Speculation: Calling for greater use of 3-3-5 Nickel Package

Jville · Mar 7, 2020

Seahawks Should Use 3-3-5 Nickel Package to Get Most Out of Defense >>> [urltargetblank]https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/news/seahawks-should-use-3-3-5-nickel-package-to-get-most-out-of-defense[/urltargetblank]

HawkGA · Mar 7, 2020

Interesting idea. I actually think the most important argument comes toward the end. With not many defensive linemen, and those that they have largely being versatile inside/out guys, going with just three linemen could be a good idea. They've got the right bodies, I would think, for that kind of scheme but keeping 3 linebackers and 5 DBs gives them some flexibility on rushing a 4th from an unknown spot.

IndyHawk · Mar 7, 2020

Ha ha ..This isn't video games
If this is last year the QB would stand there all day
and pick us apart after (2-3) 6 yrd running plays.

HawkGA · Mar 7, 2020

I don't think that would necessarily be the case at all. You'd still have three linebackers in there, with the flexibility to play one (or some) closer to the line of scrimmage.

chris98251 · Mar 7, 2020

They need a thumper Linebacker / SS hybrid in my mind for anything to work, McDougald is a good SS but doesn't have the body for todays big boys, it's a position that is brutal in design, not having a body that can hold up season to season is a issue. Why we need to draft that guy.

Still think we need a slot guy Amadi may blossom but he wasn't there yet.

Clowney isn't a linebacker, he needs to be on the edge all the time, why he came here in the first place.

kf3339 · Mar 8, 2020

It's an interesting idea, but doubt PC would employ it that often on his defense. You have to figure he is going to stay with his familiar packages and just find players that fit his defense. I don't see him changing much at all.

But if his goal was to use it 30%, Base 4-3 30%, and the remaining 40% at 4-2-5 that could work. He just has to get off the base use so often, which he may actually be thinking about this off-season. He did say that the defense is going to be re-worked so who knows what that means.

Appyhawk · Mar 8, 2020

Rotating something like that 3-3-5 in with our base could be an effective way to cut down on the way teams are eating us alive with the middle short and wide stuff. But it's very easy for the QB to read and check for. Also depends on having the front 3 who can still get results in that lineup.
Pete has proven his base works very well IF he has the lineup to execute it properly. Of course any scheme can make that claim, but he has result to show for it.

John63 · Mar 8, 2020

HawkGA":2sajeubl said:
Interesting idea. I actually think the most important argument comes toward the end. With not many defensive linemen, and those that they have largely being versatile inside/out guys, going with just three linemen could be a good idea. They've got the right bodies, I would think, for that kind of scheme but keeping 3 linebackers and 5 DBs gives them some flexibility on rushing a 4th from an unknown spot.

It is something to consider

Tical21 · Mar 9, 2020

We've deployed a 3-2-6 in the past, with Lawyer Milloy coming in as an extra LB, subbing in for the DT. So it was kind of like a 3-3-5, I guess.

chris98251 · Mar 9, 2020

Tical21":25a98srv said:
We've deployed a 3-2-6 in the past, with Lawyer Milloy coming in as an extra LB, subbing in for the DT. So it was kind of like a 3-3-5, I guess.

Bandit Package.

Sgt. Largent · Mar 9, 2020

This SI article seems like something one of us would write in here, and not in a good way..................as in "hey I just thought of this hairbrained defensive scheme without looking at our current personnel at all before writing this cause it sounds really cool!"

Clowney already got double teamed more than any other D-lineman in the league, so now you're only going to put TWO other lineman next to him? Lol, dude's gonna get quadruple.

And we don't even the defensive backfield to run our normal cover 3 without getting toasted. Five defensive backs require five VERY good defensive backs, and we've got 2-3. You wanna put more pressure on already shaky DB's like Flowers and Amadi?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this article is garbage.

Jville · Mar 9, 2020

Sgt. Largent":396mbizw said:
This SI article seems like something one of us would write in here, and not in a good way..................as in "hey I just thought of this hairbrained defensive scheme without looking at our current personnel at all before writing this cause it sounds really cool!"

Clowney already got double teamed more than any other D-lineman in the league, so now you're only going to put TWO other lineman next to him? Lol, dude's gonna get quadruple.

And we don't even the defensive backfield to run our normal cover 3 without getting toasted. Five defensive backs require five VERY good defensive backs, and we've got 2-3. You wanna put more pressure on already shaky DB's like Flowers and Amadi?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this article is garbage.

