Seeing a lot of 3-4 Confusion

[PorkSoda]

What do you all think about the 4-2-5 scheme? We have had success with it in the past under a different regime. Think it would work against current offenses?

I'm pretty sure we used it a lot this year.

[PorkRinds]

I feel like if the 3-4 doesn't work against the run they'll just have the OLB drop his hand in the dirt and go with 4 on the DL.

[TheEnemy]

For me, I just feel the 3-4 gives a little more versatility and allows you to disguise (especially blitzes) an little better than your 4 man fronts.


I will say this...I am a little biased because we played a 3-4 (technically a 5-2 but there isn't hardly any difference) in highschool.

[TheGrove68]

From looking through quite a few threads on here, I've noticed many of the posters don't really understand the 3-4 all that well.  I keep seeing people saying that since we weren't deep at linebacker we will be even worse off this year if we need to fill a fourth linebacker spot.  This isn't necessarily the case.  Many of our DE's will be moved to OLB.

Here is a basic idea of what you are looking for size wise at each position in a 3-4.  A 0-Tech NT should weigh between 290-340.  A 5-Tech should be between 275-315.  A stand-up pass rushing OLB should be between 230-265.  ILBs should weight between 230-255.  DBs are treated the same in a 3-4 as they are in a 4-3 so this conversation is really just about the front 7.

The way I see it our roster would currently breakdown like this:
(No Specific Order)

NT:  Jackson, Capps, Watts.
This group looks pretty good.  That's 3 solid players at a single position and a coupld of our DE's might be able to fit as a nose if they added a little more weight.

DE:  Agim, Smith, Marshall, Guidry, Dean, James
I feel pretty good about this group, but it doesn't have many proven players outside of Agim.  If Agim is the only player in this group ready to start then Watts would do well at this spot as well.

OLB:  Ramsey, Beanum, Roesler, Taylor, Jean-Baptiste, Fisher, Walker, Bell
I think Ramsey and Beanum would be a good starting duo at OLB.  Behind that, there is a lot of intriguing and talented players without much experience.  I included Bell because we seem pretty stacked at TE and he is too good of an athlete to be a scout team TE.  He is pretty much built like a near perfect 3-4 OLB.  Walker is undersized for the position but he rushed the edge from a standing position a lot in high school and he seems more naturally suited to play outside than inside.  If he moved inside he'd need to add weight as well.

ILB:  Greenlaw, D. Harris, Eugene, Hackett, LaFrance, J. Harris
In a 3-4 I see our ILB as being a real strong point for us.  Greenlaw, D, Harris, Eugene, and Hackett all have good experience.  LaFrance looks like he will be a monster as a run stuffing ILB for us in the future. 

Overall, in a lot of ways I think our roster is better suited for a 3-4 but more importantly I think it is a scheme with far more upside.  I still expect to see us in nickle more often than not and wouldn't be surprised if this is more of a hybrid defense than a true 3-4 but I am very optimistic about this change.  This is my first thread I've started and don't even normally post, but this newbie has thick skin so let's hear what people have to say?

Ask our Head Coach how is switch to a odd front this year worked out? Like Shatz......Our DE couldn't play in space even though they where athletic enough to do so. Mizzou brought back 9 starters on a Defense that was in the top 10 in scoring and yds....and we ended up in the hundreds after the change.
The DE had always been hand on the ground players and it showed even though our New Defensive staff was well versed in this defense. Our now playing stand up basically stood there and caught the block of the OL/TE/RB and we ended up playing Defense 8 on 11. AND There is a world of difference in being 4/even front De and a 3/odd front OLB/DE. And there is even variations in a odd front. Are you a 2 gaper 3 front or 1 gap 3 front?

I like a 3/ODD front defense just fine but you better have players who can play the techniques and are well versed in it because IMO a 3 front Defense is more complicated and harder to execute.

