Question about Muschamp defense

[auburn2oregon 0]

Ive been reading that Muschamp basically uses multiple fronts on defense. I also saw that he used the Nickel formation something like 70%-75% of the time the last two seasons at Florida.

My question is this, what exactly is the difference between the Nickel and the 4-2-5 scheme that we had been running? I played ball up until I graduated high school, and even though I went to a 1A school, I know the Nickel defensive formation has 4 DL, 2 LBs, and 5 DB. So... what gives?

Why is E. Johnsons scheme thought of in such a negative light, while Muschamp basically runs the same formation. I mean, I know the differences between the two men, aggressiveness and being able to motivate, being a couple big ones, but thats not what I'm asking. Im asking about the differences between the 4-2-5 and Nickel schemes.

There HAS to be more of a difference between the two than the 5th DB spot being a CB and a S

Thanks in advance for your responses! WDE from Eugene Oregon!

[Weegle777 78]

Bird, calling BigBird....come in BigBird.....

[Warbird82 160]

Bird, calling BigBird....come in BigBird.....

If you want to know about feathering your nest or stuffing a pillow...then Bird is your man. But defense?

[1TexasTiger 55]

The difference in Muschamp's D versus Ellis D is the focal player. Ellis Johnson focal player was the $tar. The star was a DB/LB hybrid that should have great cover skills and can provide a pass rush when blitzing. He would be the do everything type of guy. Muschamp has the Buck. He is a DE/LB hybrid which gives the defense the ability to change the D-line front to odd or even before the snap. This creates a huge advantage because offensive blocking schemes are blocked differently if the front is odd (3-4) versus even (4-3).

[Newbomb 193]

The difference in Muschamp's D versus Ellis D is the focal player. Ellis Johnson focal player was the $tar. The star was a DB/LB hybrid that should have great cover skills and can provide a pass rush when blitzing. He would be the do everything type of guy. Muschamp has the Buck. He is a DE/LB hybrid which gives the defense the ability to change the D-line front to odd or even before the snap. This creates a huge advantage because offensive blocking schemes are blocked differently if the front is odd (3-4) versus even (4-3).

I think there is more to this than your answer hince the recruitment of and enrollment of Irvin the nickle/safety...

[80Tiger 899]

I don't know if there is much difference A2O. What I think is that it becomes situational under the Muschamp scheme (ie. pass situations versus run situations) and the tendencies each offensive team has.

Whereas under the Johnson scheme it was an every down D. And we did not defend either pass or run very well.

[1TexasTiger 55]

The difference in Muschamp's D versus Ellis D is the focal player. Ellis Johnson focal player was the $tar. The star was a DB/LB hybrid that should have great cover skills and can provide a pass rush when blitzing. He would be the do everything type of guy. Muschamp has the Buck. He is a DE/LB hybrid which gives the defense the ability to change the D-line front to odd or even before the snap. This creates a huge advantage because offensive blocking schemes are blocked differently if the front is odd (3-4) versus even (4-3).

I think there is more to this than your answer hince the recruitment of and enrollment of Irvin the nickle/safety...

One paragraph doesn't sum up their respective defenses. To your point, we had Irvin in Therizie. One of Ellis Johnson issues was he never found a suitable $tar defender. But notice that Muschamp has sought out Dante Fowler and Byron Cowart. That is the difference maker for his D. Playing Nickle or 4-2-5 has to do with getting enough speed on the field for spread offenses, but you still have to create pressure upfront which we did not do last year. Ellis had to pull guys from coverage to create a blitz. Muschamp will try to create pressure by changing the front pre-snap. Byron Cowart allows you to do that.

[tigerwings 75]

So basically EJ's 4-2-5 is a hard front 4, where Muschamp runs a variable front 3-3-5/4-2-5 and they can change it on the fly depending on offensive alignment to create better rushing lanes and run fits. They can also switch to a 3-4/4-3 based on current personnel.

