seccountry.com reporting

[autigeremt 6,599]

If we go back to 4-2-5 how does that affect all the kids that were highly rated that came to Auburn that fit CWM's scheme? Seems like we lost alot of kids before their eligibility was up due to them not fitting in the scheme. If we lose Davis, Holland, Cowart etc due to switching back that would really hurt us tremendously down the road IMO

It will probably be a big blow to them. Auburn is already hurting in terms of secondary, and a lot of my friends on the team loved the 3-4 multiple D as it was a much more fun D to run, a lot of attacking principles, just with a lot of complicated reads pre-snap, especially with the shifting aspect of it. With a 4-2-5 which was one of the reasons I left J'ville, LBs end up being displaced, as you go from utilizing 3 LBs to 2 pure ones and a load of DBs. That makes it MUCH harder to get a job, and with the 2 LBs being inside type LBs there ends up being a lot of the "quarterbacking" of the defense aspect shared among the 2. This means that it's less likely to get a rotation because you need 2 established "captains" of the D and don't want to really switch them up. For all intents and purposes, it makes getting LBs that might be dominant players a LOT harder.

Pros of it are the increased coverage potential and possibility of finding a safety that's physical and gives a lot more versatility to covering either Jumbo Y-slot guys, or smaller H receivers. Still, recruiting those guys is very hard as Shaq Thompsons don't grow on trees. It's easier to find classic SAM LBs like I used to play and simply having us switch out with Nickel corners in Trips and Duece situations, rather than finding a do-it-all hybrid. You're getting into really muddled territory trying to find DBs that like to hit and can be asked to set an edge at times and still cover slots, much like you are trying to find a large OLB that can be trusted to take on pulling guards and FBs (And not dodge, go around, or under them like we so often tend to do.) and can still possess the agility to work in space when their zone is being attacked and stretched by multiple receivers. There is also the issue of when simulating an eagle look with the 2 inside LBs playing as edge rushers, the middle of the field is left wide open for a lot of intermediate and slants to really attack it. You don't want those fast slots getting inside leverage if you don't have multiple LBs to set up camp and enforce the middle of that field.

As far as running the single hybrid DE, it's somewhat of a step up, but still a gimmick. Whether they're in a 2pt or 3pt stance, they're still a glorified end, and on passing downs, they'd rather rush from the 3 for the extra advantage of capturing a tackle's outside shoulder for a bob-swipe or undercut move. You could run a 2-4-5 base and the 2 edge players would still be rushing every single passing down so it'd be the same as just running the 4 down nickel base. Just can't do a whole lot with a hybrid DE outside of giving him a fancy name when you've only got 6 in the box standard. Unless you have 3 marquis pass rushers at the other positions that can get pressure in a 3 man front..... Also with a 4-2-5, typically a lot of guys who would end up being LBs at other places are often urged to play ends. Some who like this might take to it, but a majority of the players tend not to like playing a straight up end. Finesse positions like LBs and DBs are always seen as more attractive prospects.

4-2-5 is best left as a package, not a base D. Doesn't attract a lot of good players.

Well done young man!

[auburn4ever 1,266]

IMO, people shouldn't say Gus made the right pick for us. You won't really know until when we kickoff the 2016 season at Jordan-Hare against Clemson.

[Butthead 525]

I have been watching football for 40 years and posts like flex's make me realize I know sh*t about football.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years

Also, Flex, I'd add that we were absolutely running a 3-3-5 as a base at the end of the season with Cass as a hybrid DE. He was a rush player 8 plays out of 10 so he wasn't fooling anyone. It's exactly the same as what you described above, and it was easily our best personnel grouping with Lawson, Adams, Russell at down linemen, Cass as a LB/DE, any two of Williams/Frost/Garrett at LB, Ford at Nickel or S/LB hybrid, Jones and Davis at CB with Roberts and Countess at Safety. That was our base personnel at the end of the year, and I doubt it would change in a "4-2-5" or a "3-4" base set. You probably wouldn't even see much difference based on alignment.

[PigskinPat 2,579]

IMO, people shouldn't say Gus made the right pick for us. You won't really know until when we kickoff the 2016 season at Jordan-Hare against Clemson.

Does that also apply to those who will say Gus made the wrong pick for us?

