Seeing a lot of 3-4 Confusion

[ErieHog]

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?

This is not true;  what this is, is super optimistic thinking that a 3-4 is going to fix what's wrong with the defense.

Not only do we not have enough guys with the linebacking skills that a 3-4 requires, if we start dropping ends to play OLB, they're going to have coverage issues, and we'll be thin on the DL, even if we flex an OLB down to DE to rush in pure pass rush situations.

It is much, much, much easier to run a 4-3 in the college ranks.     There is a reason why very few teams succeed in college with a 3-4, and predominantly only those who have an overwhelming amount of talent coming every year.

[hawginbigd1]

This is not true;  what this is, is super optimistic thinking that a 3-4 is going to fix what's wrong with the defense.

Not only do we not have enough guys with the linebacking skills that a 3-4 requires, if we start dropping ends to play OLB, they're going to have coverage issues, and we'll be thin on the DL, even if we flex an OLB down to DE to rush in pure pass rush situations.

It is much, much, much easier to run a 4-3 in the college ranks.     There is a reason why very few teams succeed in college with a 3-4, and predominantly only those who have an overwhelming amount of talent coming every year.

Yeah like the service academies if they didn't have all those top notch recruits/studs they wouldn't run that impossible 3-4 defense we should scrap the idea SMH!

[ErieHog]

Yeah like the service academies if they didn't have all those top notch recruits/studs they wouldn't run that impossible 3-4 defense we should scrap the idea SMH!

You'll notice they generally don't fare particularly well-- and the one that does, uses a 3-4 base sparingly because of their conference matchups in the AAC.

The 4-3 is the dominant defensive model in college for a reason.

[menace_hawg3]

This is not true;  what this is, is super optimistic thinking that a 3-4 is going to fix what's wrong with the defense.

Not only do we not have enough guys with the linebacking skills that a 3-4 requires, if we start dropping ends to play OLB, they're going to have coverage issues, and we'll be thin on the DL, even if we flex an OLB down to DE to rush in pure pass rush situations.

It is much, much, much easier to run a 4-3 in the college ranks.     There is a reason why very few teams succeed in college with a 3-4, and predominantly only those who have an overwhelming amount of talent coming every year.

So why does schools like Colorado, Louisville, Wisconsin, Army, and Washington all have top 20 defenses? They don't bring in an overwhelming amount of talent every year.

[ErieHog]

So why does schools like Colorado, Louisville, Wisconsin, Army, and Washington all have top 20 defenses?

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.

[menace_hawg3]

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.

Do you think we can beat Wisconsin? LSU couldn't. There are several teams in the bottom 20 in total defense that run many different schemes.
Noone is saying that 3-4 is the answer to all of our problems. And BTW, Texas A&M run a 4-3.

[ErieHog]

Do you think we can beat Wisconsin? LSU couldn't. There are several teams in the bottom 20 in total defense that run many different schemes.
Noone is saying that 3-4 is the answer to all of our problems. And BTW, Texas A&M run a 4-3.

TAMU's official base scheme coming into fall practice was still a 3-4, despite spring practice struggles.   They played a ton more situational 4-3  (and played it more than their declared base)   than most traditional 3-4 teams, in part because they couldn't sort out their linebacker shortcomings to run the 3-4 in fall camp, either-- and they get player after player after player, compared to us.

Going to the 3-4 is going to be a step sideways, at best, or a step back in the short term.  Can it work out?  Sure.  Are the odds in favor of it working?  No.   Are the odds better a revamped 4-3 can work at Arkansas?  Certainly.

[McKdaddy]

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?

Good post. Thanks for this discussion.

[Styflin]

TAMU's official base scheme coming into fall practice was still a 3-4, despite spring practice struggles.   They played a ton more situational 4-3  (and played it more than their declared base)   than most traditional 3-4 teams, in part because they couldn't sort out their linebacker shortcomings to run the 3-4 in fall camp, either-- and they get player after player after player, compared to us.

Going to the 3-4 is going to be a step sideways, at best, or a step back in the short term.  Can it work out?  Sure.  Are the odds in favor of it working?  No.   Are the odds better a revamped 4-3 can work at Arkansas?  Certainly.

We will be working out in the evenings Erie...  problem solved.