[Supermark101]

True NT are incredibly rare.even the elite schools like ND have trouble running a 3-4. I want to be wrong,  bUT I don't see it working.

[Youngsta71701]

I'm pretty sure we used it a lot this year.

Yep, it was just called a nickel package.

[Youngsta71701]

For me, I just feel the 3-4 gives a little more versatility and allows you to disguise (especially blitzes) an little better than your 4 man fronts.


I will say this...I am a little biased because we played a 3-4 (technically a 5-2 but there isn't hardly any difference) in highschool.

Won't matter at all if we don't blitz...

[Youngsta71701]

True NT are incredibly rare.even the elite schools like ND have trouble running a 3-4. I want to be wrong,  bUT I don't see it working.

Maybe we should just keep on doing what we've been doing . That's been working great. Maybe we can break more records?

To be honest any defensive formation will work if played the right way with players at the right position. When you start playing players out of position that's when the problem starts. Especially when their assignment doesn't work in cohesiveness with the player beside them.

[Biggus Piggus]

True NT are incredibly rare.even the elite schools like ND have trouble running a 3-4. I want to be wrong,  bUT I don't see it working.

That's a strange comment. We had a list of mid-level schools on here the other day that run 3-4 defenses. It's not reserved for the eee-leet.

[Supermark101]

That's a strange comment. We had a list of mid-level schools on here the other day that run 3-4 defenses. It's not reserved for the eee-leet.

How many of then are good defenses? How many play for championships?

If someone has that list handy I like to see it.

[Supermark101]

Maybe we should just keep on doing what we've been doing . That's been working great. Maybe we can break more records?

To be honest any defensive formation will work if played the right way with players at the right position. When you start playing players out of position that's when the problem starts. Especially when their assignment doesn't work in cohesiveness with the player beside them.

South Carolina was running a 3-4 when McFadden ties the rushing yards in a game record so there is that.

Totally agree.That's my point though finding, and more importantly recruiting, guys that fit the NT assignment is very difficult. Especially at an SEC level.

[Youngsta71701]

South Carolina was running a 3-4 when McFadden ties the rushing yards in a game record so there is that.

Totally agree.That's my point though finding, and more importantly recruiting, guys that fit the NT assignment is very difficult. Especially at an SEC level.

No doubt. D-Mac ran wild against pretty much everybody and South Carolina was pathetic at the time.

I think Jackson and Capps can handle that position for the time being. Hopefully we can get a couple of more of those type guys in the coming classes. If not we'll be in trouble all over again when it comes to run defense.

[TheEnemy]

Just because South Carolina failed with means nothing.

We gave up 500 yards rushing against Auburn with a 4 man front.

There are plenty examples of 4-3 schemes failing.

And there are plenty examples of 2 gap and 1 gap 3-4 defenses working.

[Biggus Piggus]

South Carolina was running a 3-4 when McFadden ties the rushing yards in a game record so there is that.

Totally agree.That's my point though finding, and more importantly recruiting, guys that fit the NT assignment is very difficult. Especially at an SEC level.

This is untrue. South Carolina ran a 4-3, according to this.

http://www.gamecocksonline.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2007-2008/sc10-ark.html

[DeltaBoy]

30 years ago in South Arkansas we ran a 5-2, which is just a watered-down version of most 3-4 defenses that I have paid attention to. Of course we were not playing against spread offenses, either. We played several shotgun option teams, otherwise it was mostly ground-and-pound.

But, we could run. Naturally everybody could in the area then because a 200 lb RB was considered pretty big. However, we had guys playing DE & LB that could run down most running backs before they got to the edge when they tried to go wide.

I didn't see much speed at all on Arkansas's defense last year. Could have a lot to do with reaction time, but it also could be we just aren't that fast.

I'm certainly no expert on SEC defenses, and every year it seems that I know less. But I don't see us completely getting away from a 4-3 until we have guys in place that can handle those positions, which I think the OP mentions. I know you have to start somewhere, it's just hard for me to see an immediate major improvement just because of scheme. Feels like it's going to take a year or two to make a big difference.

