My thoughts on the defense debate - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Goatnapper'96 · 11-29-2005, 03:46 PM

Over on the Cougarboard this debate has raged. While this site does not appear to have the traffic, most of the folks here seem to reflect the top tier of intellect, good looks and I think most of you all are also possessing very attractive tushes. So knowing my audience I offer what I feel are the saliant points of the debate.

1.) If your corners suck your defense will suck. No defensive alignment was going to make BYU an adequate defensive team.

2.) With BYU's historical recruiting base, I agree with the assesment that it is more likely that BYU's best players will include more LB or DL types than DBs. I believe the 4-3 or 3-4 better fits what BYU's recruiting base provides.

3.) The biggest advantage IMO of a more traditional defensive alignment is that more coaches are familiar with it and understand it. The 3-3-5 eliminates many potential coordinators. Additionally, it puts position coaches at a disadvantage as they are being taught the defense as they are trying to teach their players. If Bronco stays with the 3-3-5 he has no choice but to hire from within and I am not sure if he is comfortable with turning the defense over to someone else. He knows that in time he has no choice, but I doubt it happens this offseason. An improved defense is crucial to next season and I think that concern will keep Bronco's fingers in the defensive cookie jar for one more year. Especially since the offense returns just about everyone.

4.) The 3-3-5 has an advantage in that it increases team speed, an area that BYU usually needs improvement. It also can confuse younger qbs, but that does not mean much to me. Games are won by execution more than confusion/trickery.

Archaea · 11-29-2005, 04:09 PM

I'm not certain the 3-3-5 is more than a gimmick name for what really occurs.

That's really just your nickel package for more pass defense. BYU does rotate in extra linebackers or linemen depending on the nature of team being played.

I agree that any defense will suffer if your defensive secondary is inadequate. BYU's recruiting base will more consistently supply adequate linemen and linebackers and for the forseeable future will only provide sporadic good defensive backs.

So a defense relying upon the weakness of our recruiting base sound irrational. Nonetheless, all defenses play a 3-3-5 at sometime during the game. So I really wonder how different it is. It seems more like a nuance than a dramatically different defense. It's not a single wing or winged T formation.

il Padrino Ute · 11-29-2005, 04:17 PM

with mininal reward. It's too gimmicky and it's more likely to give up big plays rather than create havoc for an offense. It does create more spped, however it seems that in order to gain speed, the 3-3-5 needs to give up big bodies and strength on the D-line - a trade off that isn't worth it. Controlling the line of scrimmage, IMO, is more important. Of course, I may be way off in my opinion, as I'm no defensive coordinator.

I prefer the traditional 4-3 defense with blitzes and stunting. KW's bend but don't break defense has been the most vital part of Utah's recent success. Keeping the other team out of the endzone greatly increases the chances of winning, as a team doesn't have to outscore the other team.

Archaea · 11-29-2005, 04:21 PM

controlling the line of scrimmage hasn't been BYU's problem, it's been the distance afforded by Dbacks on receivers and sometimes there's a gaping gap to run through, but that can happen with traditional man or zone defense as well.

We've all seen lots of big plays against BYU's defense. Until we have consistent good speed, BYU will always experience it.

It is my observation that defense requires better, quicker athletes. BYU can compensate offensively by execution, but defensively, there will always be mistakes which must be made up athletically. Until BYU is on par with others athletically, it won't matter which defense we select.

bluegoose · 11-29-2005, 07:17 PM

Now I'm no Defensive coordinator, but like many of you, I ocaasionally play one on the internet.

I don't think that controlling the line of scrimmage has been the problem this season. Steel and I have often observed that even those games in which we were blistered by the other teams running game, the Lions share of the plays did not come inside. BYU's front 3 have owned the area between the tackles. Despite all of the hype about the strength of the linebackers, they stink with any kind of lateral movement during sweeps, end arounds, off-tackle runs etc. The lack of speed is not only at corner, the linebackers are also severely lacking. This is no startling revelation to anyone who has watched much of this season.