[lakecityhog]

Erie, I have a lot of respect for your opinions and usually enjoy your comments. In this case I think you may be towards the wrongish side. Everyone talks about the 3-4 requiring that mountain in the middle and yes, that would help. I believe that having 3 guys that can force the O'Line to double up can help to offset the lack of a mountain in the middle.

Also, your OLB's will play a LOT of stand-up DE which almost creates a 5-2. We rarely play a predominantly Pro-Set offense anymore, I'm guessing that 80% of our opponents will play from the Spread. To me the 3-4 can put us in a position to  slide a bigger safety to one or possibly even both of the OLB spots to provide better coverage skills and still be big enough to run stop. I could see a guy like Greenlaw thrive out there.

[Josh Goforth]

Erie, I have a lot of respect for your opinions and usually enjoy your comments. In this case I think you may be towards the wrongish side. Everyone talks about the 3-4 requiring that mountain in the middle and yes, that would help. I believe that having 3 guys that can force the O'Line to double up can help to offset the lack of a mountain in the middle.

Also, your OLB's will play a LOT of stand-up DE which almost creates a 5-2. We rarely play a predominantly Pro-Set offense anymore, I'm guessing that 80% of our opponents will play from the Spread. To me the 3-4 can put us in a position to  slide a bigger safety to one or possibly even both of the OLB spots to provide better coverage skills and still be big enough to run stop. I could see a guy like Greenlaw thrive out there.

In some situations I see Greenlaw in the usual spot where he has been on 3rd downs and other passing situations. Take out a LB and replace with a nickel in those instances is probably more realistic, and the front will look more like a 4-2. Only difference would be a stand up DE/OLB on the edge.

[ErieHog]

Erie, I have a lot of respect for your opinions and usually enjoy your comments. In this case I think you may be towards the wrongish side. Everyone talks about the 3-4 requiring that mountain in the middle and yes, that would help. I believe that having 3 guys that can force the O'Line to double up can help to offset the lack of a mountain in the middle.

Also, your OLB's will play a LOT of stand-up DE which almost creates a 5-2. We rarely play a predominantly Pro-Set offense anymore, I'm guessing that 80% of our opponents will play from the Spread. To me the 3-4 can put us in a position to  slide a bigger safety to one or possibly even both of the OLB spots to provide better coverage skills and still be big enough to run stop. I could see a guy like Greenlaw thrive out there.

It doesn't work, and the more teams that run the 3-4, the harder it will become, as competition for those handful of players capable of being an anchor will be ever more intense.   

Our OLBs/DEs will come in two varieties-- too small to hold up in the run, or too un-flexible to hold up in coverage-- we have had a ton of problems over the past 30 years trying to  find coverage linebackers in general--  heck, our best coverage linebackers have been undersized safeties playing situational OLB for us in 4-3 or dime looks---  hardly guys who can walk down and play a 5-2 end.

The only real reason to be optimistic for us on a 3-4 right now, is that we have a couple of the harder pieces to get right now--  Agim is so explosive that you can make up for being a smaller front, and B. Jackson can be a space eater that plays 40 downs a game in the middle.     

[Dark Helmet Hog]

A good read on the evolution of the 3-4 for those (me) not that familiar with it.

http://strongfootballcoach.com/defensive-football/defensive-fronts/over-defense/popularity-3-4-defense-whats-old-new/

"As more and more offenses have begun to incorporate 3, 4, and 5 wide receiver sets, 4-3 teams have found themselves with increasingly limited options. The defense must slide out the linebackers to cover the slot receivers, or drop a safety down and play Cover 3. In effect, committing 4 men to the line against the spread left many defenses increasingly predictable – exactly what spread offenses were aiming for when they lined up with multiple receivers before handing the ball off to the running back."

[TheEnemy]

I think many are confusing running a traditional 3-4 scheme as opposed to what a lot of teams are running now.

What you are seeing is more of a multiple set in which you have versatile players that can slide in and out of 3-4 and 4-3 looks also can sub out to show 4-2, 3-3, and 2-4 looks.


And having that big double team drawing beast NG was needed when you were playing pro-style down hill running offenses, but now as teams have moved to a more spread style offenses it isn't as important.


Against the spread offenses, we are starting to see more smaller athletic 3-4s D-lines have success even without the tradition NGs

[PorkRinds]

I think many are confusing running a traditional 3-4 scheme as opposed to what a lot of teams are running now.