Add: forgot to mention that I don't see one NG, much less two or three, that can hold the middle by himself as a 3-4 defense requires.

5-2 5-3 and the 5-2 Monster were all speed based D that I played in and don't forget the undersized special the 4-4 stack.

[Youngsta71701]

5-2 5-3 and the 5-2 Monster were all speed based D that I played in and don't forget the undersized special the 4-4 stack.

Best defenses for most Arkansas high schools.

[LZH]

5-2 5-3 and the 5-2 Monster were all speed based D that I played in and don't forget the undersized special the 4-4 stack.

The ol' 4-4. "Double Eagle"

Nice memory......

[Libertarian Hog]

A 3-4 defense consists of 3 down linemen and 4 linebackers.  I saw a post where someone was commenting on the 3-4 confusion he was seeing but he didn't bother to explain what a 3-4 defense is.

[gchamblee]

you should have explained it in that thread instead of making a new one. new members here love to create new threads on crap that is already being discussed in other threads.

[factchecker]

It really is surprising how many Hog fans struggle with basic concepts of football and/or never played the game before.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

It really is surprising how many Hog fans struggle with basic concepts of football and/or never played the game before.

Those that do shouldn't be ridiculed.  My wife is a huge fan, God love her, but she doesn't know anything about the mesh point or setting the edge.  I still love her though..

[gchamblee]

Those that do shouldn't be ridiculed.  My wife is a huge fan, God love her, but she doesn't know anything about the mesh point or setting the edge.  I still love her though..

you're obligated. we arent.

[Dillon]

Thank you for your contribution LOL

[factchecker]

Those that do shouldn't be ridiculed.  My wife is a huge fan, God love her, but she doesn't know anything about the mesh point or setting the edge.  I still love her though..

She isn't on Hogville acting like she knows football..... or does she?

My wife never played the game either but she understands the game pretty well.  It helps that her father was a coach.

[Grizzlyfan]

5-2 5-3 and the 5-2 Monster were all speed based D that I played in and don't forget the undersized special the 4-4 stack.

6-2 SACK MONSTER!  6-2 SACK MONSTER!

[Jackrabbit Hog]

She isn't on Hogville acting like she knows football..... or does she?

My wife never played the game either but she understands the game pretty well.  It helps that her father was a coach.

She's actually GuvHog.

[factchecker]

She's actually GuvHog.

[kp72204]

A defensive lineman's technique is where he lines up in a certain defense.

Man enough to admit it. Thanks, normally i'd just nod my head and agree

[PorkSoda]

This is untrue. South Carolina ran a 4-3, according to this.

http://www.gamecocksonline.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2007-2008/sc10-ark.html

https://youtu.be/SpCrXwToHYc

0:44 mark is a 3-4

0:54 mark is a 3-4

1:06 mark is a 3-4

etc etc

[factchecker]

Man enough to admit it. Thanks, normally i'd just nod my head and agree

No problem.

Football can get confusing with the language.  Every team has a system and a way of wording things.

If all else fails just google or look for videos on YouTube.

Here are some 3-4 defense videos I found the other day:

Wade Phillips The 3-4 Defense Alignment Assignments and Responsibilities:

Jeff Reinebold 3-4 Defenses: Base Coverage:

Jeff Reinebold Blitzing to Stop the Run in the 3-4 Defense:

Jeff Reinebold 3-4 Defense: Fire Zone Coverages

Some all 22 footage:

[GoHogs1091]

lol elite players will make any scheme work better.

A 3-4 Defense is more dependent on high quality talent than is a 4-3.

A solid, fundamentally sound 4-3 can be achieved without having to have high quality talent at every position.

A 4-3 overall is more suitable for the collegiate game.