I'm sure many on CB can more skillfully debate the finer points of the 3-3-5 than I can. But really, is there that much of a difference between 3-3-5 and 3-4/4-3?

Bronco's scheme includes more stunts and blitzes, which have been highly ineffective this year, but I just can't see how switching over to a more traditional defensive set will change that much.

Big, slow D-linemen will control, not penetrate the line of scrimmage. Until more speed is invented in the state of Utah or Bronco stops recruiting at the same schools Fisher Deberry does, we are going to see a lot more of what we observed this year. That is - average QB's having enough time in the pocket to make and eat a ham sandwich while they read the defense and wait for our CBs to get burned by big, tall, fast guys.

SteelBlue · 11-29-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

While this site does not appear to have the traffic, most of the folks here seem to reflect the top tier of intellect, good looks and I think most of you all are also possessing very attractive tushes.

Wow, it's like you can see right into my mirror. You sir, have a gift.

bluegoose · 11-29-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Wow, it's like you can see right into my mirror. You sir, have a gift.

Would that be the mirror on your avatar?

Goatnapper'96 · 11-29-2005, 08:06 PM

Wow, it's like you can see right into my mirror. You sir, have a gift.[/quote]

Yup, I got me a stone in a hat..

WaterCat · 11-29-2005, 10:19 PM

He blitzes them all day and when we play a solid offensive line (think ND and BC) they are not effective because they are not fast enough to shoot past the big O-Lineman. Speed really is our biggest weakness in our defense and so I would say that adding another linebacker or d-lineman would actually increase the chance of getting to the QB because they have the strength to push through the line whereas the safeties were too slow to shoot the gaps and got knocked on their small rear-ends. The 3-3-5 would probably be very effective with fast safeties or safeties that stay home and watch for the game breaking pass. Bronco doesn't seem to play that way though. Like others "No soy coordinador defensivo," which is spanish for, "I am an internet hack," still that's how I'm seeing it.

11-29-2005, 03:46 PM	#1
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	My thoughts on the defense debate Over on the Cougarboard this debate has raged. While this site does not appear to have the traffic, most of the folks here seem to reflect the top tier of intellect, good looks and I think most of you all are also possessing very attractive tushes. So knowing my audience I offer what I feel are the saliant points of the debate. 1.) If your corners suck your defense will suck. No defensive alignment was going to make BYU an adequate defensive team. 2.) With BYU's historical recruiting base, I agree with the assesment that it is more likely that BYU's best players will include more LB or DL types than DBs. I believe the 4-3 or 3-4 better fits what BYU's recruiting base provides. 3.) The biggest advantage IMO of a more traditional defensive alignment is that more coaches are familiar with it and understand it. The 3-3-5 eliminates many potential coordinators. Additionally, it puts position coaches at a disadvantage as they are being taught the defense as they are trying to teach their players. If Bronco stays with the 3-3-5 he has no choice but to hire from within and I am not sure if he is comfortable with turning the defense over to someone else. He knows that in time he has no choice, but I doubt it happens this offseason. An improved defense is crucial to next season and I think that concern will keep Bronco's fingers in the defensive cookie jar for one more year. Especially since the offense returns just about everyone. 4.) The 3-3-5 has an advantage in that it increases team speed, an area that BYU usually needs improvement. It also can confuse younger qbs, but that does not mean much to me. Games are won by execution more than confusion/trickery. __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