Disappointed to read that. The state of the game is always changing. Each side of the line of scrimmage adjusting to the other ..... looking for an edge.

The article is speculation about the usefulness of a specific personnel group for possible inclusion in a 2020 defensive play book. Many find such speculation both entertaining and relevant. Understanding that in the off season, teams review the previous season's outcomes. Then contemplate making scheme and personnel adjustments prior to assembling and building a team for the next (2020) campaign.

But to each their own. With such a collection of forum members from so many different walks of life, reviews of any article will most often result in mixed reactions.

Go Hawks!

Sgt. Largent · Mar 9, 2020

Jville":37c5sj7c said:
Sgt. Largent":37c5sj7c said:

This SI article seems like something one of us would write in here, and not in a good way..................as in "hey I just thought of this hairbrained defensive scheme without looking at our current personnel at all before writing this cause it sounds really cool!"

Clowney already got double teamed more than any other D-lineman in the league, so now you're only going to put TWO other lineman next to him? Lol, dude's gonna get quadruple.

And we don't even the defensive backfield to run our normal cover 3 without getting toasted. Five defensive backs require five VERY good defensive backs, and we've got 2-3. You wanna put more pressure on already shaky DB's like Flowers and Amadi?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this article is garbage.

Click to expand...

Disappointed to read that. The state of the game is always changing. Each side of the line of scrimmage adjusting to the other ..... looking for an edge.

The article is speculation about the usefulness of a specific personnel group for possible inclusion in a 2020 defensive play book. Many find such speculation both entertaining and relevant. Understanding that in the off season, teams review the previous season's outcomes. Then contemplate making scheme and personnel adjustments prior to assembling and building a team for the next (2020) campaign.

But to each their own. With such a collection of forum members from so many different walks of life, reviews of any article will most often result in mixed reactions.

Go Hawks!

No one, including me is arguing against scheme tweaks or changes, but don't come at us with said scheme change when our defensive personnel was so bad last year we had to play base 40% of the time.

This defensive roster can't even play base, and the author wants us to employ a 3-3-5, and justifies it with pointing out Clowney who isn't even on the roster, and Wagner as cornerstones?

So it's not the scheme I'm against, I'm sure we could benefit from mixing it up scheme wise...........but don't come at with this nonsense when our personnel can't even play base well enough. This would require three studs on the D-line (we have none), two other LB's that are at LEAST 80% of what Wagner is to cover sideline to sideline, blitz and fill gaps.........AND at least two upgrades in the defensive backfield.

Jville · Mar 9, 2020

Sgt. Largent":1a5jnzp7 said:
Jville":1a5jnzp7 said:

Sgt. Largent":1a5jnzp7 said:

This SI article seems like something one of us would write in here, and not in a good way..................as in "hey I just thought of this hairbrained defensive scheme without looking at our current personnel at all before writing this cause it sounds really cool!"

Clowney already got double teamed more than any other D-lineman in the league, so now you're only going to put TWO other lineman next to him? Lol, dude's gonna get quadruple.

And we don't even the defensive backfield to run our normal cover 3 without getting toasted. Five defensive backs require five VERY good defensive backs, and we've got 2-3. You wanna put more pressure on already shaky DB's like Flowers and Amadi?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this article is garbage.

Click to expand...

Disappointed to read that. The state of the game is always changing. Each side of the line of scrimmage adjusting to the other ..... looking for an edge.

The article is speculation about the usefulness of a specific personnel group for possible inclusion in a 2020 defensive play book. Many find such speculation both entertaining and relevant. Understanding that in the off season, teams review the previous season's outcomes. Then contemplate making scheme and personnel adjustments prior to assembling and building a team for the next (2020) campaign.

But to each their own. With such a collection of forum members from so many different walks of life, reviews of any article will most often result in mixed reactions.

Go Hawks!

Click to expand...

No one, including me is arguing against scheme tweaks or changes, but don't come at us with said scheme change when our defensive personnel was so bad last year we had to play base 40% of the time.

This defensive roster can't even play base, and the author wants us to employ a 3-3-5, and justifies it with pointing out Clowney who isn't even on the roster, and Wagner as cornerstones?

So it's not the scheme I'm against, I'm sure we could benefit from mixing it up scheme wise...........but don't come at with this nonsense when our personnel can't even play base well enough. This would require three studs on the D-line (we have none), two other LB's that are at LEAST 80% of what Wagner is to cover sideline to sideline, blitz and fill gaps.........AND at least two upgrades in the defensive backfield.

