3-4 looks in 2014?

[snoopcockycock]

Originally Posted by Goofyboy

3-4 defenses normally use big (over 235) outside linebackers, which we don't have. I'd be surprised to see it much. It's not outside what we've done before, but most of that involved a standup DE like Norwood or Ingram a yard or two off the line.

lamin, surratt and griffin are all over 300 pounds, with dukes and dixon jr well over 320. Several of those guys can play the nose, if needed. but wammy said that ours, will not be a traditional 3-4.
also, holloman, lewis and walton are all over 235 right now, and will probably even be heavier by the fall, when allen-williams gets here, and you know he is up there right now.
furthermore, dixon, green and johnson are all running in the 275-285 range, to put some meat on the outside in the 3-4, not to mention jaustin thomas and blake mcclain getting here in the fall.

these coaches know what they are doing, and if they think we can run the 3-4 successfully, i believe them. their track record is pretty good.

[ZenUSC]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

3 linemen plus a LB.

A fast 4-3 another words? You still have 4 on the line but the outside one on the weakside is a big LB able to cove more ground than a DT. Speed seems to be more and more key in stopping offenses than size is.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by snoopcockycock

lamin, surratt and griffin are all over 300 pounds, with dukes and dixon jr well over 320. Several of those guys can play the nose, if needed. but wammy said that ours, will not be a traditional 3-4.
also, holloman, lewis and walton are all over 235 right now, and will probably even be heavier by the fall, when allen-williams gets here, and you know he is up there right now.
furthermore, dixon, green and johnson are all running in the 275-285 range, to put some meat on the outside in the 3-4, not to mention jaustin thomas and blake mcclain getting here in the fall.

these coaches know what they are doing, and if they think we can run the 3-4 successfully, i believe them. their track record is pretty good.

If we are talking about a two-gap 3-4, keep in mind that we need to be at least two deep at every front seven spot in the 3-4 to consider installing it.

Both DE spots, both OLB spots, MLB, WLB, and NT.

If we aren't two deep at all those spots, as soon as someone gets injured, we can't run it anymore and it ends up being a waste of teaching time and practice reps.

Now, I don't know if Whammy and Co. are planning on using a one-gap or two-gap 3-4. Does anyone have any info on this?

From what I have gathered, the issue with our personnel this year seems to be that we have a shortage of 4-2-5 defensive ends, and an overabundance of 4-2-5 defensive tackles.

If that is the case, why not switch our base to a 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid?

It would look something like this:

--------------------F--------------------
-----------------------------------------
-C-----W-------M----S----------$-----C-
------------E------N---T---J-------------
-O----------O--O--O--O--O-----------O-
-------O------------------------O-------
-------------------O---------------------
-----------------------------------------
-------------------O---------------------

Before you and anyone else on here jumps down my throat with stuff like "let the coaches coach and the fans watch" or "stop arm-chair quarterbacking", this type of hybrid defense has already been used by the New England Patriots in the NFL.

http://grantland.com/features/bill-b...riots-defense/

What this allows us to do is have the best of both defenses, and tailor the defense to fit our current defensive personnel situation.

It also would not be a huge shift from our current base 4-2-5 defense. We would still have two corners, three safeties, two linebackers, and four defensive linemen. In the future, if our personnel situation shifted back to being suited to run a pure 4-2-5, it would not be a huge shift to go from the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid back to a pure 4-2-5.

In the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid, by having only one true 4-2-5 defensive end spot, we gain depth by having more of the few 4-2-5 defensive ends that we have, available for that one spot instead of stretching them out across two defensive end spots like we would in the pure 4-2-5. The 4-2-5 defensive end is the "J" in the diagram.

The other defensive end spot (E) is a 3-4 defensive end role. We have an abundance of players who should be able to play this spot.

The defensive tackle spot (T) is a traditional 4-2-5 defensive tackle role. Do to our overabundance of big players, we should have decent depth for this spot.

The nose tackle spot (N) should be able to be filled by several of our current players.

Depending on what the defensive coordinator wants to do, the E, T, and J can line up on either side of of the defensive front. The N will always line up over the center.

The J and T will use a one-gap technique, which means they will attack the gap they are responsible for.

The E and N will use a two-gap technique, which means they will attack the blocker that is in-between the two gaps they are responsible for. They go after the blocker, and wait to see which way the play develops. Once they have identified which way the play is going, they will have to shed the blocker and attack the gap to the side the play is developing.

Doing this allows us to ensure that all 6 offensive line gaps are accounted for, thus freeing up the linebackers (B and M) to carry out other responsibilities, thus making their jobs easier.

The downside to this system is that you have to teach the E, J, and T how to play their spot from the left and right side. This reduces teaching time available to the coaches. This also reduces the amount of practice reps players get playing a certain location on the field. Less reps leads to reduced competency in carrying out assignments.

Coaches aren't perfect, even college and NFL coaches. They are humans subject to the same flaws in thinking that the rest of us are. Many coaches only have expertise with one or two systems, and beyond that, they are just taking shots in the dark unless they learn the system from someone else.

Whammy was supposedly visiting Charlie Strong, so it appears that he was trying to learn, but perhaps in his trip out to Texas, he learned that the 3-4 wasn't really going to work for our current situation. That's of course assuming that he went out there to learn the 3-4 and not the 3-3-5. Everyone keeps talking about us installing the 3-4 this season, but from what I understand, Charlie Strong doesn't even run the 3-4, he runs the 3-3-5, which is basically the same alignment as our defense, but with a linebacker instead of a DT. It seems like the 3-3-5 would make more sense for us than a 3-4, at least as a situational package, because it is structurally similar to our current base defense.

Who knows though.

[Thenardier]

That would get gashed by the run.

[LegalCock]

Probably will be the same sort of thing we ran with matthews and norwood.

[PageUSC]

Originally Posted by Goofyboy

Skai Moore is a good player and will likely be special. He still has a long way to go to become a run stopper, as well as tackler. Walton may, indeed be very good, and he will be playing if he's that good. I don't see the likelihood of those two sealing the edges in a 3-4 scheme. Walton has the weight and seems to be an up-and-coming sophomore. Watch for one or two spurs to grow into outside linebackers and possibly Walton to eventually move inside if he keeps improving. We usually use our MLB to read and call, and if he has the mental apspects well-in-hand, he may become that field general.

Ward has said this 3-4 will not be our base D so I wouldn't worry about it stopping the run. I think it will be used more in passing situations or 3rd and 5-8 type situations

[CoverTwo]

Guys, it's only for pass rush situations. That's it.

[PageUSC]

Originally Posted by CoverTwo

Guys, it's only for pass rush situations. That's it.

That's what I was explaining in my post above.

[Cock Kool-Aid]

Originally Posted by USCNowAndForever

If we are talking about a two-gap 3-4, keep in mind that we need to be at least two deep at every front seven spot in the 3-4 to consider installing it.

Both DE spots, both OLB spots, MLB, WLB, and NT.

If we aren't two deep at all those spots, as soon as someone gets injured, we can't run it anymore and it ends up being a waste of teaching time and practice reps.

Now, I don't know if Whammy and Co. are planning on using a one-gap or two-gap 3-4. Does anyone have any info on this?

From what I have gathered, the issue with our personnel this year seems to be that we have a shortage of 4-2-5 defensive ends, and an overabundance of 4-2-5 defensive tackles.

If that is the case, why not switch our base to a 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid?

It would look something like this:

--------------------F--------------------
-----------------------------------------
-C-----W-------B----S----------$-----C-
------------E------N---T---J-------------
-O----------O--O--O--O--O-----------O-
-------O------------------------O-------
-------------------O---------------------
-----------------------------------------
-------------------O---------------------

Before you and anyone else on here jumps down my throat with stuff like "let the coaches coach and the fans watch" or "stop arm-chair quarterbacking", this type of hybrid defense has already been used by the New England Patriots in the NFL.

http://grantland.com/features/bill-b...riots-defense/

What this allows us to do is have the best of both defenses, and tailor the defense to fit our current defensive personnel situation.

It also would not be a huge shift from our current base 4-2-5 defense. We would still have two corners, three safeties, two linebackers, and four defensive linemen. In the future, if our personnel situation shifted back to being suited to run a pure 4-2-5, it would not be a huge shift to go from the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid back to a pure 4-2-5.

In the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid, by having only one true 4-2-5 defensive end spot, we gain depth by having more of the few 4-2-5 defensive ends that we have, available for that one spot instead of stretching them out across two defensive end spots like we would in the pure 4-2-5. The 4-2-5 defensive end is the "J" in the diagram.

The other defensive end spot (E) is a 3-4 defensive end role. We have an abundance of players who should be able to play this spot.

The defensive tackle spot (T) is a traditional 4-2-5 defensive tackle role. Do to our overabundance of big players, we should have decent depth for this spot.

The nose tackle spot (N) should be able to be filled by several of our current players.

Depending on what the defensive coordinator wants to do, the E, T, and J can line up on either side of of the defensive front. The N will always line up over the center.

The J and T will use a one-gap technique, which means they will attack the gap they are responsible for.

The E and N will use a two-gap technique, which means they will attack the blocker that is in-between the two gaps they are responsible for. They go after the blocker, and wait to see which way the play develops. Once they have identified which way the play is going, they will have to shed the blocker and attack the gap to the side the play is developing.

Doing this allows us to ensure that all 6 offensive line gaps are accounted for, thus freeing up the linebackers (B and M) to carry out other responsibilities, thus making their jobs easier.

The downside to this system is that you have to teach the E, J, and T how to play their spot from the left and right side. This reduces teaching time available to the coaches. This also reduces the amount of practice reps players get playing a certain location on the field. Less reps leads to reduced competency in carrying out assignments.

Coaches aren't perfect, even college and NFL coaches. They are humans subject to the same flaws in thinking that the rest of us are. Many coaches only have expertise with one or two systems, and beyond that, they are just taking shots in the dark unless they learn the system from someone else.

Whammy was supposedly visiting Charlie Strong, so it appears that he was trying to learn, but perhaps in his trip out to Texas, he learned that the 3-4 wasn't really going to work for our current situation. That's of course assuming that he went out there to learn the 3-4 and not the 3-3-5. Everyone keeps talking about us installing the 3-4 this season, but from what I understand, Charlie Strong doesn't even run the 3-4, he runs the 3-3-5, which is basically the same alignment as our defense, but with a linebacker instead of a DT. It seems like the 3-3-5 would make more sense for us than a 3-4, at least as a situational package, because it is structurally similar to our current base defense.

Who knows though.

What's your story?

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by Cock Kool-Aid

What's your story?

What do you mean?

What answer are you looking for?

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by CoverTwo

Guys, it's only for pass rush situations. That's it.

C2, is it going to be 3-4 or 3-3-5? I keep seeing people talking about the 3-4, but I thought Whammy was going to visit Charlie Strong to learn up on the 3-3-5.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

That would get gashed by the run.

Are you talking about the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid?

If so, how is that?

All 6 running gaps are accounted for.

-Left side C gap
-Left side B gap
-Left side A gap
-Right side A gap
-Right side B gap
-Right side C gap

The E controls the C and B gap to their side. The N controls both A gaps. The T controls the B gap to their side. The J controls the C gap to their side.

This is still a 4 man front just like in the 4-2-5, but half of the linemen are playing with two gap 3-4 rules. This removes the need for the M and S to have gap responsibility and thus makes their job easier. Part of their job is stopping the run, so if anything, this front should be stouter against the run than a pure 4-2-5.

If the offense decides to bring extra people into the box, e.g. a tight end, fullback, etc, then the defense can also adjust and bring the W and/or $ into the box, thus negating any numbers advantage the offense might have gained by bringing more people into the box.