[hawginbigd1]

Y'all remember all this doubting and we don't have the players blah blah blah, next season when we are shutting down the oppositions running game, because LBs play faster and with correct leverage! Then remember it when Sosa has a pick six on a slant or tunnel on a zone blitz. You'll be saying why didn't we do this sooner!

[sowmonella]

I gave up when they started calling Mike & Will & Sam linebackers instead of Middle (strong)weak and  strong(weakside). Then came the Jack LB...........sigh

[Pork Twain]

Whew.  A quarter of the Top 20 defenses-- be still my beating heart.   And competition matters a great deal-- what you can get away with in the B10 against the bottom 8 teams in that league is a little different than what you can get away with in the SEC.   

You don't mention  Texas Tech, or Cal, or  SMU--  three of the worst defenses in the country, and a full quarter of the teams that run a base 3-4 are among the 20ish worst defenses in the country.   You don't mention how it hasn't solved anything for teams like BYU or Georgia Tech, or how it is still a work in progress for traditional powers with better recruiting than Arkansas like Georgia or Notre Dame;  even the upswing at TAMU hasn't made their version of the 3-4 better-- they're still clocking in even behind us, despite much better recruiting.

The 3-4 isn't the answer.    In most situations, its not going to be the answer for a college program, without years and years of roster restructuring, and a commitment to long term rebuilding on defense.

It would seem that at least talent wise, we have more in common with these teams than the rest of the top 20.  Maybe there is something to that.  Adding some variety to our defense is a bad thing?  I have not heard anyone say we were going to strictly go with a 3-4.  Based on the defenses I have seen at AR during my life, I am not sure how it could hurt.

A little dated but talks about why the switch in college
http://www.espn.com/college-football/preview10/columns/story?id=5453033&columnist=schlabach_mark

[onebadrubi]

What do you all think about the 4-2-5 scheme? We have had success with it in the past under a different regime. Think it would work against current offenses?

We ran it a lot under smith. Sooo not sure what you are thinking.

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

A 3-4 Defense is more dependent on high quality talent than is a 4-3.

A solid, fundamentally sound 4-3 can be achieved without having to have high quality talent at every position.

A 4-3 overall is more suitable for the collegiate game.

I am NOT an X and O guy. I read and consider what others are saying. Most seem to be saying that against most spread offenses a 4-3 is vulnerable, whereas a 3-4 offers ways to defeat a QBs initial read(s).  Obviously, you have to have talent. But, all things being equal talent-wise, what makes you say a 4-3 is more suitable given the fairly common refrain that, as a base defense, it's too easy to read for a QB in a spread offense?

EFBAB

[bennyl08]

I am NOT an X and O guy. I read and consider what others are saying. Most seem to be saying that against most spread offenses a 4-3 is vulnerable, whereas a 3-4 offers ways to defeat a QBs initial read(s).  Obviously, you have to have talent. But, all things being equal talent-wise, what makes you say a 4-3 is more suitable given the fairly common refrain that, as a base defense, it's too easy to read for a QB in a spread offense?

EFBAB

All else being equal, the 4-3 is superior in letting the defense not have to over think things.

All else being equal, the 3-4 is superior in it's versatility allowing for very complex defenses that can confuse the offense.

The Bills, Seahawks, and Patriots offer some very good case studies on the two. Seahawks have amazing athletes on their defense. When they are healthy, the (relative) simpleness of their defense maximizes the athletic nature of the players and offenses can't out scheme it because the major scheme is just talented players. It isn't a scheme heavy defense, so there is nothing to scheme against. However, when a couple of those players get injured, the athletic quality of that defense goes down. Now, you can no longer win by simply being better physically, you have to scheme your way to quality and the Seahawks defense becomes very beatable.

