OK, So quick question regarding 3-4

[majp51]

perhaps a dumb question, but if recruiting SEC talented LB's is a problem for this team, and historically that is true, why would moving to an alignment with an extra LB be a good idea? Or are we really looking at playing something more akin to a 3-3-5 because we have athletes or largish S that will be playing some sort of Hybrid LB?

[RebelW]

Lot of people don't want to admit it but we have been recruiting the LB position quite well the past 2 years. And one OLB is really a smaller quick twitch DE.. Puts more speed on the field

[lilRockNDubb]

We will see more 3-3-5 than 3-4

[bennyl08]

Scheme wise, my understanding is that we are looking to be multiple. Such that on a single drive, you may see 4-3, 4-2 (nickel), 3-4 (one gap), 3-4 (2 gap), or the 3-3.

To piggy back off of RebelW, 2017 we will have more depth at LB than we currently do on the DL. As for the OLB, it's a fair bit more complicated than he makes it. Or at least, ideally it is. For the OLB's, they are basically just DE's who are standing up, with one exception. They need to have looser hips than your typical pass rushing DE. That's because they need to be able to cover a TE in pass coverage as well.

The advantage of the 3-4 is in it's ability to be complex and confuse the offense. If you only have one OLB who is really a quick twitch DE, then that advantage is gone. Because in such a situation, the other LB'ers won't be much of a threat on a blitz and the glorified DE isn't a threat to stay back in pass coverage. Potential for confusion is zero. Sure, that one threat to pass rush has different options on what gap to hit, but that's true for a 4-3 as well.

Probably depends on what type of 3-4 you want to run, but the Broncos and Ravens both have two edge rushers at each OLB spot. This way, you won't neccessarily know which one, both, or neither will pass rush and they are both very dangerous pass rushers that must be taken into account .

[menace_hawg3]

Scheme wise, my understanding is that we are looking to be multiple. Such that on a single drive, you may see 4-3, 4-2 (nickel), 3-4 (one gap), 3-4 (2 gap), or the 3-3.

To piggy back off of RebelW, 2017 we will have more depth at LB than we currently do on the DL. As for the OLB, it's a fair bit more complicated than he makes it. Or at least, ideally it is. For the OLB's, they are basically just DE's who are standing up, with one exception. They need to have looser hips than your typical pass rushing DE. That's because they need to be able to cover a TE in pass coverage as well.

The advantage of the 3-4 is in it's ability to be complex and confuse the offense. If you only have one OLB who is really a quick twitch DE, then that advantage is gone. Because in such a situation, the other LB'ers won't be much of a threat on a blitz and the glorified DE isn't a threat to stay back in pass coverage. Potential for confusion is zero. Sure, that one threat to pass rush has different options on what gap to hit, but that's true for a 4-3 as well.

Probably depends on what type of 3-4 you want to run, but the Broncos and Ravens both have two edge rushers at each OLB spot. This way, you won't neccessarily know which one, both, or neither will pass rush and they are both very dangerous pass rushers that must be taken into account .

It really depends on what you want to do. Most college teams that I've watched Rush one OLB (the OLB who is more in the DE spectrum) nearly every time, while the SAM (who is closer to the LB spectrum), drops into coverage.

[tophawg19]

basically a 3- 4 is 3 big D_L guys , 2 LB guys and 2 tweeners which are easy to find . it's the big NG that is hard to find. Depth is critical because the DL guys get beat on and worn down.Also you may see a Hybrid SS/LB

[Deep Shoat]

If you really LOOK at our recruiting, this switch has been in the works since CBB's first season.  We've been recruiting 3-4 LB's and DE's.  We've tried several times to land a 3-4 NG. 

[menace_hawg3]

basically a 3- 4 is 3 big D_L guys , 2 LB guys and 2 tweeners which are easy to find . it's the big NG that is hard to find. Depth is critical because the DL guys get beat on and worn down.Also you may see a Hybrid SS/LB

That NT position is hard for every one to find---that includes Bama and several NFL teams. However, there are ways around that. Take a look at LSU or Wisconsin for instance, check out the sizes of the NTs, and you'll be surprised by what you find.