[PVilleTiger 0]

I would also call Muschamp's scheme more attacking. It seemed like we would react under Ellis instead of trying to force something like Alabama or other top units do.

[McLoofus 35,182]

So basically EJ's 4-2-5 is a hard front 4, where Muschamp runs a variable front 3-3-5/4-2-5 and they can change it on the fly depending on offensive alignment to create better rushing lanes and run fits. They can also switch to a 3-4/4-3 based on current personnel.

This is how I also understand it.

1TexasTiger also makes a good point about personnel. There's no promises that we will have guys who can succeed at Buck under Muschamp any more than we had guys who could succeed at Star under Johnson, but we will indeed be looking at a different group of athletes for that swing position.

[bigbird 60,512]

Schematically there is not much of a difference. Most often in the nickle defense a CB replaces a LB in obvious passing downs where as in the 4-2-5 the "star" was a safety hybrid. That said, there are times where 3 safeties and 2 CB are in nickle. The 4-2-5, with the right personnel is often more flexible in terms of adjusting to offenses on the fly due to the "star's" dual nature. That said, CWM's defense uses the nickle position in a very similar way as the "star"

[NicholasIanAllen 0]

Schematically there is not much of a difference. Most often in the nickle defense a CB replaces a LB in obvious passing downs where as in the 4-2-5 the "star" was a safety hybrid. That said, there are times where 3 safeties and 2 CB are in nickle. The 4-2-5, with the right personnel is often more flexible in terms of adjusting to offenses on the fly due to the "star's" dual nature. That said, CWM's defense uses the nickle position in a very similar way as the "star"

A dirty little secret with this coaching change (and many others for that matter) is that despite the switch from a 4-2-5 to a multiple 4-3, you will see a lot of similarities between Muschamp and Johnson's defenses schematically, as bigbird said. Keep in mind that there are only so many ways you can line up and play sound defense.

The main difference is the personality of the coaches, how well they teach the players their roles and responsibilities, how well they recruit, and the assumption that there was a lack of confidence in Johnson's ability to get the job done. Now, with Muschamp in place and especially because of his track record of producing top-notch defenses and first round draft picks, the players have confidence in their defensive coordinator and the defensive coaching staff.

Also, it should come as no surprise that the defensive coaching staff is considerably younger on average. Expect this staff to connect better with the players both in terms of personality and their ability to communicate with one another, which will have a bigger impact in the grand scheme of things than the similarities and differences between a Buck and a defensive end, a star and a nickel, and a defensive tackle and a nose guard.

[auburn2oregon 0]

It seems as though my question has brought on an actual discussion rather than what it could of been. For that gentlemen, I thank you.

I agree totally with whoever said Muschamp defense is more attack when Johnson was more react.

WDE guys!

[N2AUtigers 5]

Seems like most defenses these days have a swing type player. It does seem to me that in the collage game, stat wise, when that swing player is a de/olb the defense is better. Just my opinion as I'm not a Stat man.. And yes I think you get a ton more motivation from WM than you ever would from EJ. Just two very different styles of coaching.

[ShugMan55 0]

I don't know squat about the complex assignments between defenses. I expect one of, if not the biggest difference, will be that Muschamp will be on the sidelines teaching and screaming while influencing and controlling the emotions of the players and not in the booth hunched over like he is working a difficult calculus problem. I don't know much, but I know that emotion is a key element of a good defense.

[1TexasTiger 55]

Seems like most defenses these days have a swing type player. It does seem to me that in the collage game, stat wise, when that swing player is a de/olb the defense is better. Just my opinion as I'm not a Stat man.. And yes I think you get a ton more motivation from WM than you ever would from EJ. Just two very different styles of coaching.

I've noticed that as well. It all starts up front. If you can create pressure without bringing extra guys then you have more numbers to dedicate to pass coverage. That creates smaller winds for QB's and recievers. Many people don't want to admit it but there was nothing wrong with the 4-2-5 defense. However, there was something wrong with how we chose to execute it somewhere in the process.

