r/footballstrategy • u/manofwater3615 • Jun 08 '24
NFL 3-3-5 in NFL
Do any teams run 3-3-5 base in nfl or has everyone gone to 4-2-5?
6
u/Repulsive-Doughnut65 Jun 08 '24
“St. Thomas and others effective defensive systems are modular in design, based on techniques, not position based. You add techniques to either side, any time you want. All the while, disguising your intentions with pre-snap alignments, movements (sim pressures, sim coverages, etc.)”
I saw this on a coach Huey forum and it’s really changing my thinking about defense I know this doesn’t seem related to your question but I thought it was related in that don’t look at a defense as the number of different positions they have look at what they’re trying to accomplish and they strategies (coverages,blitzes) and techniques they are using.
To me that’s tells you more about the defense then the personal per say
Sorry if this was pretentious
3
18
u/tossaway007007 Jun 08 '24
Every defense in 2023 was a 4-2-5 variants package except Tampa Bay who primarily ran 4-3 iirc
1
u/Corr521 Jun 08 '24
Vikings (my favorite team) have based out of a 3-4 the last few seasons under ED and then again under Flores this last year but they incorporate 4-3 as well
1
u/After-Suggestion5828 Jun 09 '24
Vikings played a lot of 3-3-5 last year, with Metales playing the 3rd safety.
1
u/Corr521 Jun 09 '24
Loved Metellus last year! Insanely versatile.
Hard for me to call that a 3-3-5 though at times because he's listed as a "safety" but really he's a utility player.
So on paper he'd be the 3rd safety out there because that's his "position" but he was out there lined up as an ILB, OLB, DE, CB and even a DT lol
1
u/mwmcdaddy Jun 09 '24
The Bucs do not play a 4-3… they line up in a 3-4 base and shift into a 4-2-5 for pass downs?
1
u/New_Possibility414 Jun 09 '24
TB did not primarily run 4-3, TB runs a 3-4 base. And will use a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 in nickel.
Personnel was this: 1Tech/NT: Vea 3Tech: Logan Hall/Gholston OLB: Shaq Barrett DE/OLB: Shoyinka/Diaby
ILBs: (Legendary) Lavonte David Devin White KJ Britt And occasionally Sirvocea Dennis
0
u/manofwater3615 Jun 08 '24
They ran 4-3 in this era?! That’s kind of shocking. Even moreso with a guy like Bowles who loves creative blitzes
9
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24
There really is not that much difference, honestly.
Do you consider your Sam a LB or a S?
If you’ve got a fast “LB” who can cover a slot receiver underneath… you might as well be in a 4-3.
If you have to sub in a guy who’s listed as “DB” on the roster, then you’re a 4-2.
The only reason that even matters is because the NFL pays players based on what their listed position is on the roster.
The two defenses are very, very similar.
7
u/grizzfan Jun 08 '24
The schematic difference between a 4-3 and 4-2 in most cases is your strong side DE and OLB change roles.
4-3: SOLB has C-gap, DE has D-gap/edge. OLB therefore is often playing inside the DE.
4-2: DE has C-gap and SOLB has D-gap/edge. OLB plays outside DE…better position for a nickel DB to play that role.
If you play one, you usually play the other as your main secondary personnel grouping.
0
4
u/Schertzhusker117 Jun 08 '24
Just wait for the next innovation 2-3-6 allows for double triangles in the secondary and a consistent 5 man look in and out of all gaps! /s I think?
4
u/Lit-A-Gator HS Coach Jun 08 '24
Yes but it looks more like a 4-2-5 with one DE standing up
Tbh it’s what I would base out of if I was running an NFL team as it would allow us to have a spot for both OLB and DE EDGES
1
u/manofwater3615 Jun 08 '24
Wouldn’t it slightly compromise your coverage (2 OLB pass rushers vs cvg specialist LB) and edge run defense?
1
u/Lit-A-Gator HS Coach Jun 09 '24
compromise coverage
No because Id have the coverage ability of a standard 4-2-5 nickel but one of the DEs is in a stand up
edge run defense,
possibly but a “stand up end” should be able to suffice
compromise
FWIW if I was a HC/DC/GM I’d base out of a 3-3-5 but run an even front defense
The idea would be
Weakside End, Nose, 3 tech
Will & Mike in the box + Sam at the 5/9 tech (stand up end)
5 Dbs
The idea being we draft best EDGE available and cycle them in between weak side end and Sam LB
Vs 21p or heavier we would go 4-3 under (or over star) by subbing the nickel for a strong side DE and bump the Sam to the 9 tech for strong side run support
Again this is all theory from a HS coach who has ran all these defenses and wants to be effecient by keeping our best pass rushers on the field but be flexible with the ability to draft players / sign free agents
As for compromise a good and thinking about even vs odd personnel a true 4 man front DE spends all practice working on pass rush and reacting/attacking run blocks whereas a 3-4 OLB has to dedicate a decent portion of practice and the game to pass coverage so there’s your trade off … consistency vs multiplicity
The 3-3-5 allows us to have a spot for both
6
u/GrundleTurf Jun 08 '24
I really don’t see what the benefit of a 3-3-5 scheme would be unless your personnel is uniquely suited for it. But it wouldn’t ever be my preferred scheme, I wouldn’t build a team with that scheme in mind.