[AUshyster 0]

FleX, with the exception of the teams that use a traditional tight end, whether a team has one or two backs they will have either 3 or 4 receivers on the field, right? So if you are subbing out your SAM when you have 2 or 3 receivers will you not be in your nickle the majority of the game? Arkansas, UAT and maybe now UGA are the only teams we play that somewhat consistently play with the traditional tight end. Just seems to me that you are not going to be playing with 3 backers very often anymore regardless of what base system you run. You have actual experience, which I don't so tell me I'm wrong

[mdp5150 167]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years.

They landed the best DT in football because they had his brother (also a good player no one really wanted) and he has transformed their defense and appeal to other recruits. He is Carl Lawson to them but a healthy version (until this week anyhow).

[auburnphan 6,050]

no....not at all, u need to pay more attention

[mcgufcm 4,096]

Nkemdiche is great. No doubt, but if you think he's the sole explanation for that defense, you haven't been paying attention. Fadol Brown and Marquis Haynes are fantastic rush ends. Isaac Gross and DJ Jones are future NFL DTs. Tony Connor, when healthy, was the best Safety in the SEC. Trae Elston and Cody Prewitt have been great at Safety, and Senquez Golson was the best CB in the SEC last year.

Rob Nkemdiche is a game changer, but it's silly to think that defense was as reliant on him as we were on Lawson.

[Never2Yield 1,005]

Nkemdiche is great. No doubt, but if you think he's the sole explanation for that defense, you haven't been paying attention. Fadol Brown and Marquis Haynes are fantastic rush ends. Isaac Gross and DJ Jones are future NFL DTs. Tony Connor, when healthy, was the best Safety in the SEC. Trae Elston and Cody Prewitt have been great at Safety, and Senquez Golson was the best CB in the SEC last year.

Rob Nkemdiche is a game changer, but it's silly to think that defense was as reliant on him as we were on Lawson.

BAM! VERY TRUE!!

[doc4aday 1,887]

I think with Allen, Gus gets a guy who will be here for more than a season or 2. If Allen gets here and has our defense hitting on all cylinders, it will look like a brilliant coaching decision on Gus' behalf. I think Allen would have a ton of flexibility to run his defense, Allen could turn into a long term DC for us which is something we have not had in many years.

Looking at the big picture, Allen seems to be the better choice over Kelly. If Ole Miss can play great defensive football, we should be able to do the same and do it better.

[Mims44 1,867]

Gonna hold back any opinions till a hire is made...

but I'm not a fan of 4-2-5

[Randman5000 4,226]

Oh my god, how many different threads of the same discussion

[CCTAU 3,314]

I have been watching football for 40 years and posts like flex's make me realize I know sh*t about football. :)/>

LOL. It's still the same stuff. They just change the terminology every five years or so to confuse us old guys!

[Never2Yield 1,005]

I think with Allen, Gus gets a guy who will be here for more than a season or 2. If Allen gets here and has our defense hitting on all cylinders, it will look like a brilliant coaching decision on Gus' behalf. I think Allen would have a ton of flexibility to run his defense, Allen could turn into a long term DC for us which is something we have not had in many years.

Looking at the big picture, Allen seems to be the better choice over Kelly. If Ole Miss can play great defensive football, we should be able to do the same and do it better.

Well, with the way things have gone with the D for Gus; Allen would be here for at least a year and a possible.

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years

Also, Flex, I'd add that we were absolutely running a 3-3-5 as a base at the end of the season with Cass as a hybrid DE. He was a rush player 8 plays out of 10 so he wasn't fooling anyone. It's exactly the same as what you described above, and it was easily our best personnel grouping with Lawson, Adams, Russell at down linemen, Cass as a LB/DE, any two of Williams/Frost/Garrett at LB, Ford at Nickel or S/LB hybrid, Jones and Davis at CB with Roberts and Countess at Safety. That was our base personnel at the end of the year, and I doubt it would change in a "4-2-5" or a "3-4" base set. You probably wouldn't even see much difference based on alignment.