[meh130 1,043]

I really see the relationship of the 4-2-5 to the traditional 4-3 as very similar in concept to what happened when 5-2 teams went to a 5-2 Monster, turning one of the DBs into a hybrid DB/LB to try to defeat the wishbone. The 4-2-5 simply replaces the Sam LB in the 4-3 with a strong safety or a rover back type of player, rather than a cornerback.

The idea behind the 4-2-5 is the hybrid can play run support (similar to a strong safety), or pass coverage. Some 4-2-5s use two hybrids and one deep safety to allow 4-4 type fronts. Some 4-2-5s do use a hybrid weakside DE as well, but not to the extent of CWM's "Buck". This was in CEJ's playbook, but never implemented. Some 4-2-5s primarily use zone pass coverages (Ole Miss is one). CEJ was a big believer in man pass coverage. Also, in CEJ's system, the Star called the coverage (not the Mike LB as in most 4-3 systems).

With any 40 series front, the idea is to stop, disrupt, or string out running plays, and to get pressure on the QB on passing plays with your base four DLs. We struggled with both areas, and this put pressure on the LBs and DBs.

I do not think CEJ's problems were with not having the right player at Star. We had some of our better players at Star. No defense is based on one position, be it Buck, Star, or whatever.

Also, the idea behind the 4-2-5 is a flexible base defense which does not need sub-packages and substitutions to counter no-huddle attacks. However in 2014 we ran a number of sub-packages to try to address our weak pass rush.

The 4-2-5 is more popular than most people think, because there are 4-3 teams out there who put a smaller, faster, better pass covering LB into the SLB position of their 4-3 and play more like a 4-2-5, even though they call it a 4-3. And most 4-3 teams use a 4-2-5 set against spread opponents.

I do think our defensive problems were just under performance throughout the defense. In 2013, the LBs under produced. In 2014, the DL under produced. Also several have commented there were problems between the secondary players, that the CBs did not seem to know where the safeties were, etc. Another issue was teams learned how to defeat CEJ's man-to-man 4-2-5: Put your best WR in the slot, and isolate them on the Star, and throw short, quick passes to this WR. This worked well because our DL could not get pressure fast enough to stop this type of attack.

[auburn2oregon 0]

I really see the relationship of the 4-2-5 to the traditional 4-3 as very similar in concept to what happened when 5-2 teams went to a 5-2 Monster, turning one of the DBs into a hybrid DB/LB to try to defeat the wishbone. The 4-2-5 simply replaces the Sam LB in the 4-3 with a strong safety or a rover back type of player, rather than a cornerback.

The idea behind the 4-2-5 is the hybrid can play run support (similar to a strong safety), or pass coverage. Some 4-2-5s use two hybrids and one deep safety to allow 4-4 type fronts. Some 4-2-5s do use a hybrid weakside DE as well, but not to the extent of CWM's "Buck". This was in CEJ's playbook, but never implemented. Some 4-2-5s primarily use zone pass coverages (Ole Miss is one). CEJ was a big believer in man pass coverage. Also, in CEJ's system, the Star called the coverage (not the Mike LB as in most 4-3 systems).

With any 40 series front, the idea is to stop, disrupt, or string out running plays, and to get pressure on the QB on passing plays with your base four DLs. We struggled with both areas, and this put pressure on the LBs and DBs.

I do not think CEJ's problems were with not having the right player at Star. We had some of our better players at Star. No defense is based on one position, be it Buck, Star, or whatever.

Also, the idea behind the 4-2-5 is a flexible base defense which does not need sub-packages and substitutions to counter no-huddle attacks. However in 2014 we ran a number of sub-packages to try to address our weak pass rush.

