Toggle sidebar

What's with the three man front?

N

ncbama

Suspended
Jun 1, 2003
923
0
0
87
Albemarle NC
It is obvious that there is a wide range of football knowledge among those of us who post on TideFans message board. I am definitely in the below 50th percentile in the knowledge category. However, I am a good reader/listener/learner and would like to know the rationale behind that three man rush thing that we used a great deal against USC. We also used it a great deal last year. As I watched those plays unfold it seemed to me that in just about every case the middle was wide open for a short pass and if, in a running play, the runner could get by those three rushers he was assured of a 5-6 yard gain.
It almost looked like a perpetual prevent defense. Give them a little to keep them from getting a lot.
Help me out on this. What's the advantage over a four or five man front?

P.S. It could just be that we folks up here in North Carolina just don't know much about football. I will concede that right off.
 
the 3-3-5 can be equally impressive at stopping the run as a 4-3.

I will grant you the fact that a lot of the 3-3-5 we ran the first drive and the final quarter were not very aggressive.

However, when we ran it in the late 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, it was more aggressive and did stop the run and the pass.

The advantage is to get your best athletes on the field. In our case, the best athletes are our LBs and DBs. Did you count how many times Pep and Harper were in the backfield? That's because we blitzed them out of the 3-3-5, making them in essence LBs, while the corners played man to man or drop zone.

The key to running the 3-3-5 though, is the front 3 being able to garner a push and absorbing more than one OL each. When that happens, the LBs and Safeties can make the tackles and get QB pressure.
 
Also the open middle is often an illusion, normally a linebacker is lurking waiting on the QB to through that slant so he can step in front of it. Just like Roach did twice, and had it not been for the elbow brace would have had 2 int's and possibly a touchdown.
 
Last edited:
I would expect to see more 4-3 against Arkansas. Their rush offense is pretty good, and another big body in the middle is probably necessary. I really want to get Justin back in the lineup, too. The 4-3 can take some heat off Anderson and Gilberry, too. Remember, them?
 
I agree

To me it seemed that when we were in the 3-3 we failed to pressure the qb, gave up the short pass and we soft on the run. Maybe if we blitzed off of it more it would have been different, but it seemed like we were a lot more consistant out of the 4-3
 
Kp said:
To me it seemed that when we were in the 3-3 we failed to pressure the qb, gave up the short pass and we soft on the run....
Click to expand...
:conf3: Were you watching the same game? SC only had 71 yds rushing. I hardly call that "soft on the run."
 
Thanks for the responses. That does help some, but I will be watching Saturday to see if we stay in that formation and, if so, how it works.
 
Nit picking Signature

"The first fifty yards I was praying no one would catch me, the last fifty yards I was praying that someone would." Lee Ozmint, after intercepting a pass in the end zone and returning it 100 yards for a touchdown.
------------------------------------------------

That was a 2 point conversion not a touchdown. It was an INT on a 2 pt conversion attempt. I think that was in 1989 against LSU.
 
Bama-94-00 said:
"The first fifty yards I was praying no one would catch me, the last fifty yards I was praying that someone would." Lee Ozmint, after intercepting a pass in the end zone and returning it 100 yards for a touchdown.
------------------------------------------------

That was a 2 point conversion not a touchdown. It was an INT on a 2 pt conversion attempt. I think that was in 1989 against LSU.
Click to expand...

I think you've let me know that before. I believe you, but not interested in changing my sig just yet. Copied that from a Bama quote site. I'll pick another quote one of these days. Sorry if its annoying to you.
 
Kp said:
To me it seemed that when we were in the 3-3 we failed to pressure the qb, gave up the short pass and we soft on the run. Maybe if we blitzed off of it more it would have been different, but it seemed like we were a lot more consistant out of the 4-3
Click to expand...


South Carolina had no answer to our defense, we just kept running the same formation over and over. ROT pretty much nailed it with 3-3-5 scheme. It provides so many various blitz than 4-3 scheme, if your NT can hold his spot against double teams 3-3-5 is really hard to beat.

Also, I would bet that we haven't seen all of our defensive packages yet. From the middle of 3rd quarter we just kept running the same defense over and over. I'd say we saw about 70-80% of our entire defensive schemes.
 
Couple of notes:

Important thing about the 3-3-5 is your NG taking a double team from the OL. It happened majority of the time vs USC.

Secondly, a lot of the time in the 3-3-5 we had 2 LB's or DB's on the line at the same time virtually giving us a 5 man front. However, on that first drive and the last one those 2 dropped back in coverage. You could see the short flat being open to that little pass they were throwing in the 4th. They ate up some yards, against a lot of subs...but at the same time at that point of the game giving up a TD wasn't going to mean a thing. And it didn't.

There are some schemes out of the 3-3-5 we still haven't seen yet.

In the 3-3-5 we maintained a decent amount of pressure in the backfield from our front 3, specifically the ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back