What you are seeing is more of a multiple set in which you have versatile players that can slide in and out of 3-4 and 4-3 looks also can sub out to show 4-2, 3-3, and 2-4 looks.


And having that big double team drawing beast NG was needed when you were playing pro-style down hill running offenses, but now as teams have moved to a more spread style offenses it isn't as important.


Against the spread offenses, we are starting to see more smaller athletic 3-4s D-lines have success even without the tradition NGs

Exactly. We aren't going to run a 3-4 every down.

[songofthesword]

a rule of thumb is that if you have to mention the words bulk up, for a true 3-4 NT, then he's not a 3-4 NT.  Bijohn is a natrual 3-4 clogging NT. Slow but you can't move him out the way.  Capps is a really good DE that should be starting. i think the whole point of the scheme is to gtet capps aqnd agim on the line toigether.


the 64,000 question is who is going to back up jackson?

[TheEnemy]

a rule of thumb is that if you have to mention the words bulk up, for a true 3-4 NT, then he's not a 3-4 NT.  Bijohn is a natrual 3-4 clogging NT. Slow but you can't move him out the way.  Capps is a really good DE that should be starting. i think the whole point of the scheme is to gtet capps aqnd agim on the line toigether.


the 64,000 question is who is going to back up jackson?

But again....Defending spread offenses does not require a true 3-4 NG.

Down hill running by Pro-Style offenses is what cause that requirement and when we see one of these offenses we can run more 4-3 to counter that. 

[songofthesword]

TAMU's official base scheme coming into fall practice was still a 3-4, despite spring practice struggles.   They played a ton more situational 4-3  (and played it more than their declared base)   than most traditional 3-4 teams, in part because they couldn't sort out their linebacker shortcomings to run the 3-4 in fall camp, either-- and they get player after player after player, compared to us.

Going to the 3-4 is going to be a step sideways, at best, or a step back in the short term.  Can it work out?  Sure.  Are the odds in favor of it working?  No.   Are the odds better a revamped 4-3 can work at Arkansas?  Certainly.

copmaring apples to oranges. l TAMU's problem is sumlin taking way way too many WR's and not offering enoughb LBS for a 4-3 then switching to a 3 4 lol which requires more LBs. name3 one LB from the sumlin era.  i can't lol and i watch quite a bit of SEC football



I am on the fence. there are reasons i don't like it and reasons i do like it. i do think inhk that the reasons i do like ti slightly, slityghly, outweigh the reasons i don't, 2 reasona mainly and those being

1. it pretty much instantly fixes the outside containment issues we've hd the last few years by putting more bodies there. also we were asking DE's to fight off blocks and get outside to cut off containment. Now we are asking LBs to simply run to the righbt spot before the guy with the ball gets there. I like that.   


2. recruiting wise, it's something different.  15 teams in the NFL run the 3-4 and only about 20.   you can tell a kid no you are not a tweaner you're a 3-4 outside linebacker come play for us.

[songofthesword]

But again....Defending spread offenses does not require a true 3-4 NG.

Down hill running by Pro-Style offenses is what cause that requirement and when we see one of these offenses we can run more 4-3 to counter that. 

you still have FIVE o lineman going up against THREE  lineman.  if i can block your nose tacdkle with my center by himself i wopuld fake jet sweep run up the middle3 every play and there is litearlly nothing you can do to stop it becasue the fake jet sweep action keeps the linebackers in place.  your NT has to be able to take on 2 blocks. he doesn't have to be jonatgab allen buyt i should not be abl eto move him out the way with one man

[ErieHog]

I think many are confusing running a traditional 3-4 scheme as opposed to what a lot of teams are running now.

What you are seeing is more of a multiple set in which you have versatile players that can slide in and out of 3-4 and 4-3 looks also can sub out to show 4-2, 3-3, and 2-4 looks.


And having that big double team drawing beast NG was needed when you were playing pro-style down hill running offenses, but now as teams have moved to a more spread style offenses it isn't as important.


Against the spread offenses, we are starting to see more smaller athletic 3-4s D-lines have success even without the tradition NGs

You have to have the flexibility in skill sets to make the defensive morphing off the base 3-4 credible.     You can't be truly multiple without linebackers who can cover, in the sense you describe-- and  yes, a credible 3-4 still requires a two blocker anchor at the point of the defense, or it leaves itself very vulnerable to the running game, even from spread looks.

