[This article was originally published on December 15, 2020. Two years and two weeks ago Michigan was in search of a new defensive coordinator, and possibly about to be in search of a head coach. The hottest new defense for stopping the hot new spread offenses proliferating through the Big XII was that pioneered by Iowa State's Matt Campbell and his DC Jon Heacock, who were the hottest names at the time for Michigan's opening/hypothetical opening. That was enough, at the time, for your hot new football strategies-obsessed author to write a primer on the defense, what personnel it uses, and how it works.

This 3-3-5 Flyover defense has since been adopted, more or less intact, by TCU coordinator Joe Gillespie. TCU runs it with "more interchangeable" linebackers, which is to say they couldn't find a faster WLB to fulfill that role. This relative lack of athleticism in the ILBs in a system that demands it from at least one of them is the reason why, as Alex Drain identified in FFFF, TCU has struggled with receiving RBs, passes up the seam, and edge attacks when their LBs are whipped in different directions.

I am republishing this article as a companion piece to Alex's film analysis so you can understand better what they're trying to do, and how that's led to many of the things Alex observed. Plus, only 5,160 of you read that piece, which is about how many read my CMU preview yesterday, if you're wondering how the football of the last two years has affected MGoBlog traffic. ICYMI the first time, here's the Soup Defense.]

------------------------------

Iowa State head coach Matt Campbell and his defensive coordinator Jon Heacock were hot names in coaching circles long before Michigan fans began to consider bringing both or one them to Ann Arbor. I don't know if that's happening—honestly I'd place the odds under 10 percent. But it's a good excuse to talk about their three-high "Cyclone" or "Flyover" defense, why it's been successful against the high-flying spreads of the Big XII, and what offenses are doing to adapt to it.

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF FOOTBALL DEFENSE

When football was young, you could barely tell which side was on offense. But the advent of the single-wing caused spacing problems, solved when Michigan center Germany Schulz moved himself off the line of scrimmage. The 6-2 defense was originally just an anti-spread weapon but gradually became the base of most teams.

Virtually every defensive evolution since has followed this same pattern of converting thicker players up front into leaner and faster players further from the line of scrimmage. The 5-3 came about when they had to move a guard back to create a third linebacker to stop the Wing-T and early passing offenses. When pocket passing became possible due to rule changes, defenses answered by using hybrid linebackers as second safeties, then bowed to inevitable and called them safeties; the 5-2 was born. When that wasn't enough speed they converted the 5-2 variants into the 3-4 (replace both DEs with LBs) or 4-3 (replace the NG with a 3rd LB). Spread football in the early 21st century replaced fullbacks and 2nd tight ends with slot receivers, forcing defenses to become every-down 3-3-5 and 4-2-5 nickels.

That's where we've been.

THE PROBLEM

The reason ISU went to this defense was the Big XII is home to the spreadiest of the spreadiest. Tom Herman at Texas, Lincoln Riley of Oklahoma, Mike Gundy of Oklahoma State, Chris Klieman of Kansas State, Matt Wells of Texas Tech, and the offense WVU's Neal Brown inherited are all state-of-the-art spreads based on 4-wide sets, and stretching you vertically and horizontally. Baylor's Dave Aranda and TCU's Gary Patterson are defensive guys at heart but their OCs run similar spreads. Only Les Miles of Kansas—figures, right?—runs an offense more predicated on Bo's principles of moving people where you want them.

[After THE JUMP: The next evolution?]

THE LOOK

Here's the next evolution:

Shoutout to DraftBreakdown for the video, since the Texas game has been downloading for 3 days now.

It's hard to tell on first glance, but what they've done is replace the defensive end with a third safety. They still use the same principles as the defenses they evolved from. You don't need to glean any secrets of the universe from this play. You see the three safeties back, how two of them drop into Cover 2 and the third is taking a middle zone.

You see the third safety up there. You intuit this is some sort of wrong, and from the clip you already got the sense that the players on the field aren't exactly type specimens of their respective positions. So what kind of players are on the field? Hybrids.

THE PERSONNEL

They call it a base 3-3-5, which is a fair description of the total material on the field, so long as you count the two hybrids as half LB/safeties. Here's an example of their setup versus a typical spread set to show you where the players fall on the heaviness spectrum:

We'll go over where each level sets up, and then why.