Well out of necessity, at the end of the year it was somewhat of a floating hybrid because sometimes yes, there would be 3-3 (Not the stack, for those who might confuse it.) Though this wasn't a base alignment, moreso something to handle 2nd-3rd and long situations where pass percentages were high and we could generate some pressure with Cass' pass rush expertise. I can concede that in certain situations the nickel defense is a very flexible defense, though we were also giving up a very high amount of yardage per run as well by that time, though we had a lot of explosive stops as well for losses. The only problem that I've had is that running nickel personnel ALL the time is highly dependent on spilling and getting run plays moving laterally for those so that your secondary can come downhill 1st 2 downs, and with the advent of these new larger backs that we are seeing in the SEC, a lot of them are still preferring to run plays in the AT area (Inside the tackles and guards) rather than the Sweep/Off Tackle areas. (And even then, they're getting to the point where they're realizing they can still break through a nickel's tackle and safeties might not be downhill soon enough to prevent him from getting at least 3-4 yards.) That is starting to really create problems for the Nickel personnel and it was one of our weaknesses when we ran against teams that might use a large RB. (Henry, Fournette, Chubb, Herd, even though we didn't play tennessee or chubb.) With teams getting to the point where they can get chunk yardage against 4-2-5's in the 1st 2 downs to create third and short situations where the secondary can't focus on simply playing fundamental pass defense, it tends to be weaker and less viable. Even though we had some flexibility in Cass being able to play a pass rushing end and Montravius being able to play 0-1 shade as well as a 3, and Carl's strength allowing him to play a 3 tech or 4-5 shade end, we can't count on having that good of a lineup again. Too many questions on how some of the guys will develop.

Also Ford could theoretically play that N/Sam though there are some questions on his ability to be a run defender and having to match up with again large pullers (For teams that like to call Power/Trap type plays using H-Back TEs in conjunction with Guards.) That nickel would need to be a bit more natural of a run defender than I think that Ford was willing to be at times. Still it's viable.

Although I do think that a lot of the points you made were right and that we could run it, to me it seemed more of an improvised defense that got us through our last few matchups with questionable results. I suppose some of my bias is due to personal opinion. At the end of the day football is an Art and not an exact science. Every scheme is meant to work under ideal conditions. I simply believe it is easier to get the moving parts for a 4-3/3-4 that plays Nickel with a set of plays geared towards stopping the pass out of those personnel groupings and not using that Nickel all of the time. You can always run a 3-3-5, 1-5-5 & prowl, 2-4-5, or 4-2-5 Nickel out of a team that bases a 3-4/4-3, but it gets harder to do the opposite with a Nickel base due to depth issues. The game is moreso about packages rather than having a singular defensive scheme you run the whole time.

FleX, with the exception of the teams that use a traditional tight end, whether a team has one or two backs they will have either 3 or 4 receivers on the field, right? So if you are subbing out your SAM when you have 2 or 3 receivers will you not be in your nickle the majority of the game? Arkansas, UAT and maybe now UGA are the only teams we play that somewhat consistently play with the traditional tight end. Just seems to me that you are not going to be playing with 3 backers very often anymore regardless of what base system you run. You have actual experience, which I don't so tell me I'm wrong

Well a lot more teams use traditional TEs than you'd think though it's harder to tell. (Mcelwain loves his TEs and is known to work out of 12 a lot of time, with both of the attached.) and it's hard to find those TEs, or TE coaches that have enough confidence in their TE to split them out wide or let them work out of a slot receiver position most of the times. (See Hunter Henry and Ethan Wolfe). So that naturally adds the need for an extra run defender in the box, whether you're using an SS or a Sam. You wouldn't go to a Nickel with only 2 or 3 receivers otherwise teams would play LSU with nickel all the time. It's more about the down and distance or whether they're using 4 wides. 4 wides will always override down and distance, but with 2-3 you simply look at your percentages and play those. You can still play man-free on the backside against a 3 WR set so the yards and tendencies of a team would dictate whether they'd have a Sam or nickel in. But there are a more snaps that are still played out of base formations than is advertised. You're still somewhat right though because teams have went more to using the TRIPS and TREY formations (3 x 1) or (2 x 2) out of 10 personnel which has dictated a shift to employing nickel and dime at times.

