How involved was Jerry Kill in the defenses at NMSU? Not trying to downgrade the hire as i think he is very solid hire with a lot of upside but was just not sure if a lot of success at NMSU was also attributed to Jerry working with the defense.

EngineeringAggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 8:30 am

I’m curious if this DC brings in any players with him from New Mexico St.

This is more interesting to me than the hire itself. Part of hiring assistants is factoring in their connections and potential to bring talent with them. BA's first year was a huge success in part because he had assembled assistants from all over the country that then in turn brought a number of talented players with them. Normally, I would never be clamoring for players from NMSU but it's clear they were much better defense than ours so...

ViAggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 8:40 am

EngineeringAggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 8:30 am

I’m curious if this DC brings in any players with him from New Mexico St.

That only would have happened had we hired JB Brown from Black Hills State

Don’t wish away Jr.’s future coach like that.

Also, now that I think of it, him being recruited by BHSU really only increases the odds that he’ll end up an Aggie. Perhaps the y isn’t as certain as I had predicted?

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 9:12 am

jeffdan25 wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 8:01 am

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 10th, 2024, 9:44 pm

Nmsu ran a 3-3-5 last year.

Meh maybe as a basic concept. If you watch their film it looks more like a 4-3, 4-2, or 3-4. I've brought this up on the board before, very few good coaches in today's game run a true base defense. I would say 80% of the time the weakside backer is lined up as a stand up defensive end on the line of scrimmage. It is a very multiple defense. The lineup/formation is dictated by how they are wanting to attack the offense. This defense is what over half of the country is running in college football right now. It gives you the ability to take away miss matches when playing against spread offenses.

I admittedly haven't watched much NMSU film. But I know & agree with you about the "base defense" point you make. It sure seems we have had a true base defense though the last few years with our 4 down lineman. I also think the style though is also different than what we have been recruiting to.

I actually think we were making the same point. You just added more context and made good points.

An edge rushing OLB is the basic tenant of any 3 man front defense ever construed so that is nothing new. On probably 95% of downs a 3 man front is going to rush 4 or more. Its just the additional flexibility of who sets the edge, who drops into the flat, stunts, exc. can be more dynamic with a 3 man front that utilizes 3 traditional lineman at least 2 of which are big tackle types and one who has more flexibility to play both head up on a tackle, C gap, and still hold his own in B and has a little more D-end speed to contain.

One of the other things that can easily be done with a 3 3 5 is essentially a 5 man front too that can on certain calls really limits the run/pass read responsibilities of everyone and thus eliminate some of the disadvantages of only six defenders via both pre-snap disguise and easy run/pass assignments. The rush angles

The only real difference conceptually from a traditional 3 3 5 and a traditional 3-4 is you have kind of at least one hybrid OLB cover guy that is more of a full time position rather than rotating between an OLB and nickel back and at the same time the only difference between a 4 2 5 and 3 3 5 in practice often is the hybrid edge rusher/LB on the weak side as a true D end as at least one of or both of the OLB/safeties in a 4 2 5 are a hybrid type anyway.

To me when you run a 3 man front you are trying to get a rotation of 6-7 good lineman to man the 3 man line and then getting your best athletes on the field in the other 8 spots and run multiple types of fronts, coverages, and blitzes to create havoc while still staying disciplined to gaps, back assignments, and receivers.

So in essence I agree with what you are saying about multiple but I also think that there is a clear "base defense concept" difference between a 3 man line and 4 man line. Nothing is better than 4 true down lineman if you have the studs to do it but in the case of most schools the concept of 3 down allows for far more flexibility for both multiple fronts and disguise.

I'm excited to see a younger and motivated coordinator coming in to utilize his 3 3 5 system.

NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 6:41 am

It's been said in football that good offenses win games, but good defenses win championships.

Tell that to the Chicago Bears haha

If we run a 3-3-5 and our DEs are as small as the edge guys we recruited we are in for some Problems. We just recruited Edge OLBs, not hand in the dirt 4 technique guys.

At lease they shouldn’t be.

ineptimusprime wrote:

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 10th, 2024, 9:44 pm

Nmsu ran a 3-3-5 last year.

Well, good thing we just signed 13 edge rushers from juco and the portal

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 9:12 am

jeffdan25 wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 8:01 am

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 10th, 2024, 9:44 pm

Nmsu ran a 3-3-5 last year.

Meh maybe as a basic concept. If you watch their film it looks more like a 4-3, 4-2, or 3-4. I've brought this up on the board before, very few good coaches in today's game run a true base defense. I would say 80% of the time the weakside backer is lined up as a stand up defensive end on the line of scrimmage. It is a very multiple defense. The lineup/formation is dictated by how they are wanting to attack the offense. This defense is what over half of the country is running in college football right now. It gives you the ability to take away miss matches when playing against spread offenses.

I admittedly haven't watched much NMSU film. But I know & agree with you about the "base defense" point you make. It sure seems we have had a true base defense though the last few years with our 4 down lineman. I also think the style though is also different than what we have been recruiting to.

I actually think we were making the same point. You just added more context and made good points.