[TheEnemy]

you still have FIVE o lineman going up against THREE  lineman.  if i can block your nose tacdkle with my center by himself i wopuld fake jet sweep run up the middle3 every play and there is litearlly nothing you can do to stop it becasue the fake jet sweep action keeps the linebackers in place.  your NT has to be able to take on 2 blocks. he doesn't have to be jonatgab allen buyt i should not be abl eto move him out the way with one man

And I have my quicker NG penetrate the A-Gap to the side of the jet sweep, slant my backside DE into the B-Gap, have my backside ILB run blitze the backside A gap, while my backside OLB sets the back edge.  My jet sweep side ILB helps with the B and C gap, jet sweep side DE plays two (gaps B and C) and my OLB along with Saftety and corner handle the edge.

And we stuff you for a 2 yard loss.


In the end, I have 7 against your 6 blockers (5 linemen and 1 TE...and chances are your TE is more of a pass catcher and not a great blocker).  All I need is one of my penetrators (backside DE, blitzing ILB, gap shooting NG) to beat his man to blow you up in the backfield.

[TheEnemy]

yes, a credible 3-4 still requires a two blocker anchor at the point of the defense, or it leaves itself very vulnerable to the running game, even from spread looks.

No, because with the spread offense you only have 5-6 blockers in the trench against 7 allowing a DC to stunt, blitze, and slant to overcome that.

The extra blocker in the Pro-style offense is what forces you to have to have that big NG because the offense is matching you with 6-7 blockers and can use a lead blocking fullback to help attack the A-gaps a pick off blitzng LBs.

[ErieHog]

No, because with the spread offense you only have 5-6 blockers in the trench against 7 allowing a DC to stunt, blitze, and slant to overcome that.

The extra blocker in the Pro-style offense is what forces you to have to have that big NG because the offense is matching you with 6-7 blockers and can use a lead blocking fullback to help attack the A-gaps a pick off blitzng LBs.

I disagree heartily;   you don't outnumber me at the point of the play, because of multiple reads that have to be made by linebackers with short/underneath/zone coverage responsibilities, or dropping ends -- and that also lets my OL get to the second level, particularly if you get caught in a stunt or your linebackers make the right read, but key on misdirection.
It is a recipe to get gouged on the ground.   

[TheEnemy]

I disagree heartily;   you don't outnumber me at the point of the play, because of multiple reads that have to be made by linebackers with short/underneath/zone coverage responsibilities, or dropping ends -- and that also lets my OL get to the second level, particularly if you get caught in a stunt or your linebackers make the right read, but key on misdirection.
It is a recipe to get gouged on the ground.   

Problem is:

1)  Your Oline doesn't know which of 3 down linemen are shooting gaps and which ones are playing two gap technique

2)  You also don't know what linebackers are run blitzing and who are read and reacting.

It only takes one guy slipping through to blow it up.


I can mix and match who is penetrating and who is reading and reacting all day long and give your O-line fits.

As long as you don't have that lead full back to help attack the A-gaps I can shut those gaps down strictly with stunts and blitzes.  I don't need a traditional NG to protect the middle. 

[ErieHog]

Problem is:

1)  Your Oline doesn't know which of 3 down linemen are shooting gaps and which ones are playing two gap technique

2)  You also don't know what linebackers are run blitzing and who are read and reacting.

It only takes one guy slipping through to blow it up.


I can mix and match who is penetrating and who is reading and reacting all day long and give your O-line fits.

As long as you don't have that lead full back to help attack the A-gaps I can shut those gaps down strictly with stunts and blitzes.  I don't need a traditional NG to protect the middle. 

You really do.   You are playing risk/reward run defense, in the hopes it will hold up well enough for teams to not try to run it consistently.

[TheEnemy]

You really do.   You are playing risk/reward run defense, in the hopes it will hold up well enough for teams to not try to run it consistently.

Dave Aranda thinks otherwise.

His defense at Wisconsin proves otherwise.

[ErieHog]

Dave Aranda thinks otherwise.

His defense at Wisconsin proves otherwise.

His defense at Wisconsin proves very little, other than that Big 10 offenses on the whole weren't very good.

For that matter, its just as easy to argue that a bad  3-4 team in a mediocre conference proves my point. 