[autigeremt 6,599]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years

Also, Flex, I'd add that we were absolutely running a 3-3-5 as a base at the end of the season with Cass as a hybrid DE. He was a rush player 8 plays out of 10 so he wasn't fooling anyone. It's exactly the same as what you described above, and it was easily our best personnel grouping with Lawson, Adams, Russell at down linemen, Cass as a LB/DE, any two of Williams/Frost/Garrett at LB, Ford at Nickel or S/LB hybrid, Jones and Davis at CB with Roberts and Countess at Safety. That was our base personnel at the end of the year, and I doubt it would change in a "4-2-5" or a "3-4" base set. You probably wouldn't even see much difference based on alignment.

Well out of necessity, at the end of the year it was somewhat of a floating hybrid because sometimes yes, there would be 3-3 (Not the stack, for those who might confuse it.) Though this wasn't a base alignment, moreso something to handle 2nd-3rd and long situations where pass percentages were high and we could generate some pressure with Cass' pass rush expertise. I can concede that in certain situations the nickel defense is a very flexible defense, though we were also giving up a very high amount of yardage per run as well by that time, though we had a lot of explosive stops as well for losses. The only problem that I've had is that running nickel personnel ALL the time is highly dependent on spilling and getting run plays moving laterally for those so that your secondary can come downhill 1st 2 downs, and with the advent of these new larger backs that we are seeing in the SEC, a lot of them are still preferring to run plays in the AT area (Inside the tackles and guards) rather than the Sweep/Off Tackle areas. (And even then, they're getting to the point where they're realizing they can still break through a nickel's tackle and safeties might not be downhill soon enough to prevent him from getting at least 3-4 yards.) That is starting to really create problems for the Nickel personnel and it was one of our weaknesses when we ran against teams that might use a large RB. (Henry, Fournette, Chubb, Herd, even though we didn't play tennessee or chubb.) With teams getting to the point where they can get chunk yardage against 4-2-5's in the 1st 2 downs to create third and short situations where the secondary can't focus on simply playing fundamental pass defense, it tends to be weaker and less viable. Even though we had some flexibility in Cass being able to play a pass rushing end and Montravius being able to play 0-1 shade as well as a 3, and Carl's strength allowing him to play a 3 tech or 4-5 shade end, we can't count on having that good of a lineup again. Too many questions on how some of the guys will develop.

Also Ford could theoretically play that N/Sam though there are some questions on his ability to be a run defender and having to match up with again large pullers (For teams that like to call Power/Trap type plays using H-Back TEs in conjunction with Guards.) That nickel would need to be a bit more natural of a run defender than I think that Ford was willing to be at times. Still it's viable.

Although I do think that a lot of the points you made were right and that we could run it, to me it seemed more of an improvised defense that got us through our last few matchups with questionable results. I suppose some of my bias is due to personal opinion. At the end of the day football is an Art and not an exact science. Every scheme is meant to work under ideal conditions. I simply believe it is easier to get the moving parts for a 4-3/3-4 that plays Nickel with a set of plays geared towards stopping the pass out of those personnel groupings and not using that Nickel all of the time. You can always run a 3-3-5, 1-5-5 & prowl, 2-4-5, or 4-2-5 Nickel out of a team that bases a 3-4/4-3, but it gets harder to do the opposite with a Nickel base due to depth issues. The game is moreso about packages rather than having a singular defensive scheme you run the whole time.

FleX, with the exception of the teams that use a traditional tight end, whether a team has one or two backs they will have either 3 or 4 receivers on the field, right? So if you are subbing out your SAM when you have 2 or 3 receivers will you not be in your nickle the majority of the game? Arkansas, UAT and maybe now UGA are the only teams we play that somewhat consistently play with the traditional tight end. Just seems to me that you are not going to be playing with 3 backers very often anymore regardless of what base system you run. You have actual experience, which I don't so tell me I'm wrong

Well a lot more teams use traditional TEs than you'd think though it's harder to tell. (Mcelwain loves his TEs and is known to work out of 12 a lot of time, with both of the attached.) and it's hard to find those TEs, or TE coaches that have enough confidence in their TE to split them out wide or let them work out of a slot receiver position most of the times. (See Hunter Henry and Ethan Wolfe). So that naturally adds the need for an extra run defender in the box, whether you're using an SS or a Sam. You wouldn't go to a Nickel with only 2 or 3 receivers otherwise teams would play LSU with nickel all the time. It's more about the down and distance or whether they're using 4 wides. 4 wides will always override down and distance, but with 2-3 you simply look at your percentages and play those. You can still play man-free on the backside against a 3 WR set so the yards and tendencies of a team would dictate whether they'd have a Sam or nickel in. But there are a more snaps that are still played out of base formations than is advertised. You're still somewhat right though because teams have went more to using the TRIPS and TREY formations (3 x 1) or (2 x 2) out of 10 personnel which has dictated a shift to employing nickel and dime at times.