The 4-2-5 is more popular than most people think, because there are 4-3 teams out there who put a smaller, faster, better pass covering LB into the SLB position of their 4-3 and play more like a 4-2-5, even though they call it a 4-3. And most 4-3 teams use a 4-2-5 set against spread opponents.

I do think our defensive problems were just under performance throughout the defense. In 2013, the LBs under produced. In 2014, the DL under produced. Also several have commented there were problems between the secondary players, that the CBs did not seem to know where the safeties were, etc. Another issue was teams learned how to defeat CEJ's man-to-man 4-2-5: Put your best WR in the slot, and isolate them on the Star, and throw short, quick passes to this WR. This worked well because our DL could not get pressure fast enough to stop this type of attack.

EXCELLENT. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for when I asked my question.

And if memory serves me, the whole part of playing smaller LBs is exactly what we did last time Muschamp was here. I think we took a couple safeties and made them LBs

[keesler 5,924]

I don't know squat about the complex assignments between defenses. I expect one of, if not the biggest difference, will be that Muschamp will be on the sidelines teaching and screaming while influencing and controlling the emotions of the players and not in the booth hunched over like he is working a difficult calculus problem. I don't know much, but I know that emotion is a key element of a good defense.

Emotion only goes so far (i.e. VanGorder's year) teaching them fundamental football (something that left with Tubbs) is more important. Teach them how to play sound technique and hold them accountable for their actions and when they are confident in their abilities the will perform with great emotion and energy. Confidence in your ability to be productive creates an electric atmosphere, knowing you can dominate your opponent has a way of firing everybody up on the sidelines.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

One thing I'd add to meh's answer is that Will is probably one of the best multiple front coaches in the country. His defenses routinely shift between even and odd fronts, and they do it seamlessly. We tried to do that under Ellis shifting into a 5-man bear front. We changed the alignment behind that front based on a variety of factors, but the bottom line is, we weren't very good at it. LSU gashed us in 2013 almost every time we shifted into a five-man, and it didn't get a lot better with time. Muschamp's defense shows a LOT of looks, and part of that is because he's such a good teacher. His guys don't make a lot of mistakes.

It's similar to what you get from Saban/Smart actually. They'll give you a 3-4, a 4-3 by rolling the Jack onto the line or even a 5-2 in certain spots, and they execute it properly. It's hard to do.

One of Will's secrets is that his zone coverage schemes don't change as much based on the front action (same for Saban). So there's a lot of movement up front, which can confuse the blocking assignments, but much of what happens behind that movement stays the same. He also likes to utilize personnel in a variety of ways, and he's been known to use zone blitz schemes much more frequently and effectively than Ellis. They did a LOT at LSU when he had Spears and Hill at DE. Those guys dropped into coverage well, and Muschamp took advantage of their skill set. I think he's one of the better defensive coaches in the country at using all of the skills available to him.

I actually like Ellis as a coach, but my biggest knock on him is his lack of flexibility in using personnel. Even this year, with our lack of pass rush, it took weeks for him to concede the point and start experimenting with personnel to manufacture a push. It didn't work, but the process should've happened a lot sooner. Muschamp is creative and tends to get the most out of guys even when they have a limited skill set.

[alexava 6,973]

Giving up passing yards always hurts. I can't deal with the ground drubbing put on us by uga and Wisconsin. Down right embarrassing.

[auburn2oregon 0]

I cant deal with everyone passing for 400+ on us every week either.

I am super excited to see the difference in this defense with Muschamp at the helm.

[1TexasTiger 55]

I really see the relationship of the 4-2-5 to the traditional 4-3 as very similar in concept to what happened when 5-2 teams went to a 5-2 Monster, turning one of the DBs into a hybrid DB/LB to try to defeat the wishbone. The 4-2-5 simply replaces the Sam LB in the 4-3 with a strong safety or a rover back type of player, rather than a cornerback.

