seccountry.com reporting

[aujeff11 6,243]

Sylvester Croom?

Thanks for the laugh

[JFDTiger80 790]

Tom Allen?

ding, ding ding!

[McLoofus 35,182]

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

Yeah, but no one has ever made that work. Wonder why it's not against the rules?

Ole miss defense does pretty well running a 4-2-5

I don't dislike the scheme itself. I would just really like to establish an identity and stick with it.

[sevenlee36 1,654]

itll probably be Allen because of the Hugh and Gus connection. Id rather see a 4-3 or 3-4 based defense.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

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

Yeah, but no one has ever made that work. Wonder why it's not against the rules? ;)/>

Ole miss defense does pretty well running a 4-2-5

I don't dislike the scheme itself. I would just really like to establish an identity and stick with it.

That's why I hope he stays a while.

[War Knight 514]

I'd rather we keep the defensive scheme we have now. Poor players have had to adjust their whole career to new schemes.

[AUpreacherman22 3,885]

As far as scheme is concerned, I have proposed the use of 2 "hybrid positions", a "Buck" DE/LB AND a "Star" LB/S.

This would enable the defense to line up in a 4-3 or 3-4 traditional 7 man front OR a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 nickel, ALL without changing personnel.

I think with more and more offenses moving to a HUNH, the more flexibility a defense has with the same personnel the better.

I haven't seen anyone run anything like this and I'm sure there are valid reasons (being more complicated is one), but I sure would like to see how it would work out.

[War Knight 514]

Honestly, scheme be damned. We need someone to continue the progress our secondary has made. We need a full court press on linebacker recruiting; we can't keep losing the studs to Bama. Finally, we have to develop talent on the defensive side of the ball. Adams, Gabe, Ford, Lawson, and so many other defensive lineman with the skills needed have come through here and more or less underwhelmed but still are making it to the pros. When someone isn't very well used in college UZOMAH but drafted, that is concerning. Why would NFL teams see value in someone so underused? Maybe because they weren't developed or used properly.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

I don't know that there are a ton of coaches with the technical skill to run our current defense. Honestly. We're a 4-3 that floats to a 3-4, 5-2, or 4-2-5 based on personnel shifts. It's a complicated scheme. As Chris Brown once said of our transition from Chizik to Muschamp: Gene Chizik is the best checkers player in the world; Will Muschamp is one of the best chess players in the world. Most coaches are closer to Chizik. They have a scheme and they drill that scheme until it is flawless. Muschamp is multiple and kills his guys to play everything well.

I don't know Tom Allen, but my guess is, he can't run Muschamp's scheme. If we wanted a guy that could float between schemes, we should've made a harder run at Pruitt.

[SCBusPilot 72]

I also see from his bio that he was at Arkansas State in 2011 (assistant head coach) around the time that Malzahn arrived, so they may have history there.

[PigskinPat 2,579]

With the DC job open at bama we were NOT going to get Pruitt. He's a bammer to the core and would have gambled waiting on an offer from saban, but most knew he was going to be at the top of saban's list regardless.

[doc4aday 1,887]

It is not the scheme, but how well a coach can teach and execute the defense. I never liked the 3-4 that Muschamp ran. I think XCWM was probably the most overpaid and underachieved DC in the history of modern college defenses. I think with Allen, we will get energy but not stupidity that contributed greatly to the loss of the Iron Bowl.

If I was Gus, I would want about a $1,000,000 refund from Muschamp. If Ellis Johnson had the drive and energy that Allen has, he could likely still be at Auburn as our DC. That is history though, and we need to hire a DC that will have the right amount of energy; albeit controlled energy.

[AuburnSpider 2]

well it just is what it is.

[auburnphan 6,050]

The scheme is not that important, but getting the players to execute it, is the challenge. EJ went the JC route and missed a bunch on star position. We always had someone who had a glaring hole in their game and he could not get the players to execute the scheme, we kept getting exploited. jRecruit football players with athletic ability, work ethic and a high football IQ and any scheme can work. Don't go star chasing. Get guys that love the game and not love what the game brings them.

[homersapien 11,373]

I also see from his bio that he was at Arkansas State in 2011 (assistant head coach) around the time that Malzahn arrived, so they may have history there.

Yeah, I noticed that also. Beat me to it.

[auburnphan 6,050]

He was there with Freeze and left with him, Malzahn got hired in December. coached in 2012

[milehighfan 1,240]

From what I've seen over the past three years unless Lawson was on the field it didn't matter what defense we ran.

[meh130 1,043]

As far as scheme is concerned, I have proposed the use of 2 "hybrid positions", a "Buck" DE/LB AND a "Star" LB/S.

This would enable the defense to line up in a 4-3 or 3-4 traditional 7 man front OR a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 nickel, ALL without changing personnel.

I think with more and more offenses moving to a HUNH, the more flexibility a defense has with the same personnel the better.

I haven't seen anyone run anything like this and I'm sure there are valid reasons (being more complicated is one), but I sure would like to see how it would work out.

What you describe is exactly what Allen runs. He has two hybrid players, the DE/OLB hybrid (the "Bull"), and the Sam LB/Safety hybrid (the "Husky").

[aubiefifty 16,791]

freeze and gus are pretty close. you can bet your behind he got the straight scoop on allen. and remember gus is putting his job on the line with this hire as well. well at least i think he is so i would think he made the best choice for auburn.

[AU Counsel 64]

As far as scheme is concerned, I have proposed the use of 2 "hybrid positions", a "Buck" DE/LB AND a "Star" LB/S.

This would enable the defense to line up in a 4-3 or 3-4 traditional 7 man front OR a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 nickel, ALL without changing personnel.

I think with more and more offenses moving to a HUNH, the more flexibility a defense has with the same personnel the better.

I haven't seen anyone run anything like this and I'm sure there are valid reasons (being more complicated is one), but I sure would like to see how it would work out.

What you describe is exactly what Allen runs. He has two hybrid players, the DE/OLB hybrid (the "Bull"), and the Sam LB/Safety hybrid (the "Husky").

The versatility is very appealing but the key beyond coaching and talent is finding athletes who can be 'tweeners and play those dual role positions.

[auburnphan 6,050]

freeze and gus are pretty close. you can bet your behind he got the straight scoop on allen. and remember gus is putting his job on the line with this hire as well. well at least i think he is so i would think he made the best choice for auburn.

Sorry, but how close they are does not matter, when it comes to this decision.

[Tiger 8,825]

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

[auburnphan 6,050]

I don't think it really will make a difference, his scheme seems to be different than CEJ.

[AUshyster 0]

I don't think it really will make a difference, his scheme seems to be different than CEJ.

^^^ This. I feel like people see a system and think they are all the same. Plus, Cowart will play either DE or this hybrid that Allen uses (if he's the guy) and there are plenty of highly rated LB's on a lot of teams that don't play because it turned out they weren't good enough to win the job. We as fans are very good at anointing someone a star before they are on campus

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

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 without having to worry about spilling constantly and wrong shouldering pullers (spilling is a lifestyle), 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.