Switching Defenses

[cc]

Coaches,

Need your thoughts here.

We have been a 43 team. Its what I know.

But our personel may not fit it. We just don't have the D.Linemen.

So we are thinking about going to a 335 or 35 basically.

We have lots of DB and LB / DB types and solid LBers.

What do you think?

Should personel dictate this or should we run what we know best??? I am sure we can learn it...but we won't be as quick to fix things...

Ie) I love the 43 ends wrong arming...does that transfer over?

[fbdoc]

Have to disagree on this one - The coaches will never make a tackle, shed a blocker, or pick off a pass. Your kids are going to make the plays and it's the coaches job to put them in a position to make plays! Yes you have to "know" your system but if your talent lies in other areas you need to utilize.

We were a 5-2 team for years but after 2 seasons of getting run over, we looked at our personel and made the decision to change. It happened to be into a 3-3-5 and the results were very positive. Not because of the 3-3-5, but because our kids skill set best fit with that scheme.

[aztec]

2 Years ago I moved away from the 43 to the 3-3 because of a lack of d lineman and and ton of DB / LB types. It has been a great change for our program. Very few teams in our league and division run what we run so we are a bastard to them. We have done very well against all of the spread teams that are out there, but our downfall are the smashmouth teams (DW) that run at you all day.

[nydc]

We are a 4-3 team.

We play in the northeast in NY.
Most teams in our area are 2 or 3 back teams that maybe throw 20 times a game, and those are the passing teams.
We see one team that could be considered a "spread" team.
Very run oriented area.

We have tried the 3-3-5 because we lacked DL numbers, and we struggled terribly because of it.

What we have done is to take one LB type and make them our rush (weakside) DE. Now we are only playing with 3, sometimes really 2 (have two LBer type at DE) DL.
We have stayed with what we know and play with the 3 DL that we would have with the 3-3-5.

We move our fronts, stem and such, and play line games and that helps out too! Use you quickness against the bigger slower OL. (Unless they are bigger and quicker than you in which case you are in trouble regardless)
Just something to think about.

[blb]

DEs in the 4-3 are LBers with their hands on the ground. We like to have tall, lanky basketball-type kids to play there but we don't always get this. Sometimes kids who would be great MGs in an odd front make very good 40 DEs.

So when you are choosing your personnel, don't think so much in terms of "linemen" when choosing your DEs. Think guys who may be a step too slow to play LBer, or play your bigger LBers at DEs, your smaller ones at LBer. Change your mind set re personnel, not your defense!

We have been able to "hide" bigger, slower kids at DT. We would like to have guys who can protect their gap and make pursuit plays too, but we don't always get that, either.

[coachdawhip]

I have smaller kids, but I play a 34/52, I want my Nose to be quick or huge, mostly quick because we don't get huge, My WOLB is a LB/DE, My SOLB, is a LB/DB, so I get 5 DB's on the field and 3 LB's still and I can play a 34/43/33 stack and so forth.

[bigcroz]

We made the switch to a 335 a couple of years back due to lack of overall team size. Don't have 1 kid that can play end in a 52/53. Have a ton of 5'7'165# athletes that can run. We put those kids that normally wouldn't be on the field in a place to make plays and it has paid off. I was always a 52 guy and the change over was hard for me, but the results have spoken volumes to me and I can't see running anything else.....as long as I have the athletes to run it. Athletes can make us all great coaches.

[cc]

Yeah the debate continues...

I think our 43 could be like a 25 really...but that I mean we are playing with Ends that are more like OLB's in a 3 pt (at times 2pt). Also our SS is like an extra Lber at times so maybe we should call it a 26 ?

Plus our FS is a freak so maybe its really a 27?

Anyways, we have a DT back who is one of the best players and would be a good nose.
An End is back who is not very big but very good with Tech.
We lose an end who was a stud and all of our LBers...

But its not the Lbers I am worried about as we have guys there, and we have LOTS of good DB's / tweeners. Its just the D.Line...

I think I would rather stick in our 40 and have good tech, slant and twist alot and use disguises... But I think we have the excitement for something new as coaches...

[nydc]

Add the 3-3 as a package to your defense.
You can use it as a nickel, Blitz-pressure D, or a change-up defense.
I was watching the D-1 (AA) playoffs Friday night and UMass (who is a 4-3 Defense) did that very effectively. They shut down Montana in the second half.
That also gives the staff some fun to work with the "new" stuff as well.

[3downsnout]

what teams run a good 3-3-5 package? Does anyone have a good 3-3-5 playbook?

[jraybern]

I think that nydc has a great idea. Many of your kids will still know the 43 because they have played in it. I would suggest you go to the 35 as a base but keep a 43 look that you can go to in short yardage or whatever. We were a 44 team for a very long time and had a ton of success then switched to a reading 43 for a while that we got from K-State. Problem was, we have the type of kids that you are talking about, smaller LBers and DBs. When we went to the 35 it was amazing. We blitz 2-3 guys on almost every play and shut a ton of teams down. I will tell you this, if you play like we do, you had better have a stud FS. We did for all of last year and the first half of this year. Went 9-2 and then 4-1 with him and 1-3 without him. DW and wishbone teams did give us some trouble but that was because they were so much bigger and stronger than us. It wouldn't have mattered what defense we were in, they were going to throw our little guys out of the way. I do feel that the defense gave us a chance to win games against better opponents because of the pressure we could put on them. NO ONE (except the DWers) pulled on us because as soon as they did we were blitzing through the hole the guy was pulling from and we stopped them in the backfield. Like I said, if your personnel will work better in this defense make the switch. It is not a hard defense to learn and the coverages can be as complex as you make them. I would keep a wrinkle in it where you could change the front. We called it "Hawk" and one of our ILBers would go down on the line and everyone would slide and we had a 44 look (almost a 62 with those outside guys walked up on the line). I won't say this defense is perfect (in fact I prefer a 34) but it is great for the kinds of players you have. But you better be ready to blitz a lot, or at least we felt like we had to. Good luck.

[coacha65]

Coaches, we have the opposite problem. Our conference has been a power run conference for years, which we were well suited for with very big linemen and LBs. Teams are slowly going to Spread type offenses (No TEs, a lot of zone scheme and very athletic QBs) and our Big linemen just can't make plays in all of that space. We are a 4-3 Quarters team and we squeeze and spill. Any suggestions?

[dacoachmo]

The stack LBs must be studs. We found when we swtiched fronts it helped us. The offense can't just tee off (and expect) the same front. I will say it is easier to teach a LB to line up on a TE...then have a Dlinemen to drop into space.

[blb]

As I posted earlier - play your big linemen at DT. Play your big LBers at DE and MLB. Play smaller or quicker LBers or even SS-type(s) at OLB.