The alignment is almost always the same. There is almost always a 4th guy lining up on the DL. He can rush or cover. That can be a 3-4 or a 4-3. In our case and with other teams, the real difference was when that 4th guy was 225lb's+ (4-3) or =<200lb's. (3-4). I don't see a new DC changing that.

ineptimusprime wrote: ↑

January 10th, 2024, 9:49 pm

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 10th, 2024, 9:44 pm

Nmsu ran a 3-3-5 last year.

Well, good thing we just signed 13 edge rushers from juco and the portal

In that scheme, the OLBs need to be big, physical, and very mobile. Hopefully one of the edge rushers has the potential to play that role. Need to have the ability to cover the TE/RB in space will also rushing the QB while also being able to take on a tackle/guard to stop the run. There's a lot of expectations placed on the OLB in that role. I like the scheme better than what we have had last year, especially when the bar on our DTs last year was so low. I mean all they were expected to do was stand their ground, which they couldn't do most of the time.

hickaggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 10:21 am

One of the other things that can easily be done with a 3 3 5 is essentially a 5 man front too that can on certain calls really limits the run/pass read responsibilities of everyone and thus eliminate some of the disadvantages of only six defenders via both pre-snap disguise and easy run/pass assignments. The rush angles

The only real difference conceptually from a traditional 3 3 5 and a traditional 3-4 is you have kind of at least one hybrid OLB cover guy that is more of a full time position rather than rotating between an OLB and nickel back and at the same time the only difference between a 4 2 5 and 3 3 5 in practice often is the hybrid edge rusher/LB on the weak side as a true D end as at least one of or both of the OLB/safeties in a 4 2 5 are a hybrid type anyway.

To me when you run a 3 man front you are trying to get a rotation of 6-7 good lineman to man the 3 man line and then getting your best athletes on the field in the other 8 spots and run multiple types of fronts, coverages, and blitzes to create havoc while still staying disciplined to gaps, back assignments, and receivers.

So in essence I agree with what you are saying about multiple but I also think that there is a clear "base defense concept" difference between a 3 man line and 4 man line. Nothing is better than 4 true down lineman if you have the studs to do it but in the case of most schools the concept of 3 down allows for far more flexibility for both multiple fronts and disguise.

I'm excited to see a younger and motivated coordinator coming in to utilize his 3 3 5 system.

You always have great posts, especially surrounding football.

You're exactly right about this one too. What I like about this is what you said about the full-time OLB cover guy being full-time makes it easier to cover spread offenses like ours that never huddle. Why? If you can't sub the OLB for the nickle in the other scheme, you're screwed in a mismatch/coverage situation. I like this scheme more than the traditional 4-3, especially due to the fact that it's easier to teach a kid who's already mobile and active and solid (paging @ViAggie ) to play that role than it is to teach a kid that is Big and not so mobile to play DT/DE and cover different gaps and/or potentially cover someone in space such as an RB or TE. It seems like with DTs, they either have it or they don't. They understand leverage and mobility through gaps or they don't.

AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 11:45 am

hickaggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 10:21 am

One of the other things that can easily be done with a 3 3 5 is essentially a 5 man front too that can on certain calls really limits the run/pass read responsibilities of everyone and thus eliminate some of the disadvantages of only six defenders via both pre-snap disguise and easy run/pass assignments. The rush angles

The only real difference conceptually from a traditional 3 3 5 and a traditional 3-4 is you have kind of at least one hybrid OLB cover guy that is more of a full time position rather than rotating between an OLB and nickel back and at the same time the only difference between a 4 2 5 and 3 3 5 in practice often is the hybrid edge rusher/LB on the weak side as a true D end as at least one of or both of the OLB/safeties in a 4 2 5 are a hybrid type anyway.

To me when you run a 3 man front you are trying to get a rotation of 6-7 good lineman to man the 3 man line and then getting your best athletes on the field in the other 8 spots and run multiple types of fronts, coverages, and blitzes to create havoc while still staying disciplined to gaps, back assignments, and receivers.

So in essence I agree with what you are saying about multiple but I also think that there is a clear "base defense concept" difference between a 3 man line and 4 man line. Nothing is better than 4 true down lineman if you have the studs to do it but in the case of most schools the concept of 3 down allows for far more flexibility for both multiple fronts and disguise.

I'm excited to see a younger and motivated coordinator coming in to utilize his 3 3 5 system.

You always have great posts, especially surrounding football.

You're exactly right about this one too. What I like about this is what you said about the full-time OLB cover guy being full-time makes it easier to cover spread offenses like ours that never huddle. Why? If you can't sub the OLB for the nickle in the other scheme, you're screwed in a mismatch/coverage situation. I like this scheme more than the traditional 4-3, especially due to the fact that it's easier to teach a kid who's already mobile and active and solid (paging @ViAggie ) to play that role than it is to teach a kid that is Big and not so mobile to play DT/DE and cover different gaps and/or potentially cover someone in space such as an RB or TE. It seems like with DTs, they either have it or they don't. They understand leverage and mobility through gaps or they don't.