Damn......making me miss coaching, Flex. Impressive.

[Mikey 16,578]

Runs a 4-2-5. Please, for the love of all that is holy, no.

Have you seen the depth chart? Tre Williams is the only LB returning that has significant playing time. Three graduated and we have ONE LB prospect committed. Maybe we should be looking for a DC that runs a one LB scheme. Five years of under-recruiting the position in terms of both quality and numbers has left us in a mess there. 5-1-5 anyone?

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

Runs a 4-2-5. Please, for the love of all that is holy, no.

Have you seen the depth chart? Tre Williams is the only LB returning that has significant playing time. Three graduated and we have ONE LB prospect committed. Maybe we should be looking for a DC that runs a one LB scheme. Five years of under-recruiting the position in terms of both quality and numbers has left us in a mess there. 5-1-5 anyone?

This is also a big issue. One that I saw coming, being the reason I decided to transfer in. But we all know how that went....

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years

Also, Flex, I'd add that we were absolutely running a 3-3-5 as a base at the end of the season with Cass as a hybrid DE. He was a rush player 8 plays out of 10 so he wasn't fooling anyone. It's exactly the same as what you described above, and it was easily our best personnel grouping with Lawson, Adams, Russell at down linemen, Cass as a LB/DE, any two of Williams/Frost/Garrett at LB, Ford at Nickel or S/LB hybrid, Jones and Davis at CB with Roberts and Countess at Safety. That was our base personnel at the end of the year, and I doubt it would change in a "4-2-5" or a "3-4" base set. You probably wouldn't even see much difference based on alignment.

Well out of necessity, at the end of the year it was somewhat of a floating hybrid because sometimes yes, there would be 3-3 (Not the stack, for those who might confuse it.) Though this wasn't a base alignment, moreso something to handle 2nd-3rd and long situations where pass percentages were high and we could generate some pressure with Cass' pass rush expertise. I can concede that in certain situations the nickel defense is a very flexible defense, though we were also giving up a very high amount of yardage per run as well by that time, though we had a lot of explosive stops as well for losses. The only problem that I've had is that running nickel personnel ALL the time is highly dependent on spilling and getting run plays moving laterally for those so that your secondary can come downhill 1st 2 downs, and with the advent of these new larger backs that we are seeing in the SEC, a lot of them are still preferring to run plays in the AT area (Inside the tackles and guards) rather than the Sweep/Off Tackle areas. (And even then, they're getting to the point where they're realizing they can still break through a nickel's tackle and safeties might not be downhill soon enough to prevent him from getting at least 3-4 yards.) That is starting to really create problems for the Nickel personnel and it was one of our weaknesses when we ran against teams that might use a large RB. (Henry, Fournette, Chubb, Herd, even though we didn't play tennessee or chubb.) With teams getting to the point where they can get chunk yardage against 4-2-5's in the 1st 2 downs to create third and short situations where the secondary can't focus on simply playing fundamental pass defense, it tends to be weaker and less viable. Even though we had some flexibility in Cass being able to play a pass rushing end and Montravius being able to play 0-1 shade as well as a 3, and Carl's strength allowing him to play a 3 tech or 4-5 shade end, we can't count on having that good of a lineup again. Too many questions on how some of the guys will develop.

Also Ford could theoretically play that N/Sam though there are some questions on his ability to be a run defender and having to match up with again large pullers (For teams that like to call Power/Trap type plays using H-Back TEs in conjunction with Guards.) That nickel would need to be a bit more natural of a run defender than I think that Ford was willing to be at times. Still it's viable.

