Sign in to follow this  
Fricking Ray

3-4-4 Defense Possibilities

Recommended Posts

DE - Lambert or Daniel

NT - Adams

DE - Lawson

OLB - Frost

ILB - McKinzy

ILB - T. Williams

OLB - Swain?

Simply taking a look at what it would look like if our new DC was a hardcore 3-4-4 guy. We are thin at the LB position in general. I understand that we have been recruiting for the 4-2-5 for two years now. Our secondary needed more quality depth so that is ok with me. It has left us thin at LB especially going from two to four.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Adams is the complete opposite of a 3-4 NT. He can not play that position, nor would you want him to.

Lawson would be a LB in a 3-4. He is not a 3-4 DE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It would take 2-3 years at least to recruit the right guys to provide the right skill set and depth for a 3-4 D

The NG is typically a mammoth run stopper whom we currently do not have.

The 2 ends are athletic run stoppers who can also penetrate and rush passer. Guys like E Daniel could possibly fit this mold.

One OLB is pure speed rusher. A healthy C Lawson could fill this role. We could put Cass and Frost in the 2 ILB positions but I'm not sure how well the would adjust to the difference in schemes.

Long story short, I think moving to a 3-4 right now would be a terrible idea for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-4 would look like this

SDE - Lambert

NT - Maurice Swain Meant Jauntavius Johnson

WDE - Daniels

Jack - Lawson

SOLB - Frost

ILB - McKinzy

ILB - Williams

Problems:

Not enough LB depth

No NT depth beyond a an Incoming juco guy for the most pivotal part of the D

Lots of d-lineman no longer have a place including our best guy (Adams)

Edited by 1TexasTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adams is the complete opposite of a 3-4 NT. He can not play that position, nor would you want him to.

Lawson would be a LB in a 3-4. He is not a 3-4 DE.

Correct.

It would be tough to transition straight from a 4-2-5 base to a 3-4, but it's not completely out of the question. Many "3-4" coaches play a lot of four and five-man fronts anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adams is the complete opposite of a 3-4 NT. He can not play that position, nor would you want him to.

Lawson would be a LB in a 3-4. He is not a 3-4 DE.

Correct.

It would be tough to transition straight from a 4-2-5 base to a 3-4, but it's not completely out of the question. Many "3-4" coaches play a lot of four and five-man fronts anyway.

See the Memphis defense. It could work for us really well in a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 3-4 base could work for the current situation that we have with our downhill LBs. Speed and size could produce turnovers and big, defensive stops. Our secondary should be in better shape with the DBs being larger than they have been. Shifting would have to take place for the line, but it could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mention it because after Muschamp the next most logical in my mind anyway is Odom. I was pretty sure that it would be a difficult transition and you confirmed it. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a 4 down lineman front. There really is nothing wrong with the 4-2-5 which has been proven by VTech and TCU. I think the schematic concepts may have been off and the definite lack of a pass rusher was a big blow.

Except for the final few games we improved on defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mention it because after Muschamp the next most logical in my mind anyway is Odom. I was pretty sure that it would be a difficult transition and you confirmed it. Thanks!

Odom's defense looks really close to what we use now, but it could have more 3-4 involved. I would not be surprised to see his name really gain steam if Coach Boom doesn't pick AU. If that's the case, I'd love for us to look at Dave Aranda too. He could do some great things with our guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5-2 vs Alabama,LSU,Georgia,Arkansas pro set teams

LE Lawson

DT Daniel

NT Adams

DT Niles

RE Lambert

LB Frost

LB McKinzy

CB Holsey

FS Moncrief

SS Matthews

CB Jones

3-3-5 vs Louisville,Texas AM, Kentucky ? spread passing teams

LE Lawson

DT Adams

RE Kennion

LB Garrett

LB Frost

LB McKinzy

CB Holsey

ROV Ford

FS Moncrief

SS Matthews

CB Jones

4-3 vs Miss St,Ole Miss spread balance teams

LE Lawson

DT Lambert

NT Adams

RE Daniel

LB Garrett

LB Frost

LB McKinzy

CB Jones

FS Ford

SS Matthews

CB Ruffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No team has enough practice time to implement multiple systems like that. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To think we could possibly play 3 different defenses would be asinine. Also, we just don't have the personnel for the 3-4. The 4-3 is the way to go. At least we have the bodies and just need to get a few more linebackers for depth purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a 4 down lineman front. There really is nothing wrong with the 4-2-5 which has been proven by VTech and TCU. I think the schematic concepts may have been off and the definite lack of a pass rusher was a big blow.

Except for the final few games we improved on defense.

