- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
should we consider changing to a 3-4 defense?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:25 pm
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.
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.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:27 pm to DontCare
I say we move Welter to DE or Safety.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:27 pm to DontCare
Yes
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:28 pm to DontCare
The transition would be extremely brutal.
No, please no.
quote:
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)
No, please no.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:30 pm to DontCare
Does it matter? The line and the backers suck.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 3:32 pm to DontCare
If we go to a 3-4 who is going to play NG?
If you don't have a nose guard you don't have a 3-4 defense. LSU doesn't have a nose guard.
If you don't have a nose guard you don't have a 3-4 defense. LSU doesn't have a nose guard.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 4:36 pm to DontCare
No.
The key to a 3-4 D is a beast NT in the middle. We dont have that.
And we are already weak in the middle. Moving to a 3-4 would make us even weaker.
If there ever was a year where we could make the switch to the 3-4 D, it would be the 2011 and 2012 teams.
The key to a 3-4 D is a beast NT in the middle. We dont have that.
And we are already weak in the middle. Moving to a 3-4 would make us even weaker.
If there ever was a year where we could make the switch to the 3-4 D, it would be the 2011 and 2012 teams.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News