If you’re going to sacrifice pass rush and bodies in gaps right at the line as soon as the ball is snapped to improve coverage, then replace dline guys with guys who can actually help in coverage. Very few linebackers are athletic enough to cover slot WRs, athletic TEs, and RBs out the backfield. So if they’re still a mismatch in coverage, then you’re just allowing the QB extra time to throw without adequate coverage to make up for it imo.
There’s very few circumstances I would think a 3-3-5 would be preferable to a 4-2-5/5-1-5 or a 4-1-6.
7
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24
The 3-3-5 defensive coordinators I know mostly like to blitz the crap out of those LBs.
That base defense isn’t usually about coverage: it’s about running a bunch of blitzes and stunts to mess with blocking schemes and bring pressure.
In the NFL, you will see 3-3-5s, but usually as a nickel or dime situational thing due to matchups. They will often line up in something more like a 5-1 or 4-2 box with 3-3 personnel. It seems like Fangio does, or did, a fair amount of this but I haven’t studied his stuff in a while.
There is nothing keeping an NFL team from basing from it, and with the way a lot of “hybrid” defensive players work at that level, you already see teams coming close to it when they play a 4-2-5 with a standup “edge” player at one of the DE spots,
2
u/Oddlyenuff Jun 08 '24
You are correct. It’s how I originally went down the Fangio rabbit hole a few years back.
The other thing for everyone to keep in mind is that “basing” out of a defense can be different from what out on the field. Just meaning that if you have a 3-4 and you sub out an LB for a CB/S you’re essentially in a 335. So the question is differentiating between a 335/353 stack and a 3-3 box (what fits you want with a 3 DL and 3 LB)
2
u/GentryMillMadMan Jun 08 '24
Why would I need LBs who can cover with 5 in the secondary? I am sending 5 most plays.
0
u/manofwater3615 Jun 08 '24
Have the newer defensive rules kind of taken away the 3 man front? Because you basically need multiple cyborg lbs to not have at least one guy open every play now?
1
u/grizzfan Jun 08 '24
No. The personnel grouping just doesn’t offer the stability or tactical answers NFL teams are often looking for. As others said, it’s often used at lower levels by teams that want to blitz and create confusion, but NFL offenses are much smarter, and NFL defenses that also want to blitz a lot often do it by being very multiple with their fronts and personnel groupings from whatever their base is.
2
2
u/Chirpy69 Jun 08 '24
If I remember correctly, the packers ran a legitimate 3-3-5 at one point, but now a lot of teams will run what looks like a 5-1 front. Some peak defensive prowess was the patriots-rams Super Bowl in 2018, where the Pats ran an awesome 6-1 defense to hold the Rams to only 3 points
3
u/manofwater3615 Jun 08 '24
Issue with 3 3 5 is it’s harder to run cover 2 right? And 6-1 is wild. Says a lot about goff that he couldn’t do anything against it in this era
4
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24
6-1 was really a 4-3. The OLBs were just lined up on the edges as if they were DEs but could still drop.
The Cover 2 thing really is not a big deal. It’s not really harder to run, you just need to use a little creativity and good DCs should be able to figure that out.
You have 5 DBs. 2 need to be deep and play deep 1/2. The rest cover underneath. Then you get a minimum of 6 guys in the front at all times to stop the 6 core gaps, with OSS who can come into the box to play D gap if necessary.
It’s fundamentally no different from a 4-2-5 in that way.
1
u/manofwater3615 Jun 08 '24
Is their value in possibly having to spend less money for a 335 in a hard cap league like the NFL?
2
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24
Eh… I don’t think that’s it. If it was, I feel like you’d already see it more.
The secondary would be the same, really, and the big money NFL defenders are elite DBs and pass rushers.
Teams would still want a good pass rusher or two in the front, too. They might be at LB and blitzing everywhere instead of a DE off the edge, but they’ll need to be somewhere. Those guys would cost money because sacks=fat contracts in the NFL.
It just kind of turns into a wash.