We did miss Lawson. We played well on defense through LSU. MSU was a strange game. After MSU our defensive wheels came off. Any of the schemes can work well with the right players. After the LSU or MSU game Coach Johnson lost control/respect of the defense and never was able to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No team has enough practice time to implement multiple systems like that. Jack of all trades, master of none.

To think we could possibly play 3 different defenses would be asinine. Also, we just don't have the personnel for the 3-4. The 4-3 is the way to go. At least we have the bodies and just need to get a few more linebackers for depth purposes.

There is a difference between lining up in a 3,4, or 5 man front and running a completely different defense. Multiple defenses are very common in college football today, and you will see many teams utilize all of these during one game - even on one drive. Also, the 3-4 is very versatile and actually has it's roots in the 5-2 (OLBs just stand up instead of putting hands down). Also, many "3-4" teams will run four man fronts 30-40% of the time.

I'm not saying it's easy for players to learn or execute, but saying "we need to run a 4-3" or "we need to run a 3-4" isn't really relevant anymore. Many teams incorporate all of the above and more, and do so successfully.

Edited by NicholasIanAllen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mention it because after Muschamp the next most logical in my mind anyway is Odom. I was pretty sure that it would be a difficult transition and you confirmed it. Thanks!

Odom's defense looks really close to what we use now, but it could have more 3-4 involved. I would not be surprised to see his name really gain steam if Coach Boom doesn't pick AU. If that's the case, I'd love for us to look at Dave Aranda too. He could do some great things with our guys.

Muschamp would make for the easiest transition. Odom and Aranda both claim to be 3-4 guys. Both are excellent defensive minds. I guess I need to find some Memphis football footage and look at what Odom has been doing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to say you're multiple, but most teams aren't. They have base sets, and those sets either work or they don't. That's especially true against pace teams. You don't have time to flip to a bear front then move to 4-3 then shift in and out of zone. You have to master a skill set and build off that. We're nowhere near mastering a system. I've never seen a team succeed with a clear identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No team has enough practice time to implement multiple systems like that. Jack of all trades, master of none.

To think we could possibly play 3 different defenses would be asinine. Also, we just don't have the personnel for the 3-4. The 4-3 is the way to go. At least we have the bodies and just need to get a few more linebackers for depth purposes.

There is a difference between lining up in a 3,4, or 5 man front and running a completely different defense. Multiple defenses are very common in college football today, and you will see many teams utilize all of these during one game - even on one drive. Also, the 3-4 is very versatile and actually has it's roots in the 5-2 (OLBs just stand up instead of putting hands down). Also, many "3-4" teams will run four man fronts 30-40% of the time.

I'm not saying it's easy for players to learn or execute, but saying "we need to run a 4-3" or "we need to run a 3-4" isn't really relevant anymore. Many teams incorporate all of the above and more, and do so successfully.

Exactly. Bammer considered a 3-4 team but they are lining up in 4 and 5 man fronts a lot. They just have outstanding athletes and are very well coached so they transition pretty seamlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mention it because after Muschamp the next most logical in my mind anyway is Odom. I was pretty sure that it would be a difficult transition and you confirmed it. Thanks!

Odom's defense looks really close to what we use now, but it could have more 3-4 involved. I would not be surprised to see his name really gain steam if Coach Boom doesn't pick AU. If that's the case, I'd love for us to look at Dave Aranda too. He could do some great things with our guys.

Muschamp would make for the easiest transition. Odom and Aranda both claim to be 3-4 guys. Both are excellent defensive minds. I guess I need to find some Memphis football footage and look at what Odom has been doing there.

Here is a great example of Memphis against Cincy from this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Bammer considered a 3-4 team but they are lining up in 4 and 5 man fronts a lot. They just have outstanding athletes and are very well coached so they transition pretty seamlessly.

Perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a 4 down lineman front. There really is nothing wrong with the 4-2-5 which has been proven by VTech and TCU. I think the schematic concepts may have been off and the definite lack of a pass rusher was a big blow.

Except for the final few games we improved on defense.

We did miss Lawson. We played well on defense through LSU. MSU was a strange game. After MSU our defensive wheels came off. Any of the schemes can work well with the right players. After the LSU or MSU game Coach Johnson lost control/respect of the defense and never was able to get it back.

Correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anyway we can move to a 3-4 next year. We don't have the right guys. It has already been said, but we definitely don't have the NT position and I would question whether we have the OLB positions. Maybe I am wrong there, but usually your OLB in a 3-4 are more agile and a little smaller and definitely quicker than your ILB. If that is the case then do we have that in Swain, Williams, etc? I was under the impression they were more of the McKinzy type players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this