[code red]

Lot of people don't want to admit it but we have been recruiting the LB position quite well the past 2 years. And one OLB is really a smaller quick twitch DE.. Puts more speed on the field

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

[menace_hawg3]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

He never said it would. It could definitely improve if we just tackled better.

[majp51]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

Honestly we just don't know yet. If we really having been recruiting with an eye towards moving towards a 3-4 since year 2, that would mean last year could easily be explained as a result of unfortunate injuries, and being stuck in that in between state of not having quite enough 4-3 players to play the 4-3 effectively, and not enough 3-4 players to play it effectively either.

I'm not excusing the defense, just trying to be positive in the offseason.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

If it is true that we might present a series of varying defensive fronts and alignments that can range from a series of 3-4, 4-3, 4-2 or 5-2 alignments and we actually shift some after the opposing offense sets or does their "meerkat" thing, the defense could very well improve by just being less predictable in their alignment and of course, by tackling better. I'm going to choose to be more hopeful and not be as pessimistic at this point.

[woodrow hog call]

If it is true that we might present a series of varying defensive fronts and alignments that can range from a series of 3-4, 4-3, 4-2 or 5-2 alignments and we actually shift some after the opposing offense sets or does their "meerkat" thing, the defense could very well improve by just being less predictable in their alignment and of course, by tackling better. I'm going to choose to be more hopeful and not be as pessimistic at this point.

If we can disguise what we are doing and have some big stops at key times, it could make a nice difference in our W-L record. Think back to how many times we let teams convert on a critical 3rd and long last year. It would seem like the momentum was about to swing in our favor after a sack or lost yardage play on 2nd down, and then we give up 31 yards on a 3rd and 28, momentum right back to the offense and they go on to score.

[TheEnemy]

Add 2 more things.

1)  The 3-4 allows us to move the Rush LB around a little more to make it harder for teams to block him.

2)  Honestly, I think LBs would have played better in a 3-4 scheme this year.  We tried to put Brooks Ellis in a position where he was needed to play sideline to sideline or play man on a TE or Slot too often.

I didn't think that fit him.  In a defense, where he only had to come down hill and fill a gap in the interior of the run defense and in the 3-4 we could have schemed to have him mainly spying or dropping in a zone on pass defense would have set him up to be more successful.

[King Kong]

The DE/OLB will be more for inbetween guys that get over looked. To small to be a full time DE not fast enough to play is space as a full time LB. The flips side being the are faster than most DE off the edge and can be effective in coverage when the QB doesn't expect them to drop in coverage.

[Youngsta71701]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

A 3-4 is really a 5 man front in disguise. The standup OLB's are basically smaller, quicker and faster DE's.

[RebelW]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

Fella, I never said we would be, BUT I do believe we have a good chance to be significantly better. For that to happen we have to do 3 things. Be fundamentally sound in alignment, eyes, and dissecting a play before the sap. 2 tackling has to improve. 3 Coach Rhoads play calling has to be better than smith. Putting our players in the best position to succeed. Not be Vanilla. Blitz some. Change things up with new looks.

No sir just switching to a 3 front isn't going to help, but if we use the 3 front to our advantage to not be so predictable, yes we will be better

[King Kong]

And again...so what?  The defense will not significantly improve by going to a 3 front.

No. But it will improve by not continuing to run the same triangle alignment on every formation even after teams have figured it out

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

Hardest positions to recruit difference-makers (personal assessment):

1. OT
2. MLB (4-3)
3. QB
4. NT (3-4)
5. CB
6. S
7. X WR
8. DE (4-3)

Easiest positions to recruit difference-makers (personal assessment):

1. OG
2. RB
3. FB/H-BACK
4. Z WR
5. DE (3-4)
6. OLB (3-4)
7. MLB (3-4)
8. Slot WR

[onebadrubi]

The 3-4 alignment should help set an edge, which is something we majorly failed at this past season because our DE's either bit early on fakes or got swallowed up at the LOS and had no edge.  Which allowed the O line man to get to the second level and block LB'ers giving the RB open field into our secondary.

So to say the 3-4 will not help us at all is very premature and possibly agenda driven like a majority of post here.  So we must get the Olineman blocked at the LOS, not allow them to get to the second level (LB'ers) and allow the LB'ers to get in gaps and make tackles.  Also we failed miserably at our Dlineman getting off blocks. 

It was amazing the difference we saw for one game when BB said he forced some changed to be made on the D line, I believe that was the Florida game maybe?  But then after that game our D line went back to be swallowed up. 

The 3-4 we hope creates scheme'd advantages against Olines to free up our 4 LB'ers (some are not technically LB'ers like many are accustom too, some will be slightly small DE's or LB'ers who out grew the position to make plays.  In reality if it fails, we are in the same shoes we were in last year, th efront 7 getting swallowed up by 5 O lineman and possibly a FB and relying on the secondary to make tackles on guys faster and bigger than them, the mis match we pray for on the offesnive side of the ball.

[ErieHog]

The 3-4 alignment should help set an edge, which is something we majorly failed at this past season because our DE's either bit early on fakes or got swallowed up at the LOS and had no edge.  Which allowed the O line man to get to the second level and block LB'ers giving the RB open field into our secondary.

So to say the 3-4 will not help us at all is very premature and possibly agenda driven like a majority of post here.  So we must get the Olineman blocked at the LOS, not allow them to get to the second level (LB'ers) and allow the LB'ers to get in gaps and make tackles.  Also we failed miserably at our Dlineman getting off blocks. 

It was amazing the difference we saw for one game when BB said he forced some changed to be made on the D line, I believe that was the Florida game maybe?  But then after that game our D line went back to be swallowed up. 

The 3-4 we hope creates scheme'd advantages against Olines to free up our 4 LB'ers (some are not technically LB'ers like many are accustom too, some will be slightly small DE's or LB'ers who out grew the position to make plays.  In reality if it fails, we are in the same shoes we were in last year, th efront 7 getting swallowed up by 5 O lineman and possibly a FB and relying on the secondary to make tackles on guys faster and bigger than them, the mis match we pray for on the offesnive side of the ball.

To the contrary, the agenda driving is heavily from the 3-4 camp.

There are absolutely *no* guarantees that switching helps.  None.      What we do know, for certain, is that players have spent years learning and being recruited for a 4-3 system.     Playing it lefthanded for a few years is not an optimum recipe for success.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

To the contrary, the agenda driving is heavily from the 3-4 camp.

There are absolutely *no* guarantees that switching helps.  None.      What we do know, for certain, is that players have spent years learning and being recruited for a 4-3 system.     Playing it lefthanded for a few years is not an optimum recipe for success.

Erie, I'll just restate this from above, though I completely understand where you are coming from in terms of type of personnel that we have and who have a matriculated knowledge of the 4-3 that we have been running. However, I would submit that with the mere change to a different DC there are going to be things that have to be learned/re-learned because of the change in leadership. We were going to see some change anyway.

If it is true that we might present a series of varying defensive fronts and alignments that can range from a series of 3-4, 4-3, 4-2 or 5-2 alignments and we actually shift some after the opposing offense sets or does their "meerkat" thing, the defense could very well improve by just being less predictable in their alignment and of course, by tackling better. I'm going to choose to be more hopeful and not be as pessimistic at this point.

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

To the contrary, the agenda driving is heavily from the 3-4 camp.

There are absolutely *no* guarantees that switching helps.  None.      What we do know, for certain, is that players have spent years learning and being recruited for a 4-3 system.     Playing it lefthanded for a few years is not an optimum recipe for success.

The 4-3 alignment is not cutting it versus the spread. More teams are going 3-4, 5-2, 3-3-5, 5-4, "50", etc. to try and stop it. Good news for Arkansas is that they could not get any worse. Well, they could, but they won't.

[ErieHog]

Erie, I'll just restate this from above, though I completely understand where you are coming from in terms of type of personnel that we have and who have a matriculated knowledge of the 4-3 that we have been running. However, I would submit that with the mere change to a different DC there are going to be things that have to be learned/re-learned because of the change in leadership. We were going to see some change anyway.

Its going to be an uphill climb for the defense;  I get the logic of going all in on it,  instead of being tepid and trying to transition over time, but I don't feel its a good bet.

[ErieHog]

The 4-3 alignment is not cutting it versus the spread. More teams are going 3-4, 5-2, 3-3-5, 5-4, "50", etc. to try and stop it. Good news for Arkansas is that they could not get any worse. Well, they could, but they won't.

Things could absolutely get worse.    They shouldn't, but they easily could.

[menace_hawg3]

Things could absolutely get worse.    They shouldn't, but they easily could.

Well...I see it like this. Either it will work or it won't. I'm cautiously optimistic. However, the more research I do on it, the more optimistic I become.

[onebadrubi]

To the contrary, the agenda driving is heavily from the 3-4 camp.

There are absolutely *no* guarantees that switching helps.  None.      What we do know, for certain, is that players have spent years learning and being recruited for a 4-3 system.     Playing it lefthanded for a few years is not an optimum recipe for success.

Yes, so get pounded, continue to watch our DE's get swallowed up and the center and tackles get to the second level... Sounds like a great idea Erie. 

The 3-4 gets more speed on the field in the back 7.  It is possible it completely flops, but compare to this past year, I would wager a weeks income that the only way is go up with the 3-4.  Besides, I don't believe we are going to sell out and play only 3-4.  We are going to attempt to run some sort of hybrid system that fits out players better.  We are lacking a Flowers or that edge rusher that can really reak havoc.  We all thought Agim was going to be it but appears he is not of the fit for the 4-3 DE spot, he will much better fit a DE of the 3-4. We can't compete with LSU's D line talent on the 4-3 and that is what it takes to stop these option teams. 

Am I in the camp that says absolutely sellout for the 3-4?  No, not at all!  But put me in the camp that is tired of seeing the RPO and Malzahn offense eat us alive.  The 3-4 is an attempt to try and counteract them.  I'm all for trying it.

[onebadrubi]

Things could absolutely get worse.    They shouldn't, but they easily could.

No, it really can't get much worse than last year.

[ErieHog]

Yes, so get pounded, continue to watch our DE's get swallowed up and the center and tackles get to the second level... Sounds like a great idea Erie. 

The 3-4 gets more speed on the field in the back 7.  It is possible it completely flops, but compare to this past year, I would wager a weeks income that the only way is go up with the 3-4.  Besides, I don't believe we are going to sell out and play only 3-4.  We are going to attempt to run some sort of hybrid system that fits out players better.  We are lacking a Flowers or that edge rusher that can really reak havoc.  We all thought Agim was going to be it but appears he is not of the fit for the 4-3 DE spot, he will much better fit a DE of the 3-4. We can't compete with LSU's D line talent on the 4-3 and that is what it takes to stop these option teams. 

Am I in the camp that says absolutely sellout for the 3-4?  No, not at all!  But put me in the camp that is tired of seeing the RPO and Malzahn offense eat us alive.  The 3-4 is an attempt to try and counteract them.  I'm all for trying it.

A big part of this year was the inability to field a healthy set of quality ends.  There's not much reason to expect that would be the same this go around-- Wise essentially played half the year with one hand, and the same half year saw us without our best linebacker.

So, yeah,  there would be plenty of reason to not expect the same results next year without a defensive strategy shift.

And things can get *much* worse, easily.     About a third of college football was worse than us defensively last year-- and becoming a member of that tier is something that can happen in a heartbeat.

[onebadrubi]

A big part of this year was the inability to field a healthy set of quality ends.  There's not much reason to expect that would be the same this go around-- Wise essentially played half the year with one hand, and the same half year saw us without our best linebacker.

So, yeah,  there would be plenty of reason to not expect the same results next year without a defensive strategy shift.

And things can get *much* worse, easily.     About a third of college football was worse than us defensively last year-- and becoming a member of that tier is something that can happen in a heartbeat.

Wise is gone, so we are now using the same healthy ends we had when he wasn't healthy. 

