forums

Leaving 3 linebackers on the field when they go 3 wide

Professor Plum

Professor Plum

Band
Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
122
What's your opinion on this? I feel when its 3rd down and more than 5 we should bring in a nickel corner. 1st or 2nd down I don't mind leaving in the linebacker. This is years of madden experience talking here! I just feel we would be much better against the pass. We are getting beat in the middle of the field.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
The worse is when the team goes 4 wide and we are still in base defense, bail technique.

K state did this a couple times and they had qb draw open AND crossing routes killed us.

I know for sure jimbo/fsu and possibly ND will throw that at us and see if we still run that stupid type of defense..
 
I would think with the more experience under Crawford and Howard belts, then the coaches will be more apt to send them out in nickel packages on third and long.

Against GT the LB's had to stay in on 3rd and long because GT was still more a threat to run then pass in those situations.
 
I'm actually gone side with D'Onofrio here because when a defense brings in a nickel/dime package on 3rd down it puts a lot of pressure on that front 5/6 to stop the run. NFL teams play nickel defense all the time because they have experienced defensive backs that are capable of helping out vs. run. If we go nickel on 3rd and 8 with McGee/Finnie/Howard and 2 inexperienced safeties, we're asking to get gashed on a screen or draw. We need the extra LB in because it's more of a challenge for the opposing offense to complete a pass across the middle than it is to run a screen or inside run.

I'd hope that in future years (maybe even late this season) we'll have had enough practice and game experience to be able to run a secure nickel defense. Howard could develop into a great run defender who can shed blocks and make key tackles in place of a 3rd LB.
 
skyman said:
The worse is when the team goes 4 wide and we are still in base defense, bail technique.

K state did this a couple times and they had qb draw open AND crossing routes killed us.

I know for sure jimbo/fsu and possibly ND will throw that at us and see if we still run that stupid type of defense..
Click to expand...

This is a huge problem. I'd like to see us go into a cover 3 look with the weakside corner dropping off to a deep-third pre-snap. Keep the defender's eyes facing the QB and also defend against the big play down the seams. One of our LBs should be experienced enough to check us into something like that when a team goes 4-wide.
 
It works if you have the LBs that can run with the WRs. We don't so we get gashed.

We used to do it all the time with the bermuda triangle back in the day.
 
I'm OK with it on one condition--that it matches up with the offensive personnel grouping.

If they go 3-wide, but the TE is either the outside or slot guy--put the LB on him, and make sure he has safety help over the top. If it's true 3 WR's in the set, then we need the nickel package out there to properly cover, IMO. You're just asking to allow the offense to create a mismatch of an LB on a quicker WR at that point if you don't go nickel.
 
Advertisement
BWCD said:
I'm OK with it on one condition--that it matches up with the offensive personnel grouping.

If they go 3-wide, but the TE is either the outside or slot guy--put the LB on him, and make sure he has safety help over the top. If it's true 3 WR's in the set, then we need the nickel package out there to properly cover, IMO. You're just asking to allow the offense to create a mismatch of an LB on a quicker WR at that point if you don't go nickel.
Click to expand...

On that same token you're creating a "mismatch" by leaving 6 guys to stop the run.. nothing should ever be an absolute.. you shouldn't be in nickel every time they're in a 3 wide set and you shouldn't always play 3 wide sets with 3 LBs.. I would like to see us bring more pressure on 3rd and 7+.. regardless of how many LBs or corners are on the field.
 
Last edited:
TotesMagotes said:
Any strategy that yeilds less Tyrone Cornelius/Thurston Armbrister should be explored.
Click to expand...

I'd rather put Tracey Howard in the game and slide Finney to the nickel, than play those 2. Johnson and Gaines I can live with until we get Perryman and Kirby back.

Cornelius and Armbrister should cover punts and kickoffs and that is it.
 
You need a deep secondary and versatile nickel back to pull it off. IIRC, Antrel and B Harris would both shift into the slot on third down. I agree that Howard or Crawford could develop into that.

I know people are hating on Bruce Feldman right now, but I remember him mentioning some team basically game-planned against LSU's nickel defense by identifying Tyrann Mathieu as a SAM backer, not a corner.
 
DaU83 said:
BWCD said:
I'm OK with it on one condition--that it matches up with the offensive personnel grouping.

If they go 3-wide, but the TE is either the outside or slot guy--put the LB on him, and make sure he has safety help over the top. If it's true 3 WR's in the set, then we need the nickel package out there to properly cover, IMO. You're just asking to allow the offense to create a mismatch of an LB on a quicker WR at that point if you don't go nickel.
Click to expand...