The Bills also have some of the best defensive talent in the league. They previously ran a 4-3 and were one of the top defenses in the NFL but just had no offense to go with it. In comes Rex Ryan and his affinity for the 3-4. Ironically, the offense actually improved but the defense took a turn for the worse. Part of it was having the wrong personnel for that style of defense. However, after Rex was inevitably fired, it came out that his defense was too complex for a lot of the players. It slowed them down and make them think too much instead of just being able to play. So again, 4-3 defense allows you to have a defense based on instinct and athleticism. 3-4 can mask that with complexity; however, you have to have the players who can handle the complexity mentally. For the hogs, how many times have you heard coaches talk about how they are going to simplify the defense. Sure, that was in the past, but it is very common at the college level for players to struggle with complex schemes, offense or defense.

Finally, the Steelers. They've been a 3-4 defense for a long time, and have been successful with it for a long time. Their recent defenses haven't been as good, but it is largely agreed that it is due to aging players more than scheme. However, it begs the question, my are their aging players not being replaced? Many probably will be at the end of this season, but that's a question only the coaching staff knows for sure. However, a factor could be that the younger players they've brought in are limited by how much they can do with the scheme on the field. Either you have to make it simpler for them so they can play faster and thus losing the ability to confuse the offense, or you go full complexity, but now your players are slowed down by having to think. Thus, the older players who have been in the system a long time are able to play the full system faster than the younglings despite being slower than them overall.

[rmcchris]

From looking through quite a few threads on here, I've noticed many of the posters don't really understand the 3-4 all that well.  I keep seeing people saying that since we weren't deep at linebacker we will be even worse off this year if we need to fill a fourth linebacker spot.  This isn't necessarily the case.  Many of our DE's will be moved to OLB.

Here is a basic idea of what you are looking for size wise at each position in a 3-4.  A 0-Tech NT should weigh between 290-340.  A 5-Tech should be between 275-315.  A stand-up pass rushing OLB should be between 230-265.  ILBs should weight between 230-255.  DBs are treated the same in a 3-4 as they are in a 4-3 so this conversation is really just about the front 7.

The way I see it our roster would currently breakdown like this:
(No Specific Order)

NT:  Jackson, Capps, Watts.
This group looks pretty good.  That's 3 solid players at a single position and a coupld of our DE's might be able to fit as a nose if they added a little more weight.

DE:  Agim, Smith, Marshall, Guidry, Dean, James
I feel pretty good about this group, but it doesn't have many proven players outside of Agim.  If Agim is the only player in this group ready to start then Watts would do well at this spot as well.

OLB:  Ramsey, Beanum, Roesler, Taylor, Jean-Baptiste, Fisher, Walker, Bell
I think Ramsey and Beanum would be a good starting duo at OLB.  Behind that, there is a lot of intriguing and talented players without much experience.  I included Bell because we seem pretty stacked at TE and he is too good of an athlete to be a scout team TE.  He is pretty much built like a near perfect 3-4 OLB.  Walker is undersized for the position but he rushed the edge from a standing position a lot in high school and he seems more naturally suited to play outside than inside.  If he moved inside he'd need to add weight as well.

ILB:  Greenlaw, D. Harris, Eugene, Hackett, LaFrance, J. Harris
In a 3-4 I see our ILB as being a real strong point for us.  Greenlaw, D, Harris, Eugene, and Hackett all have good experience.  LaFrance looks like he will be a monster as a run stuffing ILB for us in the future. 

Overall, in a lot of ways I think our roster is better suited for a 3-4 but more importantly I think it is a scheme with far more upside.  I still expect to see us in nickle more often than not and wouldn't be surprised if this is more of a hybrid defense than a true 3-4 but I am very optimistic about this change.  This is my first thread I've started and don't even normally post, but this newbie has thick skin so let's hear what people have to say?

Welcome aboard and very good first post! Good breakdown on our personnel as well. I'm certainly not a 3-4 expert, but very good analysis from my viewpoint.  Lots of other good responses in the thread as well.  Good to see football talk Vs. all the negative stuff. I might bring up the game that Coach B. said he "took over" the defense or I think he said had significant input in the defensive plan.  Some of the schemes that game were more like a 3-4 and a signal of the times to come. 