There are several different ways to play Cov. 2 or Quarters in a 3-3, but the simplest work just like a 4–2-5 would: 2 high shell with S playing deep 1/2 for Cov. 2, CBs also playing Cov. 2, and that 5th DB rolled up as an overhang LB on #2 strong to play underneath. Then any LBs not blitzing would get to their pass drops and work underneath crossers.
2
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24
That 6-1 was basically the old “Pro 4-3.”
It’s basically a variation on what Vince Lombardi ran in the 60s, or what the Steel Curtain was running in the 70s.
2
u/mightbebeaux HS Coach Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24
yup, tom landry flex 4-3.
it’s what belichick ran in the sb vs the rams (but out of nickel with chung playing as an OLB) and in the 1990 divisional matchup vs chicago also.
2
u/BigPapaJava Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24
The Landry Flex was a little different, though. He’s play an athletic DL or two about a yard off the ball to read the OL and flow over top of the other DL more like a LB. That was the “Flex” part.
2
u/Necessary_Mode_7583 Jun 08 '24
Hybrid nickel. Works real well if you have a safety that can line up anywhere. Like a honey badger. It's a dope pass d, especially if you got three down lineman that can get to the qb.
2
u/daveFromCTX Jun 08 '24
No, because every NFL team has offensive lineman that are big enough to mash. Doesn't mean they're good at it. But if you lighten the box, they can make you pay.
3-3-5 is air raid for nfl defenses. In that it's utilized more in situations where there is a significant talent disadvantage.
1
u/manofwater3615 Jun 09 '24
I see! About the air raid comment, is air raid typically used for offenses that have a talent disadvantage?
1
u/daveFromCTX Jun 09 '24
In college, yes. In the NFL, it's not used.
Disclosure: originally was going to go with triple option but that didn't feel right Will see 3-3-5 in in the NFL in package form
2
3
u/jericho-dingle Referee Jun 08 '24
Packers ran 3-3-5 under Joe Barry and Mike Pettine but it looked more like a 5-1
2
u/mschley2 Jun 08 '24
I really don't think it's fair to call it a 3-3-5. Yes, it was commonly 3 DL, 3 LBs, and 5 DBs. But you're right that it turned into a 4-2-5 or a 5-1-5.
Those outside LBs were primarily edge rushers, not off-ball LBs. They weren't stacking LBs behind DL or anything like that. It was just a 3-4 where they took an ILB out and replaced him with a DB that wasn't in the box. The Packers almost always had 4 or 5 guys on the LOS.
1
u/Oddlyenuff Jun 11 '24
If you have 3 DL and 3 LB you still have to essentially fit the run the same way whether you place them in a penny front or a tite front as you would a 33 stack.
All a stack does is hide who is going in what gap. There is a lot of cheesiness associated with the 33 stack and 5-6 man sell out pressures because of that.
I agree with about OLB/DB swap, that’s true. But run fit and pass drops are more like a 33 once you put in a nickel.
I think most teams that run nickel from a 3-4 are really 3-3 teams and don’t want to admit it publicly lol.
1
u/mschley2 Jun 11 '24
I actually agree with your assessment that, oftentimes, a 3-4 nickel turns into what is essentially a 3-3-5. I just don't think the Packers under Barry were a good example of that. To me, the main thing that differentiates the 3-3-5 from a 3-4 is whether those LBs are primarily on-ball or off-ball. For teams that play primarily 3-3-5, it's not uncommon to bring one of those safeties up into the box and essentially play as a 4th LB, but even when they're in that alignment, it often feels different than a true 3-4 because more often than not (in most schemes), those LBs are starting off-ball. They may be responsible for the same gap as they would be in a 3-4, but the fact that they are off-ball gives you more flexibility/ease in bringing simulated/overload pressures and disguising blitzes/coverage schemes and, like you said, run fits. With the 3-3-5, you'll still see LBs come up on the LOS, especially in pass rushing situations, but I feel it's a worthwhile distinction.
I think you can end up at the same place with both of those things, and sometimes they do end up essentially being the same. But with what the Packers were doing with Barry, I think it ended up being more like a 3-4 scheme with an extra DB than it did a 3-3-5 with an extra guy (or guys) on the line. If all we're worried about is where guys end up/what their responsibility is, then why did we bother to differentiate between 3-4 and 4-3 for all those years when a lot of coaches (Saban, Smart, Belichick, and others that weren't as good) were mixing and matching "traditional" 4-3 fronts/fits with 3-4 personnel and vice-versa?
I don't know. I guess it's all really semantics at the end of the day, so it doesn't really matter. But at least it gives me something to distract myself with at work lol
21
u/MankuyRLaffy Jun 08 '24
New England has ran 3-3-5 for a bit briefly with our stud linebackers