Nose: As with any three-man front (3-4, 3-3-5 stack, etc.) they start with a nose guard who can disrupt or hold the line of scrimmage. People still tend to get hung up on the idea that the nose has to be 350 pounds and able to two-gap. In fact what you need out of your nose is that he's a problem if he's single-blocked. That could mean he's a Bryan Mone who sucks up double teams and can't be zone blocked, or it could mean he's a Ryan Glasgow/Rob Renes sort who can control any one blocker and rip past, or you could do it with a Mo Hurst who gets in the backfield so quickly. He just has to be a problem and not get crushed by double-teams.

Tackle: The 3-tech is a DE-ish DT. You could get away with a Kemp here, but the thing you're really looking for is a Kwity Paye or Aidan Hutchinson—DE who can dominate guards in one-on-one matchups, suck up a T/G double-team, or edge rush as needed. You also need a guy who's responsible—the easiest way to screw up this defense is the backside tackle doesn't know his duty on a given play. ISU's tweak to this defense is they line up the backside DT directly opposite the running back (if the RB is inline the DE sets up off-tackle). 

End: Not to be confused with the term for WDE in Brown's defense, ISU's 5-tech is another DT-ish DE who can dominate TE/T doubles, flip inside if needed, or pass rush an open edge. He too has to be extremely sound. The next level is relying on this guy to keep things under control until they get where they're going.

Mike: The MLB is an interesting kind of linebacker, the opposite of a Don Brown little guy. He's really less of a 4-3 middle linebacker and more of an extra defensive lineman, just one who can appear anywhere. You want more of a Victor Hobson here: a plugger who can come downhill, thump a blocker, shed, and tackle. Agility is important because he has to be able to challenge a lot of gaps and not get dusted by a running quarterback in space. But this guy is going to take on a lot of blocks, especially if the nose isn't a space-eating type. He still has to have some coverage ability too of course, and the more NFL he is the more looks you can create. As you'll see, despite his initial alignment, this guy is going to end up with a lot of edge work.

Will: In this defense WLB is where you put your more Devin Bush-like object. He's going to be in coverage, he's going to blitz, he's going to read and react to the run game, and make a shit-ton of tackles. ISU's junior LB Mike Rose has 230+ of them in about 2 years of starting—he was ~220 his freshman year and is now ~245. He also has 28.5 TFLs in that time, to go with 5 interceptions (four this season). This guy has to be fast and decisive. The four guys in the box are going to be messing with offensive assignments. Before the blockers figure out who's really coming from where, the WLB has to be in attack mode.

Sam: We're now into our hybrids but this one is identical to everyone else's overhhang LB/safety. Like the Viper, the Sam is mostly an edge defender, but has to cover the slot like a safety. However he leans a bit more to the linebacker end of the spectrum, or perhaps falls in the middle of the modern "outside linebacker" spectrum, e.g. what Alabama uses for its 3-4. Often he'll be drawn in to be a pure LB, swapping jobs with the WLB if the formation flips, or swapping jobs with the strong safety if a slot receiver flips.

Star: This is the fascinating one, because he's taking on a lot of the role a 4-2-5 middle linebacker would have. This guy too is a hybrid linebacker, and the variety of coverages you can play really comes down to the things he can do. His base role is that of a middle linebacker in the Tampa 2. If the Mike is acting as an extra lineman by inserting himself into the rush, the free safety is the guy replacing the Mike. He just doesn't have to be. The guy they've been using here the last few years is Greg Eisworth.

Safeties: Are safeties.

Cornerback: Are cornerbacks.

HOW IT WORKS

It's a very different take on the 3-3-5. The standard Rocky Long 3-3-5 you know uses a single-high safety and then two hybrid wings, then plays 3 and 3 in the box. This 3-3-5 is more of a 3-4 but one of the middle linebackers is a safety-like object in the middle of the safeties.

The idea is to start back and chain reactions of each level to the one in front of it. The big question people always ask is how do you stop the run if you're pulling the free hitter out of the box. The answer is you have the six or five or four guys left in the box (depending on offensive formation) react aggressively to the blocking with the Star making them good. This play against Oklahoma's arc read this year is a good example. Watch the sequence of events at the top of the formation:

1. The defensive end crosses the guard and gets outside the tackle, occupying two offensive players.
2. The linebackers quickly react to the blocking—no fear of play-action, and the edge set by #23 forces a give.
3. The Star (#4) reacts to the handoff, and comes down to take the backside LB position that #23 gave up.

