re: Why did O want to switch to a 4-3

quote:

---

1. A dominating front four generates a pass rush without having to blitz at all.

---

While I agree with this 100%, the issue we have now is if you run a 4-2-5 with the spread concepts we are facing these days, the underneath route/rub route/slot drag is wiiiiiide open on about 90% of the pass attempts. The LB’s needed to run that defense aren’t able to cover in space like a 3-4. Just look at the sheer number of LB’s we have put in the league the last 5-6 years vs years past. Maybe we weren’t putting the D Lineman in the NFL but it’s ridiculous the LB’s we have put out that were basically Day One starters.

quote:

---

I mean from a philosophical stand point. Yes, he wanted an “attacking style” defense. That’s all fine and dandy, but why a 4-3 in a league full of spread offenses? I don’t know if any of the top rated defenses in the league run a 4-3.

---

The goal is to get an effective 4 man pass rush. We did that but the backend fell apart. This scheme is extremely reliant on LB's and safeties to diagnose the play as run/pass very quickly. That is why "eye candy" killed us.

The other goal is to generate more TO's. We did that too but again we gave up more big plays than we normally would in 3 seasons combined.

I am not a proponent of either system but you have to pick a scheme and man up for it. Also, to answer your question... Bama runs a 4-3 base and they get gashed at times too.

quote:

---

We had a good defense all of 1 year ago

---

Texas scored 38
Vandy scored 38
Ole Miss scored 37

We will just have to agree to disagree about that being called a good defense.

For one thing, Louisiana tends to produce alot more 4-3 DE than 3-4 DE and true nose guards.

But he wanted 4 dl mainly to give the flexibility of being attacking with them but being able to play mutiple variations against the spread.

quote:

---

That’s all fine and dandy, but why a 4-3 in a league full of spread offenses? I don’t know if any of the top rated defenses in the league run a 4-3.

---

Completely untrue.
Go look up "4-3 against spread offense"

quote:

---

Why did O want to switch to a 4-3

---

We play majority in Nickel.
4-3 is just the base of defensive build/depth.
When people say they run a 4-3 or 3-4, it doesn't mean literally 100% of the time.
In fact, most teams run these 10% or less of the time.

It comes down to this simple strategy:
Defense matches the number of DBs to number of WRs the offense brings on the field for each play.

quote:

---

It was a basic 4-3 with 3-4 personnel and it showed.

---

Depth-wise maybe. But have good WDE and DTs for a 4-3. Our SDE needs to improve. But O basically likes having 4 men with hands in the dirt because we couldn’t get home with 3 a lot last year.

LB is TBD. I would’ve like to see Sampah And White some this year. If they played, I didn’t notice.

It was bullshite, if understandable, spin, a manufactured way to make it sound like we were gaining something by losing Aranda and adding Pelini.

Scheme is more than just personnel. It's gap assignments, where the pressure levers are, how the edges are set, etc.

Yes, you recruit/develop personnel to fit the scheme you're running, but you don't "just" run a 3-4 because you have 3-4 personnel - it's the other way around.

Now, having said that - the number of down linemen is also a relatively academic point - whether or not you show a "zero" look, 2 or 3 down, 4 down or whatever, it is the reads/reaction, gap filling, flow to the ball, etc., that is far more important.

Defensive football is relatively complex compared to offenses - it is what is happening between the ears - particularly of the linebackers, safeties and nickels that is far, far more important than how many guys have their hands on the ground at the snap.