Also, greenlaw is no match for fighting off a block from a center or OT.  Not a knock on him at all, as NFL lb'ers aren't either against an NFL OT or C. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

A big part of this year was the inability to field a healthy set of quality ends.  There's not much reason to expect that would be the same this go around-- Wise essentially played half the year with one hand, and the same half year saw us without our best linebacker.

So, yeah,  there would be plenty of reason to not expect the same results next year without a defensive strategy shift.

And things can get *much* worse, easily.     About a third of college football was worse than us defensively last year-- and becoming a member of that tier is something that can happen in a heartbeat.

If a 3-4 or some other version of that helps us become more of an attacking style of defense among our front 7, I'll be cautiously optimistic. I think that if the defense can learn where to be lined up on any particular call and know their assignments in the absence of confusion, that will be a huge step in the right direction. But as I stated above, we hurt ourselves repeatedly last year with poor tackling and if we can just find ourselves in the proper position and make tackles without giving up 3-5 extra yards each time, this will go a long, long way towards this defense being far more effective than last year, whether playing a 4-3, 3-4, 4-2, 5-2 or a 3-3. Back to fundamentals. Know your job, do your job, make a play when given the opportunity and don't miss tackles.

[bennyl08]

If a 3-4 or some other version of that helps us become more of an attacking style of defense among our front 7, I'll be cautiously optimistic. I think that if the defense can learn where to be lined up on any particular call and know their assignments in the absence of confusion, that will be a huge step in the right direction. But as I stated above, we hurt ourselves repeatedly last year with poor tackling and if we can just find ourselves in the proper position and make tackles without giving up 3-5 extra yards each time, this will go a long, long way towards this defense being far more effective than last year, whether playing a 4-3, 3-4, 4-2, 5-2 or a 3-3. Back to fundamentals. Know your job, do your job, make a play when given the opportunity and don't miss tackles.

This is my absolute biggest concern with a switch towards the 3-4. Lining up correctly and knowing your assignments becomes vastly harder to do in a 3-4 than it is under a 4-3. Maybe we have a coach this season that is more effective at teaching such things than before and thus the players will more easily be able to accomplish more difficult things. However, ability to teach the players and getting them to learn the fundamentals is scheme independent.

[ErieHog]

This is my absolute biggest concern with a switch towards the 3-4. Lining up correctly and knowing your assignments becomes vastly harder to do in a 3-4 than it is under a 4-3. Maybe we have a coach this season that is more effective at teaching such things than before and thus the players will more easily be able to accomplish more difficult things. However, ability to teach the players and getting them to learn the fundamentals is scheme independent.

The more aggressive you are, the more you open yourself to big plays.

We don't roll out overwhelming talent-- and making the fewest big mistakes possible is usually the most productive way for our units to defend.

[bennyl08]

The more aggressive you are, the more you open yourself to big plays.

We don't roll out overwhelming talent-- and making the fewest big mistakes possible is usually the most productive way for our units to defend.

Yep.

The main exception to that I'd have is if we went for a high paced offense. Then, hyper aggressive defense is the way to go, IMO. Who cares at that point if you give up an 80 yard td and some 30-50 yard pass plays. you'll say 3-4 turnovers a game, a timely couple of sacks, and your offense will force their offense to make mistakes while trying to keep up. Saints won a super bowl doing just that and Oregon has had some success with that philosophy as well. The big downside there is if your offense isn't able to get clicking (see Oregon vs Stanford). Now you have a defense that still gets turnovers, but suddenly giving up 30 points doesn't work so well if you aren't scoring 50.

For us, we have a pretty good offense most of the time. One that is good at holding on to the ball for long drives as well. I think we can afford to be more aggressive than the average defense, similar to what we did in 2014. Not a ton of blitzes, but some press coverage, jumping routes, actually trying to get pressure on the qb rather than just holding gaps. Of course, for that to work, you have to have some talent.