[PorkSoda]

All else being equal, the 4-3 is superior in letting the defense not have to over think things.

All else being equal, the 3-4 is superior in it's versatility allowing for very complex defenses that can confuse the offense.

I agree with the learning curve consideration.  also as far a talent and recruiting it seems to be a Defense designed for tweeners.  you need LBs that are hybrid LB/DEs for the outside and DEs that are Hybrid DT/DE etc.  the other problem though is you are asking one guy to be able to learn and play both positions ie.  they player  has to seemlessly transition from playing LB to DE depending on the play call.  so while a tweener body type may be able to do that physically, they still have to be able to learn the nuances of both positions.

[Bebop]

We ran it a lot under smith. Sooo not sure what you are thinking.

I was wondering because we have had some success with it in the past based on this article:

http://www.arkansasfight.com/2017/1/15/14272144/how-arkansas-next-defensive-coordinator-better-razorback-defense

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I agree with the learning curve consideration.  also as far a talent and recruiting it seems to be a Defense designed for tweeners.  you need LBs that are hybrid LB/DEs for the outside and DEs that are Hybrid DT/DE etc.  the other problem though is you are asking one guy to be able to learn and play both positions ie.  they player  has to seemlessly transition from playing LB to DE depending on the play call.  so while a tweener body type may be able to do that physically, they still have to be able to learn the nuances of both positions.

If you haven't already, scroll up and look at the video that Factchecker posted of Wade Phillips discussing the various players needed to fill positions in the 3-4 and how that can change based on the individual abilities of the players that you have. Of course he is talking about the NFL, but I can see how those considerations are especially important at the college level where every player doesn't have superior talent. Then we have to ask ourselves who, at each of those positions, would he be describing on our team?

[depressed_fan]

From looking through quite a few threads on here, I've noticed many of the posters don't really understand the 3-4 all that well.  I keep seeing people saying that since we weren't deep at linebacker we will be even worse off this year if we need to fill a fourth linebacker spot.  This isn't necessarily the case.  Many of our DE's will be moved to OLB.

Here is a basic idea of what you are looking for size wise at each position in a 3-4.  A 0-Tech NT should weigh between 290-340.  A 5-Tech should be between 275-315.  A stand-up pass rushing OLB should be between 230-265.  ILBs should weight between 230-255.  DBs are treated the same in a 3-4 as they are in a 4-3 so this conversation is really just about the front 7.

The way I see it our roster would currently breakdown like this:
(No Specific Order)

NT:  Jackson, Capps, Watts.
This group looks pretty good.  That's 3 solid players at a single position and a coupld of our DE's might be able to fit as a nose if they added a little more weight.

DE:  Agim, Smith, Marshall, Guidry, Dean, James
I feel pretty good about this group, but it doesn't have many proven players outside of Agim.  If Agim is the only player in this group ready to start then Watts would do well at this spot as well.

OLB:  Ramsey, Beanum, Roesler, Taylor, Jean-Baptiste, Fisher, Walker, Bell
I think Ramsey and Beanum would be a good starting duo at OLB.  Behind that, there is a lot of intriguing and talented players without much experience.  I included Bell because we seem pretty stacked at TE and he is too good of an athlete to be a scout team TE.  He is pretty much built like a near perfect 3-4 OLB.  Walker is undersized for the position but he rushed the edge from a standing position a lot in high school and he seems more naturally suited to play outside than inside.  If he moved inside he'd need to add weight as well.

ILB:  Greenlaw, D. Harris, Eugene, Hackett, LaFrance, J. Harris
In a 3-4 I see our ILB as being a real strong point for us.  Greenlaw, D, Harris, Eugene, and Hackett all have good experience.  LaFrance looks like he will be a monster as a run stuffing ILB for us in the future. 