If I read your objections correctly, the subject of your dissatisfaction is focused on last year's roster. That's a different subject that's now fading in the rear view mirror. Where as the speculative article is cognizant of an advancing timeline.

Sgt. Largent · Mar 9, 2020

Jville":20qod4e6 said:
Sgt. Largent":20qod4e6 said:

Jville":20qod4e6 said:

Sgt. Largent":20qod4e6 said:

This SI article seems like something one of us would write in here, and not in a good way..................as in "hey I just thought of this hairbrained defensive scheme without looking at our current personnel at all before writing this cause it sounds really cool!"

Clowney already got double teamed more than any other D-lineman in the league, so now you're only going to put TWO other lineman next to him? Lol, dude's gonna get quadruple.

And we don't even the defensive backfield to run our normal cover 3 without getting toasted. Five defensive backs require five VERY good defensive backs, and we've got 2-3. You wanna put more pressure on already shaky DB's like Flowers and Amadi?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but this article is garbage.

Click to expand...

Disappointed to read that. The state of the game is always changing. Each side of the line of scrimmage adjusting to the other ..... looking for an edge.

The article is speculation about the usefulness of a specific personnel group for possible inclusion in a 2020 defensive play book. Many find such speculation both entertaining and relevant. Understanding that in the off season, teams review the previous season's outcomes. Then contemplate making scheme and personnel adjustments prior to assembling and building a team for the next (2020) campaign.

But to each their own. With such a collection of forum members from so many different walks of life, reviews of any article will most often result in mixed reactions.

Go Hawks!

Click to expand...

No one, including me is arguing against scheme tweaks or changes, but don't come at us with said scheme change when our defensive personnel was so bad last year we had to play base 40% of the time.

This defensive roster can't even play base, and the author wants us to employ a 3-3-5, and justifies it with pointing out Clowney who isn't even on the roster, and Wagner as cornerstones?

So it's not the scheme I'm against, I'm sure we could benefit from mixing it up scheme wise...........but don't come at with this nonsense when our personnel can't even play base well enough. This would require three studs on the D-line (we have none), two other LB's that are at LEAST 80% of what Wagner is to cover sideline to sideline, blitz and fill gaps.........AND at least two upgrades in the defensive backfield.

Click to expand...

If I read your objections correctly, the subject of your dissatisfaction is focused on last year's roster. That's a different subject that's now fading in the rear view mirror. Where as the speculative article is cognizant of an advancing timeline.

That's not what the article says, the article says that we should employ this scheme now, not at some future time when said personnel is upgraded.

That's why the author lists off players like Amadi, Clowney and Wagner as cornerstone players for his 3-3-5 change......as well as our current interior lineman like Collier, which is laughable in itself. That you'd trust a player like Collier that was a healthy scratch down the stretch as a cornerstone for a scheme change.

So get back to me with this idea when we have the personnel to run it. Otherwise, lets just name ALL the defensive schemes as speculative that we also don't have the players to run it.

Largent80 · Mar 9, 2020

IndyHawk":3e8o18wh said:
Ha ha ..This isn't video games
If this is last year the QB would stand there all day
and pick us apart after (2-3) 6 yrd running plays.

But this is a description of exactly what we saw LAST year. Not enough talent to run any scheme successfully.

chris98251 · Mar 9, 2020

When you have a guy like Kam to play SS and be a LB depending on look it gives you a huge amount of flexibility, why a guy like SS-Kyle Dugger is or could be such a huge get for us.

IndyHawk · Mar 10, 2020

Largent80":t8s19lak said:
IndyHawk":t8s19lak said:

Ha ha ..This isn't video games
If this is last year the QB would stand there all day
and pick us apart after (2-3) 6 yrd running plays.

Click to expand...

But this is a description of exactly what we saw LAST year. Not enough talent to run any scheme successfully.

I should have included this but yes that is correct.
Nothing will cover up that.

Speculation: Calling for greater use of 3-3-5 Nickel Package

Jville

Well-known member

HawkGA

New member

IndyHawk

Well-known member

HawkGA

New member

chris98251

Well-known member

kf3339

Active member

Appyhawk

Moderator

John63

Well-known member

Tical21

Well-known member

chris98251

Well-known member

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member

Jville

Well-known member

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member

Jville

Well-known member

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member

Largent80

New member

chris98251

Well-known member

IndyHawk

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts