should we consider changing to a 3-4 defense?

i'm sure there are a lot of great reasons and reasons not to, but i think that we should strongly consider switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4.

first, chavis doesn't blitz much. one of the big advantages to having 4 DLs is that they can take advantage of confusion from the OL when the LBs and DBs blitz, changing the OL gap assignments and causing mistakes. in a 3-4, the DL are responsible for fewer sacks & TFLs on passing downs, but that's the same boat that our current 4-3 DLs are in right now, anyway.

second, while we don't have a wealth of traditional nose tackles on the roster, we have more DEs and DTs who can play DE than we have effective DTs (bain, gilmore, thomas, lacouture, m johnson, and LMFAO are the DTs who wouldn't switch to DE, but i count 10 DTs and DEs who could play either DE or LB in a 3-4, in additional to the 14 LBs we currently have). it would seem to me that we can get more talent on the field in the 3-4, rather than having to settle on DTs that aren't lighting the world on fire taking up one of the 11 spots on the field.

three, whether or not we ever run the spread, it is now a ubiquitous reality of college football -even in the SEC. and, frankly, i think that the best way to stop the read-option offenses are 3-4s where the LB assignments are more difficult to determine by the QB pre-snap.

four, we don't have a huge number of examples to draw from, but we essentially beat manziel both times because we ran more of a 3-4 and were able to keep him contained. i don't know that these two examples exactly translate to across-the-board success, but i have liked 3 down lineman sets when we've run them.


chavis ain't gonna change what he does, so i know the likelihood of us switching to a 3-4 is low while he's still our DC, but i really think this is the way to go for us, moving forward.

spare me your flames. if you disagree with me, i respect that, but tell me why. i'm interested in a conversation, here -not in a message board pissing contest.