Any system *can* work, if you have the right people and right opposition.    What's *most* likely to work, isn't the collegiate 3-4. 

[PorkRinds]

His defense at Wisconsin proves very little, other than that Big 10 offenses on the whole weren't very good.

For that matter, its just as easy to argue that a bad  3-4 team in a mediocre conference proves my point. 

Any system *can* work, if you have the right people and right opposition.    What's *most* likely to work, isn't the collegiate 3-4.

Heck we may have a job opening in a Couple years if the 3-4 CBB is installing is as bad as you seem to think it will be.  I give you my personal, porkrinds seal of approval as the guy for the job.

[TheEnemy]

His defense at Wisconsin proves very little, other than that Big 10 offenses on the whole weren't very good.

For that matter, its just as easy to argue that a bad  3-4 team in a mediocre conference proves my point. 

Any system *can* work, if you have the right people and right opposition.    What's *most* likely to work, isn't the collegiate 3-4.

We shall agree to disagree then

[menace_hawg3]

We will still run certain elements of the 4-3. Here is a quote from CBB:

"There will still be some four-down linemen packages. The 3-4 package I envision is more like some of the teams in our league play where it's a 3-4, but has the resemblance of a 4-3 scheme where an end stands up and his dive options are move available. We have a lot more options trying to bring pressure from strong, weak, boundary, field formation."

[gawntrail]

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.

There is no 'roster restructuring' in college.  That is an NFLism based on base O or D philosophy.  Bringing in free agent players under bonus heavy contracts while draftees and first contract players mature in the 'system(s)' is roster restructuring. 

We need to recruit players that fit our system(s). 

[ErieHog]

There is no 'roster restructuring' in college.  That is an NFLism based on base O or D philosophy.  Bringing in free agent players under bonus heavy contracts while draftees and first contract players mature in the 'system(s)' is roster restructuring. 

We need to recruit players that fit our system(s). 

There is always roster restructuring.    You do that through recruiting.

[Mike Irwin]

If you listen to the presser Bielema clearly states that Arkansas will employ multiple looks next season including the ability to drop down into a 4-3 if the situation warrants. He said also said that being inflexible came back to bite Arkansas several times this last season.

Combine what Bielema said with Robb Smith's statement last week that he and Bielema had philosophical differences it's not hard to see what's been going on. Smith was in love with the 4-3. Bielema wanted to present multiple looks or fronts.

[menace_hawg3]

If you listen to the presser Bielema clearly states that Arkansas will employ multiple looks next season including the ability to drop down into a 4-3 if the situation warrants. He said also said that being inflexible came back to bite Arkansas several times this last season.

Combine what Bielema said with Robb Smith's statement last week that he and Bielema had philosophical differences it's not hard to see what's been going on. Smith was in love with the 4-3. Bielema wanted to present multiple looks or fronts.

Big Mike!!! Good to see you posting again. I really enjoy reading your insights.

[hawgfan4life]

If jet sweep is so hard to stop because of all the variable plays off the action, I ask this:  Why aren't all offenses running it a large percentage of their plays?  If 3-4 defense is such an awesome defense, why aren't all defenses running it for their base scheme?

Man do we have a bunch of ignorant coaches in American football.

[bennyl08]

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.

Bit of an ironic post talking about others not really understanding. A 3-4 isn't simply standing up a DE and calling it a day. To illustrate this point, what are the two major advantages of a 3-4? You can get more speed on the field and you have opportunities for complexity and ability to confuse the offense. If you move a DE to LB, then you have exactly the same speed you had before with a 4-3 only that you are farther away from the ball. Okay, well, what about the complexity aspect? Well, if you have a DE standing up and playing OLB in a 3-4, then unless that DE can cover in the passing game, then the offense is going to know that he is only going to rush and aren't going to worry at all if he doesn't.

So, how many LB'ers have we had who can cover in the passing game? What are the odds you think that any of our DE's, after losing without a doubt the fastest and most athletic DE we had on our roster, will be remotely a threat in pass coverage? Sure, it is possible. However, finding a good OLB is significantly harder than finding a good qb, much less a great one. Side note, how many times have we had success with somebody getting pressure on the qb from a LB position?

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.