Overall, in a lot of ways I think our roster is better suited for a 3-4 but more importantly I think it is a scheme with far more upside.  I still expect to see us in nickle more often than not and wouldn't be surprised if this is more of a hybrid defense than a true 3-4 but I am very optimistic about this change.  This is my first thread I've started and don't even normally post, but this newbie has thick skin so let's hear what people have to say?

In order for any traditional 3-4 to be effective you need a nose tackle that commands being double teamed to be blocked.  I'm not so sure Arkansas can consistently recruit to have 2 or 3 decent ones on the roster b/c there's not many out there, sort of like corner backs.  All the linebacker and secondary package variations you want to throw in to the mix is fine. But I don't see it being effective without that big nose tackle.  I've got the eerie feeling these prospects already on the roster you named for the position can be tied up pretty easy often by one opposing SEC blocker.

From reading Bret's and Rhodes talks about it, I'm not sure they know if they can recruit to it or how to devise it. Imagine having a couple good NT's but one or two going down for the season, then you basically have to scrape the whole defense mid season, mid game, or whatever and start over.  I think its more of a desperation BB experiment, or lip service to hush the fans. Ok the 4-3 didn't work so i'm going to the 3-4.  Put 2 more years of bad defense on the field with it, then come back and say I'm sorry it didn't work we are going back to the 4-3. Coach is marketing I think is all it boils down to.

[Tarheelhawg]

V-Tech's starting NG was only 6'2 inches and 280lbs per the depth chart, but he was quick which compensated for the lack of size.  Our offensive line was decidely larger than V-Tech but they managed to execute the 3-4 v. well.

[Pork Twain]

V-Tech's starting NG was only 6'2 inches and 280lbs per the depth chart, but he was quick which compensated for the lack of size.  Our offensive line was decidely larger than V-Tech but they managed to execute the 3-4 v. well.

Great example and Bud Foster knows how to get it done with less talent than we have.  Given he is doing it in the ACC but VT is always solid on defense. 

Here is a break down of the base defense utilization by the top 25 FBS (also added the top 25 in total defense, that did not finish in the top 25 FBS)

Overall
15 play the 4-3
10 play the 3-4
04 play the 4-2
01 plays the 5-2
02 play the 3-3
04 play multiple sets

Top 25 Total Defense
11 play the 4-3
08 play the 3-4
01 plays the 4-2
00 plays the 5-2
01 plays the 3-3
04 play multiple sets

http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/arkansas/89992

[Youngsta71701]

We ran it a lot under smith. Sooo not sure what you are thinking.

Yep, and we hardly ever blitzed the nickel corner which would have given the offense something else to think about.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

When you look at the personnel that are returning, if we choose to stay in a 4-3, we have just as many experienced depth issues in that defense, as we would have going to a 3-4. Might as well make the switch now. We do need another DT in this class that we can plug in and play this year. The LB's are going to have to step up big time this year.

[Youngsta71701]

When you look at the personnel that are returning, if we choose to stay in a 4-3, we have just as many experienced depth issues in that defense, as we would have going to a 3-4. Might as well make the switch now. We do need another DT in this class that we can plug in and play this year. The LB's are going to have to step up big time this year.

Maybe we can become LBU...

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Maybe we can become LBU...

That would be nice. Those guys are going to have to really step it up this fall. Thin at DT and DE, we are going to have to have some guys at LB that are ag-ile, mo-bile and hos-tile filling gaps, turning plays back inside and not missing tackles.

[hawginbigd1]

V-Tech's starting NG was only 6'2 inches and 280lbs per the depth chart, but he was quick which compensated for the lack of size.  Our offensive line was decidely larger than V-Tech but they managed to execute the 3-4 v. well.

My take on Foster is he is not afraid to junk it up, if he needs to he will line up in a 2-4, or a. 5-3, just depends on what the opposition scares him with.