As you say, the more aggressive you are, the more potential for big mistakes. The more talent you have, the higher potential you have for players being able to cover when those mistakes inevitably happen. Corner gets beat trying to press, you have a safety who can get there and at least make the tackle. DT gets great penetration, but on the wrong side of the play, you have a LB good enough to get to the lost gap. I think we have more talent than many here realize. Further, you don't need to have talent everywhere to cover up aggressive mistakes. For example, say you have one good corner and one good safety. You have the other corner play not to get beat with the safety doing the same on one side while allowing your good corner to be more aggressive knowing he has help over the top. That was sort of the idea behind the bermuda triangle as well. We played it safe on half of the field but got aggressive and creative with Flowers, Spaight, and Philon.

[TheEnemy]

The problem with the fear that the more aggressive you are the more you open yourself up to big plays.....is that the spread offense is designed to pick apart bend but don't break defenses.

And we saw that last year.  If you don't have superior talent...the spread offense will dominate you. 

You have to mix it up and create mistakes and opportunities...not sit back and wait for them.

[LZH]

To the contrary, the agenda driving is heavily from the 3-4 camp.

There are absolutely *no* guarantees that switching helps.  None.      What we do know, for certain, is that players have spent years learning and being recruited for a 4-3 system.     Playing it lefthanded for a few years is not an optimum recipe for success.

Agreed. If PR is good at coaching a 3-4 defense, then of course we have to start somewhere. But I have a problem with this idea of getting more speed on the field. What speed? We are the slowest team in the SEC West. It's hard for me to imagine this transition not taking two or three years to work. If so, it may well seal BB's fate.

[ErieHog]

The problem with the fear that the more aggressive you are the more you open yourself up to big plays.....is that the spread offense is designed to pick apart bend but don't break defenses.

And we saw that last year.  If you don't have superior talent...the spread offense will dominate you. 

You have to mix it up and create mistakes and opportunities...not sit back and wait for them.

You can't scheme your way out of being untalented;  you don't have to be more talented to run base D effectively against spreads-- but neither can you be flat out crushed talent wise, which we have been defensively, while playing with our best talent either hurt or limited.

[bennyl08]

You can't scheme your way out of being untalented;  you don't have to be more talented to run base D effectively against spreads-- but neither can you be flat out crushed talent wise, which we have been defensively, while playing with our best talent either hurt or limited.

Disagree, at least to an extent. If your DL is killing my OL, I can use than. Run some draw plays and screen plays to use your superior physical skills to my schematic advantage. Where the "to an extent" comes into play is if you coached your defense well to stay in their lanes and not chase the ball.

On defense, if the OL is bigger and stronger than you, you can scheme to be faster and more unpredictable. You won't win any matchups one on one, but you can get them to mis-read their block or have a missed assignment and thus get some pressure that way. Again, unless you have coached them up top notch. Only way to win is with a combination of superior coaching, talent, and desire. Most teams are similar in the third category so typically it boils down to coaching and talent. If the WR's are burning you with speed and the qb is getting the ball out too quickly for you to get any pressure, you jam the receivers and throw them off of their routes. If the receiver receivers are both faster AND stronger than you, then yeah, you are screwed. There's only so much you can overcome. But yes, you can overcome talent deficiencies if the coaching/scheme is superior enough to compensate.

[tophawg19]

talent wasn't our problem. . Overthinking and knowing what to do was .We had speed but was too slow reacting . A 1/2 step slow while reading will get you beat. We have ran some 3/4 in situations in the past so it's not a new concept for the kids . Especially those who have been scout team players . We have the skill to do the job .

[ErieHog]

talent wasn't our problem. . Overthinking and knowing what to do was .We had speed but was too slow reacting . A 1/2 step slow while reading will get you beat. We have ran some 3/4 in situations in the past so it's not a new concept for the kids . Especially those who have been scout team players . We have the skill to do the job .

Health killed us last year.    You can't become half as effective at two or three positions and not see it cascade through the entire defense.

[tophawg19]

what really hurt us was a D/c that couldn't put a game plan together to fit our talent

[ErieHog]

what really hurt us was a D/c that couldn't put a game plan together to fit our talent

You can only put so much lipstick on a pig--- its still a pig.   When your defense loses or has all of its difference makers neutralized before the ball is even snapped, you aren't going to do much good no matter what you do.