Ummm, if your NT is <315, he is too small. Your NT absolutely has to command at a minimum 2 OL players. In the power 5, you rarely ever see any OL player below 300 pounds. 290 is undersized for a DT in the 4-3, but is workable because being smaller and quicker can be an advantage. Penetration up the center can be very useful. If anybody on the DL is getting penetration in a 3-4, then something terribly wrong just happened and you are probably about to give up a big play. Maybe if the DT is 5'7, then being 290 would give the person enough strength to command a double team, but the ideal size for a Nose Tackle is at 340 pounds, not up to 340 pounds. You want your DT to be 320+. If they weigh 370 pounds, that's no issue so long as they have the lungs for it. You have the DE's right though. Though, the problem there is that we will be asking Agim NOT to ever penetrate the LoS. Basically, you want everybody on the DL to eat up double teams and nothing more. If you get penetration, then that is 2 OL players ready to block at the next level and DL players too heavy to try and keep contain or make the tackle unless they get very lucky. Their whole goal is to engage the entire OL so the LB'ers can make plays. The only time you might have them try and get penetration is if it is a passing down and you aren't afraid of the qb running.

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.

Nailed it as far as personnel. However, the problem there is that on Jackson is remotely large enough to be a 3-4 DT. We'll have to make due with Capps and Watts spelling him, as he has had trouble with conditioning. However, both of the backups are very small. Luckily they have the rest of the offseason to bulk up. Speed and quickness is not valuable at all for a NT. It is like having a qb who can kick a fg. May be cool if the NT has speed, but the only reason you wouldn't have them at 400 pounds is because they likely would tire too quickly. Size and strength are the only important things.

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

Agreed. These players are also at pretty good sizes for their spots, too.

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.

Beanum is no longer on the team for now. From the quotes, sounds like he would be welcome back if he finds himself in a position to take up football again, but for this season, he will not be a part of the team. Agree with Ramsey, Roesler, Taylor, AJB, and Fisher. Bell is a projection so can't really comment on that one way or another. Walker, IMO would be an inside backer. He is too slow and not athletic enough to play on the outside. Think of Ellis level athleticism. The one thing I saw him do really well in his HS tape is string out a play, and get off blockers to make a tackle. Therefore, I think ILB is his strongest suit, stopping the run. From there, I'd replace him with Greenlaw and Eugene. Greenlaw is an ideal WLB. He is one of the few LB's we have had that can cover the pass. He is light, fast and quick. Eugene I would also put on the outside, though I wouldn't complain with him on the inside either. He is pretty athletic and strong.

OLB is the most demanding of the 3-4 LB positions and is going to need the most substitutions. Ramsey is a pass rusher, not sure if he can do anything else yet. Roesler was one of our faster DE's, so by default, he moves to OLB in a 3-4, but he may only provide a run stopping presence. Wasn't much of a pass rusher at DE and it only becomes harder as a 3-4 OLB and I wouldn't bet money on him being good in pass coverage. That leaves us with Taylor who is by a wide margin our fastest returning DE but who we as fans at least know next to nothing about. He's a major wildcard. AJB is another in the Greenlaw mold who is very athletic.

Didn't mention Fisher yet, but he is basically your ideal (at least relative to the rest of our roster) OLB. Athletic and strong. His HS tape, unlike anybody else we have on our roster, shows an ability to be useful in the passing game as both a coverage guy and a pass rusher. Has good size and speed too.

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. 

See above for why IMO GL should not be a MLB for us. Hackett is transferring out. That leaves us with Harris and LaFrance as our two starters with Walker and J. Harris as the backups (by my projection). ILB's aren't asked to do much is pass coverage or pass rushing. They sit back in a zone most times in passing plays or come up and stop the run on run plays. As such, they would not need to sub out as much. However, that being said, Given the lack of depth here, I could see Eugene playing ILB, perhaps even starting over LaFrance as needed.

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?

I'm personally not sold on the 3-4 defense for our team, at least not yet. The players are much, much harder to find than a 4-3 defense (given that we have only 1 player with conditioning issues who can play NT, nobody as of yet who has shown they can be a Von Miller or a Justin Houston at OLB). Our main options right now are to try and force DE's to be LB's, but as I mentioned above, that eliminates any changes to the overall speed of the defense and if they can't cover a TE in pass coverage, then it completely negates any advantage of complexity.