Although I do think that a lot of the points you made were right and that we could run it, to me it seemed more of an improvised defense that got us through our last few matchups with questionable results. I suppose some of my bias is due to personal opinion. At the end of the day football is an Art and not an exact science. Every scheme is meant to work under ideal conditions. I simply believe it is easier to get the moving parts for a 4-3/3-4 that plays Nickel with a set of plays geared towards stopping the pass out of those personnel groupings and not using that Nickel all of the time. You can always run a 3-3-5, 1-5-5 & prowl, 2-4-5, or 4-2-5 Nickel out of a team that bases a 3-4/4-3, but it gets harder to do the opposite with a Nickel base due to depth issues. The game is moreso about packages rather than having a singular defensive scheme you run the whole time.

FleX, with the exception of the teams that use a traditional tight end, whether a team has one or two backs they will have either 3 or 4 receivers on the field, right? So if you are subbing out your SAM when you have 2 or 3 receivers will you not be in your nickle the majority of the game? Arkansas, UAT and maybe now UGA are the only teams we play that somewhat consistently play with the traditional tight end. Just seems to me that you are not going to be playing with 3 backers very often anymore regardless of what base system you run. You have actual experience, which I don't so tell me I'm wrong

Well a lot more teams use traditional TEs than you'd think though it's harder to tell. (Mcelwain loves his TEs and is known to work out of 12 a lot of time, with both of the attached.) and it's hard to find those TEs, or TE coaches that have enough confidence in their TE to split them out wide or let them work out of a slot receiver position most of the times. (See Hunter Henry and Ethan Wolfe). So that naturally adds the need for an extra run defender in the box, whether you're using an SS or a Sam. You wouldn't go to a Nickel with only 2 or 3 receivers otherwise teams would play LSU with nickel all the time. It's more about the down and distance or whether they're using 4 wides. 4 wides will always override down and distance, but with 2-3 you simply look at your percentages and play those. You can still play man-free on the backside against a 3 WR set so the yards and tendencies of a team would dictate whether they'd have a Sam or nickel in. But there are a more snaps that are still played out of base formations than is advertised. You're still somewhat right though because teams have went more to using the TRIPS and TREY formations (3 x 1) or (2 x 2) out of 10 personnel which has dictated a shift to employing nickel and dime at times.

Damn......making me miss coaching, Flex. Impressive.

Having to learn multiple positions in 4 defenses will do that to you.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

I don't think we disagree about the ideal. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of a true 4-3, and frankly, I'd prefer to be able to play primarily man-to-man on at least half the field behind it (like we did in 2004 with Carlos Rogers often matched in man with Travis Williams, Will Herring, Junior Rosegreen, and Montae Pitts in more of a matched zone on the opposite side). I think it's easier to find pass rush specialists for sub-packages at the edges (like we had in Marquis Gunn, Quentin Groves, Stanley McClover, and Antonio Coleman). If you can match those guys with run stuffers inside, it gives freedom of movement and flexibility for your backers. That's the ideal, but I'm not sure we actually have the personnel to play that way right now.

First, I don't see the run stuffers. We've focused our recruiting on finding disruptive DTs, at the expense of anchors in the run game. I just don't see a true NT on this team, which creates an issue for the LBs, and means you almost need two MLB types on the field at once. Given that and the lack of true pass rushers on the edge (Cass was a late discovery and Carl was a mid-season addition), we needed to have as much coverage skill as possible in the backfield. I thought Roberts was a real impact player for us with his versatility at Safety. Ford playing closer to the line was better than any other location with his speed and size. Matthews could fill a similar role.

Personally, I don't think the 4-2-5 is ideal, but I think it fits our personnel better than most base sets at the moment. Plus, the reality is, any defense is going to play out of its comfort zone at some point in the SEC. Either you play larger personnel and hang on for dear life against A&M, Ole Miss, and MSU (although they are a run heavy team) or you play light in the ass and hope to survive Bama, LSU, and Arkansas (although they were a pass team this year). Certainly, Bama has been exploited by the spread teams like Auburn and Ole Miss more than the LSUs of the world. Certainly, Auburn has struggled more against the Bamas and UGAs of the world. There is no perfect defense when the offenses vary so wildly. Given our personnel, I suspect any DC is going to play something closer to a five-man defensive backfield.