11-29-2005, 04:09 PM	#2
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	While I don't disagree with the basic tenets I'm not certain the 3-3-5 is more than a gimmick name for what really occurs. That's really just your nickel package for more pass defense. BYU does rotate in extra linebackers or linemen depending on the nature of team being played. I agree that any defense will suffer if your defensive secondary is inadequate. BYU's recruiting base will more consistently supply adequate linemen and linebackers and for the forseeable future will only provide sporadic good defensive backs. So a defense relying upon the weakness of our recruiting base sound irrational. Nonetheless, all defenses play a 3-3-5 at sometime during the game. So I really wonder how different it is. It seems more like a nuance than a dramatically different defense. It's not a single wing or winged T formation. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-29-2005, 04:17 PM	#3
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	IMO, the 3-3-5 is too high risk.. with mininal reward. It's too gimmicky and it's more likely to give up big plays rather than create havoc for an offense. It does create more spped, however it seems that in order to gain speed, the 3-3-5 needs to give up big bodies and strength on the D-line - a trade off that isn't worth it. Controlling the line of scrimmage, IMO, is more important. Of course, I may be way off in my opinion, as I'm no defensive coordinator. I prefer the traditional 4-3 defense with blitzes and stunting. KW's bend but don't break defense has been the most vital part of Utah's recent success. Keeping the other team out of the endzone greatly increases the chances of winning, as a team doesn't have to outscore the other team. __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

11-29-2005, 04:21 PM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Yet good bro controlling the line of scrimmage hasn't been BYU's problem, it's been the distance afforded by Dbacks on receivers and sometimes there's a gaping gap to run through, but that can happen with traditional man or zone defense as well. We've all seen lots of big plays against BYU's defense. Until we have consistent good speed, BYU will always experience it. It is my observation that defense requires better, quicker athletes. BYU can compensate offensively by execution, but defensively, there will always be mistakes which must be made up athletically. Until BYU is on par with others athletically, it won't matter which defense we select. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-29-2005, 08:06 PM	#8
Goatnapper'96 Recruiting Coordinator/Bosom Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,412	Re: My thoughts on the defense debate Wow, it's like you can see right into my mirror. You sir, have a gift.[/quote] Yup, I got me a stone in a hat.. __________________ She had a psychiatrist who said because I didn't trust the water system, the school system, the government, I was paranoid," he said. "I had a psychiatrist who said her psychiatrist was stupid."

11-29-2005, 07:17 PM	#5
bluegoose Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Northern California Posts: 2,919	Now I'm no Defensive coordinator, but like many of you, I ocaasionally play one on the internet. I don't think that controlling the line of scrimmage has been the problem this season. Steel and I have often observed that even those games in which we were blistered by the other teams running game, the Lions share of the plays did not come inside. BYU's front 3 have owned the area between the tackles. Despite all of the hype about the strength of the linebackers, they stink with any kind of lateral movement during sweeps, end arounds, off-tackle runs etc. The lack of speed is not only at corner, the linebackers are also severely lacking. This is no startling revelation to anyone who has watched much of this season. I'm sure many on CB can more skillfully debate the finer points of the 3-3-5 than I can. But really, is there that much of a difference between 3-3-5 and 3-4/4-3? Bronco's scheme includes more stunts and blitzes, which have been highly ineffective this year, but I just can't see how switching over to a more traditional defensive set will change that much. Big, slow D-linemen will control, not penetrate the line of scrimmage. Until more speed is invented in the state of Utah or Bronco stops recruiting at the same schools Fisher Deberry does, we are going to see a lot more of what we observed this year. That is - average QB's having enough time in the pocket to make and eat a ham sandwich while they read the defense and wait for our CBs to get burned by big, tall, fast guys.

11-29-2005, 10:19 PM	#9
WaterCat Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 50	Bronco blitzes the safeties. He blitzes them all day and when we play a solid offensive line (think ND and BC) they are not effective because they are not fast enough to shoot past the big O-Lineman. Speed really is our biggest weakness in our defense and so I would say that adding another linebacker or d-lineman would actually increase the chance of getting to the QB because they have the strength to push through the line whereas the safeties were too slow to shoot the gaps and got knocked on their small rear-ends. The 3-3-5 would probably be very effective with fast safeties or safeties that stay home and watch for the game breaking pass. Bronco doesn't seem to play that way though. Like others "No soy coordinador defensivo," which is spanish for, "I am an internet hack," still that's how I'm seeing it.