Having said that, I do think the 16 class gave us a dearth of talent at the LB spot and having lost 4 of our DE's this season, DL becomes a weakness. Guys likes Agim, TJ Smith, and Dean are all right in that tweener spot on the DL. Don't think any of them are good enough to provide a speed rush on the outside like our previous guys (Wise, Flowers, Smith, Bequette, etc...), but they are also on the small side to play DT. They all have about the right size for a 3-4 DE and are very athletic, but athleticism isn't really a virtue for a 3-4 DL so I don't like the idea of just having Agim on the edge holding down a tackle and a TE and not ever being allowed to do something more.

[TheEnemy]

Ummm, if your NT is <315, he is too small. Your NT absolutely has to command at a minimum 2 OL players. In the power 5, you rarely ever see any OL player below 300 pounds. 290 is undersized for a DT in the 4-3, but is workable because being smaller and quicker can be an advantage. Penetration up the center can be very useful. If anybody on the DL is getting penetration in a 3-4, then something terribly wrong just happened and you are probably about to give up a big play. Maybe if the DT is 5'7, then being 290 would give the person enough strength to command a double team, but the ideal size for a Nose Tackle is at 340 pounds, not up to 340 pounds. You want your DT to be 320+. If they weigh 370 pounds, that's no issue so long as they have the lungs for it. You have the DE's right though. Though, the problem there is that we will be asking Agim NOT to ever penetrate the LoS. Basically, you want everybody on the DL to eat up double teams and nothing more. If you get penetration, then that is 2 OL players ready to block at the next level and DL players too heavy to try and keep contain or make the tackle unless they get very lucky. Their whole goal is to engage the entire OL so the LB'ers can make plays. The only time you might have them try and get penetration is if it is a passing down and you aren't afraid of the qb running.

I'm personally not sold on the 3-4 defense for our team, at least not yet. The players are much, much harder to find than a 4-3 defense (given that we have only 1 player with conditioning issues who can play NT, nobody as of yet who has shown they can be a Von Miller or a Justin Houston at OLB). Our main options right now are to try and force DE's to be LB's, but as I mentioned above, that eliminates any changes to the overall speed of the defense and if they can't cover a TE in pass coverage, then it completely negates any advantage of complexity.

again.  This is not true.

In a traditional 3-4 you needed great size at the NG.

But we are seeing DCs are starting to have success using smaller quicker NGs in 3-4 schemes utilizing stunts, schemes, and blitzes while creating different looks and sets.

And a guy doesn't have to weigh over 325 to require a double team.  Take a guy around 285-310 lbs that is explosive and can use his hands and you let him line up head up on the center and shoot the A-gaps and you can still force double teams.

The only time you have to have that traditional 3-4 NG is short yardage situations. 

[bennyl08]

again.  This is not true.

In a traditional 3-4 you needed great size at the NG.

But we are seeing DCs are starting to have success using smaller quicker NGs in 3-4 schemes utilizing stunts, schemes, and blitzes while creating different looks and sets.

And a guy doesn't have to weigh over 325 to require a double team.  Take a guy around 285-310 lbs that is explosive and can use his hands and you let him line up head up on the center and shoot the A-gaps and you can still force double teams.

The only time you have to have that traditional 3-4 NG is short yardage situations.

The number of players who command a double team on say 80+% of every snap they take and weight less than 315, I am going to guess you can count on one hand. Always hard in situations like this to make sure that people are talking about the same thing. For example, Philon when he was here was able to draw double teams and he weighed 280. However, I'd guess that he was only double teams for say 25-40% or snaps. Contrast that to somebody like a Mount Cody who was probably double teamed at least 85% of snaps.

Having said that, I will also admit when I am wrong and somebody else is right. I was definitely behind the times on the 3-4. I was familiar with the typical SEC 3-4 or the NE/Pit/Den 3-4. However, I have a lot to learn.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/defensive-line-techniques-the-prototypes/

http://www.afcaweekly.com/2015/08/one-gap-3-4-defense-keeps-offenses-on-their-heels/

The PFF link mentions the tradition 3-4 where Vince Wilfork is the prototypical player, but also the 1-gap 3-4 where a much much smaller player like a Jay Ratliff can be an NFL 3-4.

2nd link goes into a lot of really good detail (pretty dense and I have a lot more of the link I need to go through) describing this other variation of the 3-4 and how you can use it to have smaller DL players.

