

That would indicate how well a 3-3-5 could do against an option team.

Playing D vs. option usually requires disciplined assignment D (i.e., who has give, keep, pitch).

Against an option or predominantly running team, you usually don't have a plethora of formations to worry about. I think the 3-3-5 could be adapted to defend the option. The scout team would need to bust their butts during practice to give the D a good look.

We used to play a number of Wing T teams with their four plays (trap, sweep, counter, boot). Against that type of running attack, the DL cannot stand up or look in the backfield, and the DC should not blitz a Wing T team ... ever. We ran a split six/60 D against that (looks like a 4-4).

That's good old school stuff right there!

[samparnell]

That is the totally cool thing ...

... about coaching HS football.

One is likely to see any O or D that has ever been played ... ever.

We played a team that ran the Single Wing right out of Pop Warner's Carlisle Indian School playbook. They ran the crap out of the ball, usually down an opposing team's throat (i.e., up the middle and of tackle). Think they averaged over 250 yds a game (48 min. game time).

I think that coach is still coaching HS ball in NM, but at a different school.

Don't you know it was difficult to get "the boneheads" to pay attention and realize what the scout team was showing them would actually happen ... except times ten. Big difference between beating up JV running something they don't quite get versus another Varsity who know it well.