I remember a similar discussion when our DC called one of our defensive players a striker. I argued that it was a huge nothing burger scheme wise. Others felt that the striker represented the "modern" style of defense.

When we play teams who want to run the ball (Air Force, Wyoming, Boise San Diego) let's see how our modern 3-3-5 defense lines up.

El Sapo wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 12:08 pm

AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 11:45 am

hickaggie wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 10:21 am

One of the other things that can easily be done with a 3 3 5 is essentially a 5 man front too that can on certain calls really limits the run/pass read responsibilities of everyone and thus eliminate some of the disadvantages of only six defenders via both pre-snap disguise and easy run/pass assignments. The rush angles

The only real difference conceptually from a traditional 3 3 5 and a traditional 3-4 is you have kind of at least one hybrid OLB cover guy that is more of a full time position rather than rotating between an OLB and nickel back and at the same time the only difference between a 4 2 5 and 3 3 5 in practice often is the hybrid edge rusher/LB on the weak side as a true D end as at least one of or both of the OLB/safeties in a 4 2 5 are a hybrid type anyway.

To me when you run a 3 man front you are trying to get a rotation of 6-7 good lineman to man the 3 man line and then getting your best athletes on the field in the other 8 spots and run multiple types of fronts, coverages, and blitzes to create havoc while still staying disciplined to gaps, back assignments, and receivers.

So in essence I agree with what you are saying about multiple but I also think that there is a clear "base defense concept" difference between a 3 man line and 4 man line. Nothing is better than 4 true down lineman if you have the studs to do it but in the case of most schools the concept of 3 down allows for far more flexibility for both multiple fronts and disguise.

I'm excited to see a younger and motivated coordinator coming in to utilize his 3 3 5 system.

You always have great posts, especially surrounding football.

You're exactly right about this one too. What I like about this is what you said about the full-time OLB cover guy being full-time makes it easier to cover spread offenses like ours that never huddle. Why? If you can't sub the OLB for the nickle in the other scheme, you're screwed in a mismatch/coverage situation. I like this scheme more than the traditional 4-3, especially due to the fact that it's easier to teach a kid who's already mobile and active and solid (paging @ViAggie ) to play that role than it is to teach a kid that is Big and not so mobile to play DT/DE and cover different gaps and/or potentially cover someone in space such as an RB or TE. It seems like with DTs, they either have it or they don't. They understand leverage and mobility through gaps or they don't.

I remember a similar discussion when our DC called one of our defensive players a striker. I argued that it was a huge nothing burger scheme wise. Others felt that the striker represented the "modern" style of defense.

When we play teams who want to run the ball (Air Force, Wyoming, Boise San Diego) let's see how our modern 3-3-5 defense lines up.

Thats why we have all those D-end recruits..lol. Seriously though you just substitute another lineman or LB if necessary or even just 2 LBs playing a 5 man front. Against the option I think you want 4-5 on the line but often times the striker type athlete is the best guy to put up their anyway as athleticism is key. Our best years defending AFA were with the 3-4 albeit with the Vigil Brothers, Fack and company.

I think that's kind of the point everyone has been making in this thread. The 3 3 5 designation does not limit your personell or how you line them up. In fact the 3 3 5 is the ideal defense IMO if you want to get a 5 man front up there against certain teams in certain situations. It almost morphs into sort of 5 2 4 (or even a 5-1-5) if you want to call it that and can be a really good situational defense against a mobile QB, power run game or the option if you have decent back end cover guys that thrive in 0, 1, and 2 type coverages.

Not that we may run but there are a myriad of options to use against a run team with just changing personell.

IMHO, the shotgun snap and all the common RPO formations and plays have become too well understood and not really impossible for a well designed and well-executed defense to stop. Or at least easier to get the opponent to a 3rd and long situation regularly.

I really would not mind seeing a little more "strap on the leather" "smash-mouth" "sometimes we are gonna run between the tackles" type of football. Not all day long, but it should play enough of a role that our run game is not even really defended.

To me, a huge part of "breaking the will" of an opponent is to ram it down their throats! Leave them feeling like they like they just run over by a very big truck. This is a substantial part of most leading FBS football program's offense. I wish it was part of ours.

Of course, to do that we would have to have a very solid strength program. Do we have that?

RogerAndersen wrote: ↑

January 11th, 2024, 3:58 pm

IMHO, the shotgun snap and all the common RPO formations and plays have become too well understood and not really impossible for a well designed and well-executed defense to stop. Or at least easier to get the opponent to a 3rd and long situation regularly.

I really would not mind seeing a little more "strap on the leather" "smash-mouth" "sometimes we are gonna run between the tackles" type of football. Not all day long, but it should play enough of a role that our run game is not even really defended.

To me, a huge part of "breaking the will" of an opponent is to ram it down their throats! Leave them feeling like they like they just run over by a very big truck. This is a substantial part of most leading FBS football program's offense. I wish it was part of ours.

Of course, to do that we would have to have a very solid strength program. Do we have that?

And what are the odds that sort of offense will ever be run with the current staff? Would love that too but despite the O-line and the QB struggles offense is not this team's issue so its hard to complain too much.