[TheEnemy]

+1 Benny

I just wanted to point out that it isn't a must to run the traditional version of a 3-4.

There are alternatives.

With that said the traditional style does allow you to be a little more conservative whereas that hybrid version you have to be more aggressive and rely on stunts, blitzes, etc...

[Youngsta71701]

If you listen to the presser Bielema clearly states that Arkansas will employ multiple looks next season including the ability to drop down into a 4-3 if the situation warrants. He said also said that being inflexible came back to bite Arkansas several times this last season.

Combine what Bielema said with Robb Smith's statement last week that he and Bielema had philosophical differences it's not hard to see what's been going on. Smith was in love with the 4-3. Bielema wanted to present multiple looks or fronts.

The 4-3 defense works a lot better if the DE's 1st priority is to contain the edge and never let any play get to the outside of them. Keep everything in the middle or in the pocket. The two DT's have to control both A and B gaps with help from the MLB in the run game. And always keep a linebacker or safety in the middle of the field no matter what scheme your running. Those were the main problems I seen with our defense this past season. The downfall started from upfront. Especially the run defense. If we fail to do those things in the 3-4 the results will still be the same. Except in the 3-4 the NT has to control both A gaps and the DE's have to control the B and C gaps. The OLB's in the 3-4 have to keep plays from getting to the outside.

[code red]

Most 3-4 teams do not exclusively stay in the 3-4.  I see real issues with us going to the 3-4.  Our LBs do not and have not had/made violent collisions at the LOS in over 2 years.  Now your gonna add more ineffective tacklers....that are undersized?  I see it making little to no change what so ever in the outcome of football games.

[Youngsta71701]

I can see it both ways. Personally I think the 4-3 is the best defense for us if we teach it and play it the correct way. But if we can't figure out how to teach and play it the correct way I guess we need to switch to the 3-4 and see if we can play it correctly. We need to figure something out. Can't keep doing the same thing.

To me the simple solution for us in the 4-3 would be to widen out our DE's and make sure they keep containment. That one simple adjustment would fix a lot of our problems upfront. Rule #1 to an effective run defense is to never let them out leverage you and get outside. Rule #1 to any good defense is to be able to stop the run first and force the offense into 3rd and longs. Make the offense one dimensional.

[code red]

I can see it both ways. Personally I think the 4-3 is the best defense for us if we teach it and play it the correct way. But if we can't figure out how to teach and play it the correct way I guess we need to switch to the 3-4 and see if we can play it correctly. We need to figure something out. Can't keep doing the same thing.

To me the simple solution for us in the 4-3 would be to widen out our DE's and make sure they keep containment. That one simple adjustment would fix a lot of our problems upfront. Rule #1 to an effective run defense is to never let them out leverage you and get outside. Rule #1 to any good defense is to be able to stop the run first and force the offense into 3rd and longs. Make the offense one dimensional.

A strength will have to be declared in a 3-4.  I didn't see our DE flipping a whole bunch with makes it easy to pick on the weak link esp vs. the field and boundary.  IDK fun to talk about but we need the studs first.

[Youngsta71701]

A strength will have to be declared in a 3-4.  I didn't see our DE flipping a whole bunch with makes it easy to pick on the weak link esp vs. the field and boundary.  IDK fun to talk about but we need the studs first.

I'm hoping we can get to the point where we don't have a weak link.

[PorkSoda]

the year USCe went to a 3-4 is the year DMAC put up 323 yards on them by himself.

[PorkRinds]

the year USCe went to a 3-4 is the year DMAC put up 323 yards on them by himself.

Luckily dmac plays in the pros now and not the sec.

[PorkSoda]

Luckily dmac plays in the pros now and not the sec.

lol, no doubt, but that game forever cemented the impression I have that the 3-4 sucks against the run.

as this year proved, if you can't stop the run, teams wont even bother to pass.

[GoHogs1091]

Trying to utilize a 3-4 without an elite Nose Guard and without an elite Inside Linebacker is a recipe for disaster.

There is a reason why Gary Gibbs' 1985 Oklahoma Sooners #1 ranked in the nation Total Defense had an All-American at Nose Guard (Tony Casillas) and had an All-American at Inside Linebacker (Brian Bosworth).

[PorkSoda]

lol elite players will make any scheme work better.

[Bebop]

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?