Gary Patterson's 4-2-5

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

4-2-5 Defense that Gary Patterson Employs, click me


This was a great read and something we should attempt to emulate if BVG's system is too complex for our safeties to figure out. I love the idea of compartmentalizing the calls and attack groupings.

I'm interested in what others think about his methodology. Making separate calls for the front 6 vs. back 5, etc.

 

[Luckylucci]

I thought this was a great read!

 

[NDdomer2]

I was looking for a general college football/defense thread to put this yesterday and gave up. Great read.

 

[GrangerIrish24]

Gary Patterson was the guy I wanted after Charlie was shown the door. Really does a nice job of simplifying his scheme for his players. Fantastic talent evaluator.

 

[Old Man Mike]

something like this is what Texas claims to be using. You better have damm good corners, as they appear to be on an island a lot. You also better have damm stout DTs to keep the OLine off just two LBs.

 

[Dizzyphil]

something like this is what Texas claims to be using. You better have damm good corners, as they appear to be on an island a lot. You also better have damm stout DTs to keep the OLine off just two LBs.

Screen plays can really make a coach divert from the 4-2-5 very quickly as well. And if the Irish bring in a dual TE set with a screen, they could march 20 yards a clip easily before the '5' get close.

 

[Luckylucci]

something like this is what Texas claims to be using. You better have damm good corners, as they appear to be on an island a lot. You also better have damm stout DTs to keep the OLine off just two LBs.

If the offense is lining in a traditional spread format, the defense (box) has the OL outnumber 6-5. Also, the goal of the defense is to force downfield throws. They want to take away the run and the underneath stuff and force you into lower percentage throws. Obviously nothing is fool proof, as that plan against Baylor didn't work, they were able to hit downfield a lot. But in the college game without a lot of proven downfield throwing QB's I like the general idea. The rest of it is up to the DC or Patterson to call the game right.

 

[ACamp1900]

Gary Patterson was the guy I wanted after Charlie was shown the door. Really does a nice job of simplifying his scheme for his players. Fantastic talent evaluator.

Me as well... Love Patterson, many members of his staff as well...

 

[Luckylucci]

I also love the idea of how he sets up his Thursday practices and having to call a defense every six seconds. Talk about taking ownership of your squad.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I also love the idea of how he sets up his Thursday practices and having to call a defense every six seconds. Talk about taking ownership of your squad.

I really like this as well. When you do this it really keeps you sharp for the actual performance. I remember taking a standardized test and beforehand, I sought out the most difficult practice materials I could and took it under harsher conditions, less time per problem, etc.

On test day, I scored higher than any of my test scores. Mental acuity was sharp and I was ready.

I really hope our coaches practice things like this, as it will greatly improve performance on game day.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The 4-2-5 is ideal against most Big12 offensive schemes, since they love to air it out. But how many pass-first spread offenses typically show up on our schedule?

 

[Rack Em]

The 4-2-5 is ideal against most Big12 offensive schemes, since they love to air it out. But how many pass-first spread offenses typically show up on our schedule?

That was my first thought. We already run a swing Nickel/4-3 base set to account for the offensive scheme variety we see. Can't run a 4-2-5 against Stanford or UM, but one can effectively run it against many ACC teams

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

The 4-2-5 is ideal against most Big12 offensive schemes, since they love to air it out. But how many pass-first spread offenses typically show up on our schedule?

Does Clemson count? UNC? Possibly USC now? ASU?

As to this schedule, I agree the 4-2-5 may not be ideal but I really like the simplicity it offers for players to make single reads. How can a 4th year safety, who received true frosh playing time, and is now in his 2nd year of this defensive scheme, still reading things incorrectly?

Maybe this is unfair criticism and I'm putting too much stock into the presser's when Kelly says this is an incredibly complex defense but it seems like we should be able to simplify it enough for our players to read then react.

Also, it would appear the 4-2-5 could be tailored to battle the heavier offenses by subbing in one of our tweener safety/lb prospect in that nickelback role (I'm sure it has a different name). This is where a Tranquil or Barratti or Sebastian or Farley could come in handy. But maybe I'm way off and we need to transform when we play these more pro or option running teams.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The 4-2-5 is ideal against most Big12 offensive schemes, since they love to air it out. But how many pass-first spread offenses typically show up on our schedule?

In the Big 12 it may work, but against traditional power run games you will be in some trouble.

 

[ryno 24]

This defense is so versatile that it could be useful against power teams as well. That Strong Safety is practically a linebacker. They are always in the box. It is basically playing a 4-3. I particularly agree with not necessarily having the secondary and front on the same page. Its a very outside the box thinking.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This defense is so versatile that it could be useful against power teams as well. That Strong Safety is practically a linebacker. They are always in the box. It is basically playing a 4-3. I particularly agree with not necessarily having the secondary and front on the same page. Its a very outside the box thinking.

Agree to a point but in a 4-2-5 you have to cover so much ground that a RB like a Chubb would most likely eat that up. That similar type defense got the last Auburn DC ran off. It just would not work against power running teams in most instances.

The simplicity of the 4-2-5 is also it's greatest weakness. Asking the back half to cover that much ground is difficult at best.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Agree to a point but in a 4-2-5 you have to cover so much ground that a RB like a Chubb would most likely eat that up. That similar type defense got the last Auburn DC ran off. It just would not work against power running teams in most instances.



The simplicity of the 4-2-5 is also it's greatest weakness. Asking the back half to cover that much ground is difficult at best.

Thinking about a 4-2-5 against a Wisconsin, Arkansas, Alabama, Auburn, etc type offense...Yikes.


Sent via tapatalk

 

[Grahambo]

I love great defenses more then great offenses.

 

[ryno 24]

I agree. It is much more difficult to be a great defense than a great offense. The interesting thing about Patterson's 4-2-5 is that it has worked against power football teams even before they went to the big 12

 

[phgreek]

4-2-5 Defense that Gary Patterson Employs, click me


This was a great read and something we should attempt to emulate if BVG's system is too complex for our safeties to figure out. I love the idea of compartmentalizing the calls and attack groupings.

I'm interested in what others think about his methodology. Making separate calls for the front 6 vs. back 5, etc.

first of all...great read.

Second, the concept of compartmentalizing is a great one...I need to do more research, but seems like a great concept you could apply to a 3-5 (which is what I typically use) as well..likely a little more complex, but doable. However, the guy calling the defense in game situations seems to be pretty damned good. If he's been talking it since '11, who else has made it work?