Having the Star back has the obvious benefit against the pass. But even if they catch him coming down to the linebacker level, which is the tendency, he's still a safety and can get back as well as the best true linebackers.

Again #4, the middle safety

UPSHOTS

This alignment opens up some advantages for defenses, especially against the spread. First off you've got an extra guy back and there's no telling before the snap which of those guys is going where, so it's nearly impossible to RPO this defense.

Even getting a hat on that middle safety is difficult, because most blockers aren't exactly made for covering all that ground, let along used to doing so. Let's watch our first example play again but this time pay attention to the right tackle, who has nobody to block until it's too late.

It's also a balanced formation, which screws with the numbers game that spread offenses play. Urban Meyer's offenses were always predicated on the idea that one side of an 11-man defense will always have more than the other side. Well not if you play the 11th man in the middle of the damn defense.

The last is it makes linebacking easier. The problem with linebacker through the ages is those guys are caught between lots of responsibilities. They have to mind a running gap and also get depth to take away passes between them and the second level. Also they have to be ready to shoot into spaces before blockers arrive, and read their guards so that their gaps don't appear somewhere else that they can't get to. Also also they usually have the running back out of the backfield, or if not they have to cover QB draws and pocket escapes. Linebacker is hard.

Lots of defenses try to find ways to make life easier on their linebackers, and the switching in the middle of this defense is just that. The safety coming down doesn't just become a linebacker; he becomes the linebacker the other middle linebacker left behind when he went balls-out towards some other linebacking duty.

What anyone who watched ISU noticed first was their linebackers are really active, attacking as soon as they see a good place to do so. That's because they have the safety coming down to replace. If they're being RPO'd, well, the safety's there. If they're getting a blocker, well, take on the blocker and the safety can track down the ball. If they're into the backfield untouched they don't have to worry about a screen because the safety can see what's going on.

This includes attacking option football. Watch #23m the middle linebacker inside the hash marks, on this one. They're going to give up 9 yards on this run but it's not #23's fault—the safety coming down behind him has the job of running sideline-to-sideline, freeing #23 to step upfield like they're taking on both sides of a zone read.

The safety got stiff-armed, but if makes the tackle when he gets to the back it's barely a gain. The structure of the defense also remains the same even if the offense goes to a meatball look.

Although at that point you're asking safeties to do real linebacker, or even defensive end work. When it gets too crazy—or gets in the red zone—ISU does have a regular 3-4 they can bring in.

SWITCHABILITY

To a limited degree this defense can be a xenomorph: From the initial state it can use all of these hybrids to transform into facsimiles of all the great defensive philosophies. Say you wanted to create Iowa's standard 4-3 Under/Cover 2 with a four-man pressure:

Or simulate a Don Brown stunt with "City" (man 1) coverage behind it?

No, wait, let's play Dantonio ball!

Except sometimes maybe we want to be a Bama-style 3-4 "Rip" slant front playing Cover 3 pattern-matching behind it:

Or just annihilate zone reads.

The variations are endless because of how many different roles the guys on the field can play.

Now, you're not going to have time to install EVERY damn defense with all of its variations. You're dealing with amateur athletes with college course loads and severe instruction limits, not the full-time, paid professionals of the NFL and Ohio State. As with any defense, you pick your strategies based on the available personnel, their strengths and weaknesses. A solid program with low attrition and upperclassman starters of decent ability can probably get good at one of these concepts and passable at a couple more.

Iowa State runs two base coverages, Cover 2 and Cover 3. Yes, sometimes they do drop their three safeties into the three deep zones. They don't do that very often. Usually one drops deep, another takes a curl-flat zone, and the Star takes a linebacker zone:

It also opens up your recruiting options, because hybrids tend to get underrated, and there are a lot of places you can use them. Fullbackian linebackers these days come cheap because their girth is more of a hindrance in all the space modern offenses use. Rather than forcing your staff to come up with two perfect inside linebackers and spares, you can recreate the perfect MLB/WLB pair in the aggregate, having the Mike activating against blockers and the Star deter quick passes and get to the ball unhindered. Rather than choose between pass rush and solid edge run defense after those who can do both are off the board, you can look for B-level pass rushers you can bulk up into B gap players and generate pressure with all the blitz opportunities available from a 3-3-5 setup. You still can't cheat on defensive backs and tackles—nobody can—but if you can build the heart of your defense out of less expensive players you can put spend more of those recruiting points on the big ticket items.

