4-2-5 or 3-3-5, which nickel is better for base defense?

[MplsBison]

With the number of copycat spread offenses we're seeing these days, it makes sense to have 3 CBs on the field in your base defense.


Would you rather see 3 down lineman with 3 linebackers or 4 and 2?



NDSU has always had 4 down lineman rushing the passer.

We seem to belong to the school of thought that says putting pressure on the QB is better than having extra men in coverage.

[CatFan22]

I prefer the 1-1-9, but that's just me. ;)

[Jerbearasu]

I think at our level the 4-2-5 works best just because it is really hard to get the size to run the 3-3-5 efficiently. You really need a hefty run-stopping NT and those are pretty hard to come by. Most of them will go to a big FBS school. If you can get the personnel for it the 3-3-5 makes more sense to me.

[fuEMO]

I guess we will see first hand tomorrow during Furman's first scrimmage of the spring. They plan to use 2 corners and 3 safeties.

[D1scout]

I prefer the 1-1-9, but that's just me. ;)

No, no, no! 5=10-22 is a much better defense. ;) You can damn near cover the whole field and still have an excellent rush on the QB.xsmiley_wix

[Frosty The Snowbuff]

I prefer 3-3-5....

More blitz options than a 4-2-5...

But being that some Defensive Schemes covert from a 3-3-5 to a 4-2-5 to a 4-3 to a 3-4 due to alignment uses (Ex: Moving a Safety/Rover Up to a Linebacker position)....does it truly matter which Defense ya use out of those 2???

It basically comes down to what ya call ya personnel....Main difference is whether ya wanna use 3 or 4 down linemen....Otherwise....they're "essentially" the same defense

[ChadWC]

Here is my crash course for anyone unfamiliar with the defensive alignments.

The 3-3-5 is an excellent style of play for defensive coordinators that like to attack and blitz a bunch. In a 3-3-5 scheme, you have lots of intermediate sized linebackers (185-205lbs usually) on the field, two of which will play a safety/linebacker hybrid position. Speed is the name of the game. You play 3 safeties, 2 of which are a safety-linebacker hybrid. Your 3 linebackers need to be able to run and cover as well as rush the passer. Your nose guard has to be an absolute beast and must force the double team every down. If you have this, its a very effective defense. Look at what WVU did to Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Again, I emphasize the attacking nature of this defense. You can imagine how many different blitzes can be brought from this alignment alone. Then throw in a bunch of shifting and moving your players around pre snap and you create confusion. Organized chaos is a good way to describe the defense.

The 4-2-5 works well for coverage while providing a 4 man rush. Again, you are trying to get speed on the field. You have 8 in the box to stop the run as well as 5 DB's on the field to cover the pass. Blitzes can be brought from many different angles. Or the front 4 can be used to achieve pressure.

To answer the question, I prefer the 3-3-5 because of the amount of blitzes that can be incorporated and the flexibility with the alignments.

[JMU_Fan_2007]

JMU runs a 4-2-5 defense almost exclusively. They use a strong safety, free safety, and weak safety. I don't think I've ever seen 3 linebackers on the field...

The key is having physical safeties who can play strong run defense. If you can do that, 4-2-5 can be a very versatile scheme.

[Cleets]

Here is my crash course for anyone unfamiliar with the defensive alignments.

The 3-3-5 is an excellent style of play for defensive coordinators that like to attack and blitz a bunch. In a 3-3-5 scheme, you have lots of intermediate sized linebackers (185-205lbs usually) on the field, two of which will play a safety/linebacker hybrid position. Speed is the name of the game. You play 3 safeties, 2 of which are a safety-linebacker hybrid. Your 3 linebackers need to be able to run and cover as well as rush the passer. Your nose guard has to be an absolute beast and must force the double team every down. If you have this, its a very effective defense. Look at what WVU did to Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Again, I emphasize the attacking nature of this defense. You can imagine how many different blitzes can be brought from this alignment alone. Then throw in a bunch of shifting and moving your players around pre snap and you create confusion. Organized chaos is a good way to describe the defense.

The 4-2-5 works well for coverage while providing a 4 man rush. Again, you are trying to get speed on the field. You have 8 in the box to stop the run as well as 5 DB's on the field to cover the pass. Blitzes can be brought from many different angles. Or the front 4 can be used to achieve pressure.

To answer the question, I prefer the 3-3-5 because of the amount of blitzes that can be incorporated and the flexibility with the alignments.

can you run a man-to-man / Zone hybrid from 3-3-5..?

if so please explain: I'm curious

[MplsBison]

You can run a cover 2/man under in almost any configuration.

[ngineer]

Four a nickel I've always preferred 4-2, but Lehigh has gone with a 3-4 base in the past two years with the new DC, and I don't see a change. I agree with prior post, you need more size than what we usually have at this level to got with a 3-3 in the nickel and Lehigh has been recruiting that in the past two years, so maybe we'll start seeing some results this year. I feel you get better coverage on the flats with the 4-2-5.

