Wanna bet he’s awesome there?
Saleh took 3rd rounder Fred Warner and turned him into a stud. He’s considered one of the best LBers in the game.
He took 5th rounder Dre Greenlaw and turned him into a quality starter.
Saleh is a damn good coach and I bet he gets Davis playing quality football.
Well there are five DBs in a 3-3-5, so if 3-3-5 is your default defense then that would seem to suggest that nickel is in fact your base defense.
What posters don’t understand is the debate started when I was talking about base defense vs sub package. When a couple posters made claims that NFL teams don’t run a base defenses anymore and that nickel was the new base defense.
There’s a major difference between a base defense and a sub package like Nickel. All NFL teams run a base defense with a bunch of different sub packages in every game.
Like you said … there’s no such thing as a nickel base defense.
Can we take a detour to college football then?
You would acknowledge that there are college teams that run a 3-3-5 as their default defense, right? And you’d acknowledge that bc it’s five defensive backs that it’s fair to call it nickel, right? So would that not make 3-3-5 their base defense? If the answer is yes then isn’t it also fair to say that nickel is their base defense?
When coaches talk base like Campbell was when he said 3-4 base. He’s talking about scheme, concept and foundation.
Your talking about alignment or personnel package - that’s totally different.
But have you ever seen a team line up in a 3-3-5 formation? … I haven’t
Personnel package meaning 5 DB’s … Yes
I get how people are confused. There’s a ton of mis information out there.
The debate started when people claimed there’s no such thing as a base defense any more and that sub packages are the new base.
All NFL teams have a base defense and all NFL teams have sub packages.
Absolutely I’ve seen teams line up in a 335. Happens all the time in college at least.
Not wanting to ignore your question but I feel I answered this with my above post.
I’d be more than happy to discuss it in detail with you or anyone else if you like. Message me so we don’t have to keep flooding the board with this.
Michigan used the 335 as their base in later RichRod years, which he brought over from WVU. Here is an article on how ISU uses the 335 defense… https://mgoblog.com/content/neck-sharpies-soup-defense
Your talking base personnel package.
Not base defense - there’s a difference.
Look let’s stop flooding the board with this. Anyone who wants to talk with me about it I’d be more than happy to discuss it. Message me.
In college? Absolutely. I’ve already used the 3-3-5 stack as an example. And to be perfectly honest as spread concepts continue to take over the NFL I think it’s a matter of time before some DC tries it at the NFL level.
If it’s their default defense then how is it not their base defense? If Jeff Casteel wanted to play the 3-3-5 stack on 1st and 2nd downs as much as humanly possible then doesn’t that make it his base defense?
Yep. That’s the 3-3-5 stack that Jeff Casteel came up with. Rich Rod wanted more speed on D despite them not having the recruiting setup to get the high end guys so that’s what they came up with.
No.
Go back to the wiki page. The answer is right there.
(Not saying that to be a jerk, just pointing out that the source you cited contains the answer.)
Well so much for keeping this argument to one thread.
Where? I don’t see the 3-3-5 being addressed in that article. I was just referencing that the wiki piece bc it used their definition of base defense as the defense that you use as your base downs (1st and 2nd)
I used Jeff Casteel as an example bc I’m very familiar with his stack 3-3-5. He absolutely used it as his early down defense. I’ve never heard him say “3-3-5 is our defense” but I’m quite confident that is how he viewed it.
To be perfectly honest I find your hubris on the topic to be a bit misplaced. I think you’re a great poster and all but IMO you’re talking about a subject matter that (at least in extreme circumstances) is shades of gray and yet your paradigm is rather black and white. I don’t want to put words in @wesleysh21’s mouth but I get the sense that has been what he is trying to get at as well.
Now if the argument is “NFL teams have not yet used 3-3-5 as a base defense” then I certainly would agree. But if your argument is that it is impossible for an NFL defense to use 3-3-5 as a base defense then I believe that is incorrect.
Below is another example from the web. While it acknowledges that 3-3-5 is not used as a base defense it also seems to me to acknowledge that it certainly could be. Just bc a DC has not gone that route to date does not mean that a 3-3-5 could never be a base defense.
" The 3–3–5 defense can also be referred to as the 3-3 stack and the Spread Defense . It is one form of the nickel defense, a generic term for a formation with five defensive backs."
3-3-5 is one form of nickel. If you say that 3-3-5 is your base, ok. But to say your base “is nickel” assumes there’s only one form of nickel, which is obviously not the case.
Well this is great, I can’t remember my PIN. I keep entering 3 3 5.
So basically you’re saying that your base defense can be “a form of nickel defense” but your base defense cannot be “nickel defense”? How is that not semantics?
I’m done.