On that same token you're creating a "mismatch" by leaving 6 guys to stop the run.. nothing should ever be an absolute.. you shouldn't be in nickel every time they're in a 3 wide set and you shouldn't always play 3 wide sets with 3 LBs.. I would like to see us bring more pressure on 3rd and 7+.. regardless of how many LBs or corners are on the field.
Click to expand...

Agree. No personel group will matter if there is no pressure. Glennon is good, but not great IMHO, but if we get stiff in reaction OR play calling it could be a long day. Those slants we have been getting gashed with are no fluke. They are reactions by OC's to what our DC is calling for whatever reason, safe or scared.
 
VASoulCane said:
DaU83 said:
BWCD said:
I'm OK with it on one condition--that it matches up with the offensive personnel grouping.

If they go 3-wide, but the TE is either the outside or slot guy--put the LB on him, and make sure he has safety help over the top. If it's true 3 WR's in the set, then we need the nickel package out there to properly cover, IMO. You're just asking to allow the offense to create a mismatch of an LB on a quicker WR at that point if you don't go nickel.
Click to expand...

On that same token you're creating a "mismatch" by leaving 6 guys to stop the run.. nothing should ever be an absolute.. you shouldn't be in nickel every time they're in a 3 wide set and you shouldn't always play 3 wide sets with 3 LBs.. I would like to see us bring more pressure on 3rd and 7+.. regardless of how many LBs or corners are on the field.
Click to expand...

Agree. No personel group will matter if there is no pressure. Glennon is good, but not great IMHO, but if we get stiff in reaction OR play calling it could be a long day. Those slants we have been getting gashed with are no fluke. They are reactions by OC's to what our DC is calling for whatever reason, safe or scared.
Click to expand...

Not completely true. If you are creating no pressure then by God you better have speed in the back 7. Playing LBs won't cut it vs 3 or 4 wide.
 
Advertisement
i'm all against the 4-3 against 3 wide sets - especially since we always have one of th OLBs covering the slot WR. total mismatch. the idea is that a 3rd LB in there is better than a CB when defending the run, but not if teams see that you are covering their slot with a LB. they have been lining up the slot extra wide. He's now only a liability since he's too far to help against the run and trying to cover a WR in space. half way decent coaches will take advantage of that over and over just like BC and K State did. BC's slot wasn't particularly fast so it yielded a lot of catches but not much after the catch. K State got that YAC. NC State's slots will be a problem if Eddie Johnson or Tyrone Cornelius is trying to cover them - just isn't what they should be doing. If anything go 3-3-5. Lets you keep 3 LBs but also gets that CB on the field to handle the slot. Since most teams will then have the slot lined up closer to the OL it allows that CB to be more help against the run then a LB who's lined up past the hashmarks on the wide side of the field. Plus gives more flexibility when it comes to pressure packages.
 
most college safeties can't cover slot WRs though. usually is a mismatch even then. guys who outgrew safety or just were considered better to be at LB (for a reason) are in an even tougher situation. its something that can be done but should be done only sparingly.
 
DaU83 said:
BWCD said:
I'm OK with it on one condition--that it matches up with the offensive personnel grouping.

If they go 3-wide, but the TE is either the outside or slot guy--put the LB on him, and make sure he has safety help over the top. If it's true 3 WR's in the set, then we need the nickel package out there to properly cover, IMO. You're just asking to allow the offense to create a mismatch of an LB on a quicker WR at that point if you don't go nickel.
Click to expand...

On that same token you're creating a "mismatch" by leaving 6 guys to stop the run.. nothing should ever be an absolute.. you shouldn't be in nickel every time they're in a 3 wide set and you shouldn't always play 3 wide sets with 3 LBs.. I would like to see us bring more pressure on 3rd and 7+.. regardless of how many LBs or corners are on the field.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. But I was focusing more on personnel groupings and matchups when I wrote what I did, wasn't so much concerned with blitz schemes or coverage schemes.

Really at the end of the day, no matter what matchups you're stuck in at the snap--it's all about the execution of the call after the snap on both sides. If the D is either sound in their zones, and/or they've disguised a blitz so well that they get a free guy to the QB, you'll probably see the D win that down. If the offense runs great routes, blocks well, and the timing is on point, then they'll probably win the down. Lots and lots of variables when you start talking scheme and execution...which is why I just looked at the personnel grouping that the OP asked about.
 
edge said:
I would think with the more experience under Crawford and Howard belts, then the coaches will be more apt to send them out in nickel packages on third and long.

Against GT the LB's had to stay in on 3rd and long because GT was still more a threat to run then pass in those situations.
Click to expand...
This


You guys complain we cant stop the QB draws and scrambling, well its only gonna be worse with +1 CB instead of a LB
 
Back
Top