[already123]

the 3-3-5 is FAR better than any other nickel package. It can truly stop any 3rd and 4th down option an offense has if it is played right. From an offensive standpoint, the 3-3-5 creates problems with portection, dictating coverages, and recognizing pressure. Most teams can protect any 4 down scheme pretty easily with a handfull of base rules for the o-line and QB, but with a 3-3-5, it changes everything. Add twist, stunts, and safty pressure the 3-3-5 creates a schematical nightmare. Aside from that, it allows the defense to get their best athletes on the field.

[Hoyadestroya85]

we run a 3-3-5 and it worked great... just ask Joe Flacco
and it is hardly a nickel..

[Lionsrking]

With the number of copycat spread offenses we're seeing these days, it makes sense to have 3 CBs on the field in your base defense.


Would you rather see 3 down lineman with 3 linebackers or 4 and 2?



NDSU has always had 4 down lineman rushing the passer.

We seem to belong to the school of thought that says putting pressure on the QB is better than having extra men in coverage.

3-3-5 for us. This was our first year using that allignment as a base defense and it was a good fit. We can still jump into a 4-3 from time to time, but I like the versatility the 3-3-5 gives us.

[MplsBison]

Add twist, stunts, and safty pressure the 3-3-5 creates a schematical nightmare.

If the O line is blocking gaps rather than men ("slide"), in theory they should be able to pick up any blitz or stunt.


Some people claim that you can beat a slide by putting 2 men through 1 gap, but I don't buy that because you often get the first man blocked and that clogs up the gap for the 2nd man.

You also expose yourself to the run with a blitz like that.

[MplsBison]

we run a 3-3-5 and it worked great... just ask Joe Flacco
and it is hardly a nickel..



I call any defense with 5 DBs a nickel.


6 a dime.


7 a quarter. Not to be confused with "quarters" zone coverage.

[ngineer]

I call any defense with 5 DBs a nickel.


6 a dime.


7 a quarter. Not to be confused with "quarters" zone coverage.

Yes, that's always been the definition of a 'nickel D' that I'm familiar with. There can be many variations..and of course, whether a DB is a DB as as opposed to an LB can be in the eye of the beholder.;)

[ChadWC]

can you run a man-to-man / Zone hybrid from 3-3-5..?

if so please explain: I'm curious

Simply put, yes. The strength of the 3-3-5 is you can really disguise who is covering who. If you want to play two safeties deep, one has to drop from near the line of scrimmage and you can alternate this to keep the quarterback guessing as to which one will drop. Like I said, the 3-3-5 is what I like to call organized chaos because you try to confuse the other team.

[already123]

If the O line is blocking gaps rather than men ("slide"), in theory they should be able to pick up any blitz or stunt.


Some people claim that you can beat a slide by putting 2 men through 1 gap, but I don't buy that because you often get the first man blocked and that clogs up the gap for the 2nd man.

You also expose yourself to the run with a blitz like that.


Yes but the problem is when you are facing a 4-3 team that uses the 3-3-5 as a change up. Unless you have a senior QB and a senior o-line, you run into issues with protection and recognition. If you run the defense correctly and disguise whatever pressure you are running, offenses end up "sliding" the wrong way

[Hoyadestroya85]

well there is no "nickel" back, just three safeties, and the third safety is closer to a linebacker in our scheme because he blitzes often...

[MplsBison]

offenses end up "sliding" the wrong way


Unless you just happen to guess right and bring 2 blitzers to the side that the slide is going away from, it will all get picked up.

[Cobblestone]

I've coached Defense at the Pop Warner level. I've usually gone with the 4-2-5 nickel. I personally like the 4 man rush and had some kids up front who were big enough and quick enough to be effective.

[I Bleed Purple]

For a base defense, a 4-2-5. Running on a 3-3-5 is much simpler.

From what I've seen, a lot of college programs run some sort of a 4-2-5, with the weak OL being a named back, like a "cat-back," which plays as the OL or extra DB.

Of course personnel really determines the circumstances.

[WrenFGun]

UNH runs the 4-2-5, which I've been calling for an end to for awhile. UNH simply isn't big enough up front to stop the run, so having a smaller guy in the box (Souza, Klein and Duper last season) wasn't really much of a help. With more depth at LB this season, I'm rooting for a 4-3, but I doubt it will happen.

For some reason, I struggle to think UNH could stop the pass if they played a 3-1-7, because they just struggle mightily with it. Wish something could be done about it, of course.

[MplsBison]

I've never actually seen a team run a 3-1-7 defense.


I suppose if the offense came out in a true 5 wide receiver set with only the QB back in shotgun, it would make some sense to put 5 CBs maned on the 5 WRs and then play 2 deep safties behind them with a 3 man rush and a LB maned on the QB in case he tries to run for it.