The idea behind the 4-2-5 is the hybrid can play run support (similar to a strong safety), or pass coverage. Some 4-2-5s use two hybrids and one deep safety to allow 4-4 type fronts. Some 4-2-5s do use a hybrid weakside DE as well, but not to the extent of CWM's "Buck". This was in CEJ's playbook, but never implemented. Some 4-2-5s primarily use zone pass coverages (Ole Miss is one). CEJ was a big believer in man pass coverage. Also, in CEJ's system, the Star called the coverage (not the Mike LB as in most 4-3 systems).

With any 40 series front, the idea is to stop, disrupt, or string out running plays, and to get pressure on the QB on passing plays with your base four DLs. We struggled with both areas, and this put pressure on the LBs and DBs.

I do not think CEJ's problems were with not having the right player at Star. We had some of our better players at Star. No defense is based on one position, be it Buck, Star, or whatever.

Also, the idea behind the 4-2-5 is a flexible base defense which does not need sub-packages and substitutions to counter no-huddle attacks. However in 2014 we ran a number of sub-packages to try to address our weak pass rush.

The 4-2-5 is more popular than most people think, because there are 4-3 teams out there who put a smaller, faster, better pass covering LB into the SLB position of their 4-3 and play more like a 4-2-5, even though they call it a 4-3. And most 4-3 teams use a 4-2-5 set against spread opponents.

I do think our defensive problems were just under performance throughout the defense. In 2013, the LBs under produced. In 2014, the DL under produced. Also several have commented there were problems between the secondary players, that the CBs did not seem to know where the safeties were, etc. Another issue was teams learned how to defeat CEJ's man-to-man 4-2-5: Put your best WR in the slot, and isolate them on the Star, and throw short, quick passes to this WR. This worked well because our DL could not get pressure fast enough to stop this type of attack.

I agree totally accept the MLB made the calls. That was the reason McKinzy didn't make the transition sooner. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that. Also with switching between Garrett and Therizie that would have been difficult for the star to make the calls.

[ShugMan55 0]

I don't know squat about the complex assignments between defenses. I expect one of, if not the biggest difference, will be that Muschamp will be on the sidelines teaching and screaming while influencing and controlling the emotions of the players and not in the booth hunched over like he is working a difficult calculus problem. I don't know much, but I know that emotion is a key element of a good defense.

Emotion only goes so far (i.e. VanGorder's year) teaching them fundamental football (something that left with Tubbs) is more important. Teach them how to play sound technique and hold them accountable for their actions and when they are confident in their abilities the will perform with great emotion and energy. Confidence in your ability to be productive creates an electric atmosphere, knowing you can dominate your opponent has a way of firing everybody up on the sidelines.

I was in no way implying that emotion could replace training and preparation. That's why I said a key element and not the key element. I believe the staff last year knew something about defense, for instance how to tackle, yet the players were not progressing. The "hold them accountable" portion of your statement was what I was referring to with Muschamp. Players will figure out they will not get to the NFL sitting on the bench because they are not concentrating, listening or continually hitting out of bounds.

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

I was in no way implying that emotion could replace training and preparation. That's why I said a key element and not the key element. I believe the staff last year knew something about defense, for instance how to tackle, yet the players were not progressing. The "hold them accountable" portion of your statement was what I was referring to with Muschamp.

I will apologize in advance since this falls outside the X's and O's that A2O was looking for, but I think it speaks to the need for change. Jim Tressel wrote a book called "The Winner's Manual For The Game Of Life" which I thought was loaded with much of the non-football specific guidelines for what he thought gave kids the best opportunity to succeed. In the book he identifies two common things that all successful teams have - trust and love. I don't believe our defensive players trusted the scheme (we simply didn't have the personnel to live in man coverage) and I am certain that they disliked at least one particular coach. As the season progressed, it appears that the situation unraveled to the point or irreconcilable. Muschamp brings passion like few others, and passion is simply love on steroids (or maybe protein shakes). His history as a DC brings instant credibility which is the seed of trust. Schemes won't matter (much) if the kids buy in.