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

I don't think we disagree about the ideal. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of a true 4-3, and frankly, I'd prefer to be able to play primarily man-to-man on at least half the field behind it (like we did in 2004 with Carlos Rogers often matched in man with Travis Williams, Will Herring, Junior Rosegreen, and Montae Pitts in more of a matched zone on the opposite side). I think it's easier to find pass rush specialists for sub-packages at the edges (like we had in Marquis Gunn, Quentin Groves, Stanley McClover, and Antonio Coleman). If you can match those guys with run stuffers inside, it gives freedom of movement and flexibility for your backers. That's the ideal, but I'm not sure we actually have the personnel to play that way right now.

First, I don't see the run stuffers. We've focused our recruiting on finding disruptive DTs, at the expense of anchors in the run game. I just don't see a true NT on this team, which creates an issue for the LBs, and means you almost need two MLB types on the field at once. Given that and the lack of true pass rushers on the edge (Cass was a late discovery and Carl was a mid-season addition), we needed to have as much coverage skill as possible in the backfield. I thought Roberts was a real impact player for us with his versatility at Safety. Ford playing closer to the line was better than any other location with his speed and size. Matthews could fill a similar role.

Personally, I don't think the 4-2-5 is ideal, but I think it fits our personnel better than most base sets at the moment. Plus, the reality is, any defense is going to play out of its comfort zone at some point in the SEC. Either you play larger personnel and hang on for dear life against A&M, Ole Miss, and MSU (although they are a run heavy team) or you play light in the ass and hope to survive Bama, LSU, and Arkansas (although they were a pass team this year). Certainly, Bama has been exploited by the spread teams like Auburn and Ole Miss more than the LSUs of the world. Certainly, Auburn has struggled more against the Bamas and UGAs of the world. There is no perfect defense when the offenses vary so wildly. Given our personnel, I suspect any DC is going to play something closer to a five-man defensive backfield.

Yeah, you're right about that one. Definitely haven't had any man mountain playing a 0 shade in a long time and I'll definitely say that gives you fits when the interior linemen have direct alleys to down block on you while you're trying to make reads rather than focusing on wedging the NT, which is always a dead give away for a dive/inside run play btw. (REALLY EASY triangle read to make and stop.) But yeah, without a constant DC, Auburn's main struggle is, there is no set mold of player to recruit for a defense due to there being no philosophy, and that means you get a lot of prospects that are mismatched and might drop out due to playing in a system they're not good with. (Like we saw with 5 DBs leaving when Muschamp came.) And if we switch again, we might see it at a more vulnerable position group. But yeah, right now, we still have more personnel meant to play in a 4-2-5, but it's problematic because LB recruits are probably going to be dissuaded, and we wont be getting a lot run stopping DL recruits due to the nature of a 4-2-5 so we'd basically be setting ourselves up for rough games against those who make their beds in the trenches.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Which puts us at a disadvantage against three of the SEC West programs and the one SEC East program we play every year.

[AUshyster 0]

It's attracted a few players to Oxford, MS. They've had one of the meanest and most dynamic defenses in the SEC the last five years

Also, Flex, I'd add that we were absolutely running a 3-3-5 as a base at the end of the season with Cass as a hybrid DE. He was a rush player 8 plays out of 10 so he wasn't fooling anyone. It's exactly the same as what you described above, and it was easily our best personnel grouping with Lawson, Adams, Russell at down linemen, Cass as a LB/DE, any two of Williams/Frost/Garrett at LB, Ford at Nickel or S/LB hybrid, Jones and Davis at CB with Roberts and Countess at Safety. That was our base personnel at the end of the year, and I doubt it would change in a "4-2-5" or a "3-4" base set. You probably wouldn't even see much difference based on alignment.