Meanwhile all those hybrids on the field open up all kinds of switching options, and give you the opportunity to use some guys with weird skills if you happen to pick on up. With a few tweaks you could have Josh Uche on the field every play as your WLB, or Shawn Crable as your MLB. A Jabrill Peppers—or Jordan Morant—would be sick at the Star position because you have the option of manning him up against anybody in coverage in addition to the seek-and-destroy linebacking job.

ATTACKING IT

There's always a catch, and with this I think that should be obvious: you're playing bend-don't-break, sacrificing meat up front for dynamism, and asking hybrids to do things you would normally ask specialists to do. This statement will always start a war with coaches who play this way, but the "softer" you go in personnel or depth, the lower ceiling you are putting on your defense. If the defense is playing one of its linebackers at safety level, well, he'd better still be able to make it to the linebacker jobs, or else…

Practitioners of the Aztec, or the 30-30, or the Cyclone or the Flyover, or the What-Have-You defense are going to get complaints too. What you're running is a more extreme version of a 3-4/Tampa 2, with one of your linebackers so far back he's literally a safety. And there was always a major issue with that: Cracking. Watch the two receivers (WR and TE, whatever) at the top:

Watch our poor middle safety as he tries to get to the gap the MLB couldn't:

Crack blocks are an iffy proposition. It's hard enough getting your receivers to block, and quick modern linebackers play out in the slot where it's hard to get an angle or movement on them. Safeties are crackable but how often does a run get to the safety? Ah, you see it now. And it should come as no surprise that offensive coordinators facing this defense have been pulling out their old Barry Switzer playbooks.

The answer defensively, by the way, is the cornerback has to replace the safety who got cracked. This should have been an 8-yard gain; it was a TD because the cornerback didn't replace.

The other issue that I see pop up all the time is the offense using the field umpire as a pick:

This is a more common issue than you might think. Officials have been taught to stand in the "Rat Hole" for ages because you're shielded from direct offensive attacks by the lines. Even if they try to move over, they're a constant obstacle to this defense, and modern spread offenses love to use obstacles to create more space.

That's not the main issue Iowa State's defense had last year, however. Their issue versus Notre Dame was simpler: there's no scheme that can completely shield your players from a talent disadvantage, and Campbell and Heacock still have major issues in the secondary.

But it's the issues against Iowa that are most endemic to this defense. Iowa uses a lot of tight ends, they like to run stretch zone, and they have very good running backs, and they don't run the RPO/spread stuff that the three-high alignment takes away. The active linebackers help but if you're zone-blocking there's only punishment for any non-vanilla linebacker action, and further punishment for anyone late to arrive, or anyone not able to handle a tight end's kickout.

Put in a fullback and a heavy 1990s running back and you can grind these guys down the field. Not that anyone has those anymore.

What they do have these days however are combo running backs. What Oklahoma and Texas both tried to do against ISU was go with two-back sets. If things go according to plan one of them will draw the Star, which is a win for the defense. But the other should get a one-on-one matchup with the MLB, and if that guy has to operate in space things break down.

Further reading:

• Kyle Jones/Eleven Warriors: Film Study: A New Kind of Hybrid Defender has Emerged in the Big 12, and the Rest of the Nation Should Take Notice
• Ian Boyd: Rise of the Inverted Tampa 2: Clemson Goes B12 on Ohio State
• Match Quarters: The Cyclone Pressure Package
• Drew Schneider/Bring On the Cats: K-State Football: Enter the Cyclone 3-3-5
• Mark Schofield/Pats Pulpit: Bill Belichick, Iowa State, and the Future of Defensive Football
• Brian Anderson/CougCenter: Iowa State's Defense Presents a Unique Challenge for WSU's Air Raid
• The Outside Zone: How Does Matt Campbell's Defense Keep Working?
• Belated Media: What if Star Wars Episode I was Good?