Any REAL 5-3 guys around??

[jcarbon2]

WARNING: If your a 3-5-3 coach please disregard this post. Only looking for old school coaches with cojones that run the 5-3.

[CoachCraig]

i run the 5-3.  i play it as a 53 not a 353.  cover 3 or 2 behind it.  simple rules.

[jcarbon2]

i run the 5-3.  i play it as a 53 not a 353.  cover 3 or 2 behind it.  simple rules.

Coach,

Did you face much spread?? How did you defend it??

I am looking to make a web page soon with a load of info. Want to get the 5-3 all together

John

[CoachCraig]

Didnt see a ton of spread.  Proably four times in last two years.  Ill send u some powerpoint gameplans vs 3, 4, and 5 wide. 

[ZACH]

I helped a team that ran old 53 vs spread he did this

Nose spied qb
Mlb had back in backfield corners had one olbs had 2
Fs aligned 10 yds deeper then normal like 2ld

[mahonz]

John

So 35 guys are FAKE 53 guys? Is that what yer sayin' ?

 

[CoachCalande]

John

So 35 guys are FAKE 53 guys? Is that what yer sayin' ?

 

"Defense-ism"

[CoachCraig]

Id have the ng back up a step and twist with one of the dt's.  Kids loved it.  I dont think id spy unless youd sub in a lb at ng, i think he be chasing alot.

Vs te, de stay in and force.  no taps.
Vs. SE only, stay in and force.  can play taps with dt per game plan.
Vs. Twins no te, walkout on #2.  Inside release = press/force.
                                                   Outside release = press/drop.

If a team passed very well i changed it up so olb had #2.  Better player in space.
With olb on #2 id let the dt and de play taps.

[jcarbon2]

Steve,

How would gambler defend 3X1 , 2x2 and empty?? What are the changes you would make now that you are in 3-3?

John

[CoachCalande]

The reality is that if you are talking man to man, the differences are just subtle...

[jcarbon2]

The reality is that if you are talking man to man, the differences are just subtle...

That is what I am talking about

Lets take the way I run my 5-3 double eagle vs trips

We can man up in C zero



-----------------------------------Q---H
-------------------------------------------------------R--------Z
-------Y------------------O--O--X--O--O-------------------------------X
------------------------E----T---N----T----E-----------------------------
------C-------------------B-------------M-----------B-------------------C
----------------------------------------------------------------S


OR

We can play cOV 3 IN A 1/4, 1/4, 1/2


-----------------------------------Q---H
-------------------------------------------------------R--------Z
-------Y------------------O--O--X--O--O-------------------------------X
------------------------E----T---N----T----E-----------------------------
---------------------B----------- M----------------------------B-----------
-------C--------------------------------------------S-----------------------C

The adjustments can be done without jumping out of the 5 man front. As I mentioned, the less moving parts the more a defense will play with aggressive nature.

Complex = BAD.
Simple = Good.

LOL.

Hey, you got to give me props on the fact that I don't like to budge from my caveman football thinking.

[CoachCalande]

I think the ability to TACKLE has alot to do with my switch to the 353 as well...I needed kids on the field who could and would tackle....they had to play somewhere but couldnt be asked to play in a man to man assignment....not reasonable....so a zone scheme was the answer...we coudl have tried to go cover three from our 46 or play more man under cover two....but the running qbs were hurting us so bad that I had to make the switch.

Theres a pretty big difference in attitude from the 46 locked in man-1 vs the 353 in cover three....still pressure, can still be five....or six...but where its coming from is the question for the offense and that is a good thing for us.

The 46 is simpler in some areas and more complex in others obviously. I dont think theres any getting away from it, spread football means 6 or more  guys are going to have to play in space sometime... thats where the lack of speed kills ya.

[CoachShad]

retracted

[CoachCraig]

We can play cOV 3 IN A 1/4, 1/4, 1/2


-----------------------------------Q---H
-------------------------------------------------------R--------Z
-------Y------------------O--O--X--O--O-------------------------------X
-----------------------E--T------N------T---------------------E---------
-----------------------B--------->>>>>M-----------B------------------
-------C--------------------------------------------S-----------------------C

or

-----------------------------------Q---H
-------------------------------------------------------R--------Z
-------Y------------------O--O--X--O--O-------------------------------X
-----------------------E--T------N-------T---------E-----------B---------
-----------------------B--------->>>>>M------------------------------
-------C--------------------------------------------S-------------------C

mlb rule:  if the olb slides out you slide over

[CoachShad]

Guys my response is bad.  I need to redo it for some reason the format changes on me.

more later


John:

This formation works cover 0 cover 1 or cover 3

-----------------------------------Q---H
-------------------------------------------------------R--------Z
-------Y------------------O--O--X--O--O-------------------------------X
------------------------E----T---N----T----E-----------------------------
------C-------------------B-------------M-----------B-------------------C
----------------------------------------------------------------S

Personally I would not want my Backers covering a Wide Out, I want them in a Back or TE simply because they match up better.   Mike had the RB Will has the QB lock it up all the way across if you want.  JMHO

Cover 3 you wouldn't split the LB as much.  IMHO The problem with the 50 against the spread is trying to keep 7 in the box and bring pressure on the QB.  To my pea brain doing so means I really have to play Man (Press) to keep them from dinking me to death. Problem with that is/are the dreaded Rub routes (PICKS).  If you want to play Zone over you can but then are you man under?  Folks dont like the Zone defense because it can, and often does, give up yardage which frustrates people.  I used to be one of them before I realized that, unless they can kick field goals, Zone coverage actually becomes harder to throw against as the field get shorter.  The windows close faster and get smaller the shorter the field gets.  When you add in the fact that they cant account for one LB with their numbers is further frustrates the O as the field get shorter.  Not to mention the fact that they either have to bring someone inside to account for the extra man or throw short!!   

I guess what I am trying to say is that, as long as I dont give up the huge passing play trying to play lock down and chase in Man, and inverted C3 with basic Zone coverage is brutal to throw against inside the 30 and allows 11 pairs of eyes for the run.