Well out of necessity, at the end of the year it was somewhat of a floating hybrid because sometimes yes, there would be 3-3 (Not the stack, for those who might confuse it.) Though this wasn't a base alignment, moreso something to handle 2nd-3rd and long situations where pass percentages were high and we could generate some pressure with Cass' pass rush expertise. I can concede that in certain situations the nickel defense is a very flexible defense, though we were also giving up a very high amount of yardage per run as well by that time, though we had a lot of explosive stops as well for losses. The only problem that I've had is that running nickel personnel ALL the time is highly dependent on spilling and getting run plays moving laterally for those so that your secondary can come downhill 1st 2 downs, and with the advent of these new larger backs that we are seeing in the SEC, a lot of them are still preferring to run plays in the AT area (Inside the tackles and guards) rather than the Sweep/Off Tackle areas. (And even then, they're getting to the point where they're realizing they can still break through a nickel's tackle and safeties might not be downhill soon enough to prevent him from getting at least 3-4 yards.) That is starting to really create problems for the Nickel personnel and it was one of our weaknesses when we ran against teams that might use a large RB. (Henry, Fournette, Chubb, Herd, even though we didn't play tennessee or chubb.) With teams getting to the point where they can get chunk yardage against 4-2-5's in the 1st 2 downs to create third and short situations where the secondary can't focus on simply playing fundamental pass defense, it tends to be weaker and less viable. Even though we had some flexibility in Cass being able to play a pass rushing end and Montravius being able to play 0-1 shade as well as a 3, and Carl's strength allowing him to play a 3 tech or 4-5 shade end, we can't count on having that good of a lineup again. Too many questions on how some of the guys will develop.

Also Ford could theoretically play that N/Sam though there are some questions on his ability to be a run defender and having to match up with again large pullers (For teams that like to call Power/Trap type plays using H-Back TEs in conjunction with Guards.) That nickel would need to be a bit more natural of a run defender than I think that Ford was willing to be at times. Still it's viable.

Although I do think that a lot of the points you made were right and that we could run it, to me it seemed more of an improvised defense that got us through our last few matchups with questionable results. I suppose some of my bias is due to personal opinion. At the end of the day football is an Art and not an exact science. Every scheme is meant to work under ideal conditions. I simply believe it is easier to get the moving parts for a 4-3/3-4 that plays Nickel with a set of plays geared towards stopping the pass out of those personnel groupings and not using that Nickel all of the time. You can always run a 3-3-5, 1-5-5 & prowl, 2-4-5, or 4-2-5 Nickel out of a team that bases a 3-4/4-3, but it gets harder to do the opposite with a Nickel base due to depth issues. The game is moreso about packages rather than having a singular defensive scheme you run the whole time.

FleX, with the exception of the teams that use a traditional tight end, whether a team has one or two backs they will have either 3 or 4 receivers on the field, right? So if you are subbing out your SAM when you have 2 or 3 receivers will you not be in your nickle the majority of the game? Arkansas, UAT and maybe now UGA are the only teams we play that somewhat consistently play with the traditional tight end. Just seems to me that you are not going to be playing with 3 backers very often anymore regardless of what base system you run. You have actual experience, which I don't so tell me I'm wrong

Well a lot more teams use traditional TEs than you'd think though it's harder to tell. (Mcelwain loves his TEs and is known to work out of 12 a lot of time, with both of the attached.) and it's hard to find those TEs, or TE coaches that have enough confidence in their TE to split them out wide or let them work out of a slot receiver position most of the times. (See Hunter Henry and Ethan Wolfe). So that naturally adds the need for an extra run defender in the box, whether you're using an SS or a Sam. You wouldn't go to a Nickel with only 2 or 3 receivers otherwise teams would play LSU with nickel all the time. It's more about the down and distance or whether they're using 4 wides. 4 wides will always override down and distance, but with 2-3 you simply look at your percentages and play those. You can still play man-free on the backside against a 3 WR set so the yards and tendencies of a team would dictate whether they'd have a Sam or nickel in. But there are a more snaps that are still played out of base formations than is advertised. You're still somewhat right though because teams have went more to using the TRIPS and TREY formations (3 x 1) or (2 x 2) out of 10 personnel which has dictated a shift to employing nickel and dime at times.

I just reread my comment about '2 or 3' receivers. That was a goof on my part, obviously wouldn't sub S for LB with 2 WR. I guess my perspective is that 1. we see a lot of teams that run out of 10 or 20 (depending on how you choose to classify the H-back), and the teams that can do that well are going to give us trouble no matter what D we are in (LSU, UAT immediately come to mind), and 2. the other teams that we are going to play are either not very good running out of those groupings (because they don't necessarily care to be) or they throw the ball disproportionately more than they run.

[tsande07 271]

What defense do the Carolina Panthers run? I like what they're doing with both their offense and defense, lol...