If the run did somehow end up causing problems (which would most likely be due to individual defensive execution problems than any problems with the structure of the defense), the defense can switch to Cover 1 Man, or Cover 1 Robber, and bring one of the safeties down into the box in run support. They could also call Cover 3, and put one of the safeties in the box in run support. Lastly, the defense could call Quarters, which offers run support as well.

Have the Patriots gotten gashed by the run when they have ran the 4-3/3-4 hybrid?

[GamecockSuperFan]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

That would get gashed by the run.

Yeah. Saban's defense is always getting gashed by the run.


Cockytalk has these discussions every off season when a coach says we're going to implement new stuff. We run the 4-2-5. A versatile scheme which allows you to show many different looks. We aren't coming out in 3-4 every down. We will show it. Just like we'll show looks from 3-3-5, 4-4, 4-3. The Spur position allows you to do different things.

[Thenardier]

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

Yeah. Saban's defense is always getting gashed by the run.


Cockytalk has these discussions every off season when a coach says we're going to implement new stuff. We run the 4-2-5. A versatile scheme which allows you to show many different looks. We aren't coming out in 3-4 every down. We will show it. Just like we'll show looks from 3-3-5, 4-4, 4-3. The Spur position allows you to do different things.

His defence did get gashed in the Iron Bowl. Just saying.

[Thenardier]

Originally Posted by USCNowAndForever

Are you talking about the 4-2-5/3-4 hybrid?

If so, how is that?

All 6 running gaps are accounted for.

-Left side C gap
-Left side B gap
-Left side A gap
-Right side A gap
-Right side B gap
-Right side C gap

The E controls the C and B gap to their side. The N controls both A gaps. The T controls the B gap to their side. The J controls the C gap to their side.

This is still a 4 man front just like in the 4-2-5, but half of the linemen are playing with two gap 3-4 rules. This removes the need for the M and S to have gap responsibility and thus makes their job easier. Part of their job is stopping the run, so if anything, this front should be stouter against the run than a pure 4-2-5.

If the offense decides to bring extra people into the box, e.g. a tight end, fullback, etc, then the defense can also adjust and bring the W and/or $ into the box, thus negating any numbers advantage the offense might have gained by bringing more people into the box.

If the run did somehow end up causing problems (which would most likely be due to individual defensive execution problems than any problems with the structure of the defense), the defense can switch to Cover 1 Man, or Cover 1 Robber, and bring one of the safeties down into the box in run support. They could also call Cover 3, and put one of the safeties in the box in run support. Lastly, the defense could call Quarters, which offers run support as well.

Have the Patriots gotten gashed by the run when they have ran the 4-3/3-4 hybrid?

Tackle takes the end. Center takes the NT. Guard takes the LB and pull the RG. RB would 1v1 with the safety.

[GamecockSuperFan]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

His defence did get gashed in the Iron Bowl. Just saying.

I'm curious to know if anybody was successful stopping Auburn's run game. Florida State's defense was the fourth straight team Auburn faced with a top-20 rush defense entering the game.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

Tackle takes the end. Center takes the NT. Guard takes the LB and pull the RG. RB would 1v1 with the safety.

The defense has six people in the box. The offense has five blockers.

Who has the T? Who has the J? I assume by pulling the RG, you mean will they will pull and pick up the S, ala the "Power" play, correct?

You never want to put a runner "1v1" with a defender. This isn't basketball. If that defender is even moderately competent at his job, he will tackle the runner and stop him with little to no gain, or even stop him for a loss.

[FanofCarolina1]

Originally Posted by Thenardier

His defence did get gashed in the Iron Bowl. Just saying.

That's because Saban is too short to see over defence.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by FanofCarolina1

That's because Saban is too short to see over defence.

I see what you did there.

[usc1]

Originally Posted by FanofCarolina1

That's because Saban is too short to see over defence.

Well played sir