RN Roundtable: 3-4 Defense, Outlook on the O-Line, Focus Areas for the Hogs

[Drew Amman]

How are the Hogs handling the transition to the 3-4?  What's the Depth Look Like on the O-Line? And
how is the tight end group progressing now that Jeremy Sprinkle is on to the NFL?
CLICK on nwahomepage.com for a recap from Spring Football

[RebelW]

Haven't had this much depth and talent at all positions in years. We will surprise folks with our defense

[Hogs run wild]

here's the link: http://www.nwahomepage.com/razorback-nation/rn-rountable-3-4-defense-outlook-on-the-o-line-some-of-the-focus-areas-for-the-hogs/702557473

[Al Boarland]

Haven't had this much depth and talent at all positions in years. We will surprise folks with our defense

The quality of depth isn't there yet.

[LZH]

Haven't had this much depth and talent at all positions in years. We will surprise folks with our defense

.....said everyone on Hogville since forever.

[Steef]

Haven't had this much depth and talent at all positions in years. We will surprise folks with our defense

I agree. If this defense works this year and stops our SEC brethren... i WILL be surprised.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I agree. If this defense works this year and stops our SEC brethren... i WILL be surprised.

I'm not expecting a dominant 3-4 defense right out of the chutes, but if we can just produce average numbers or slightly above, we will be in good shape.

[factchecker]

Good video of Coach Rhoads during defensive back meetings/film work.

Rhoads mic'd up starts at 1:19

http://www.secsports.com/video/19282569/micd-dc-paul-rhoads

[Steef]

I'm not expecting a dominant 3-4 defense right out of the chutes, but if we can just produce average numbers or slightly above, we will be in good shape.

My friend, I'm not really "expecting"....either way. I believe this year is the biggest question mark defensively...that i can remember...maybe ever.

Take one of the nation's worst defense from last year. Give them their third new DC in four years. Throw away everything they've been taught and implement an entirely new scheme (which i do like, btw), add in lack of depth at pretty much every position and a ten game stretch in our schedule with most of our hardest opponents being road games.

Its possible that by game 10, high schools could score on us, from sheer fatigue and depletion.

I think the changes will benefit us down the road. If you look at the depth chart, we dont lose many starters for 2018 and will have a better schedule.

But 2017 looks like an uphill climb to me, defensively. Even "average" may be difficult.

I hope I'm wrong.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

My friend, I'm not really "expecting"....either way. I believe this year is the biggest question mark defensively...that i can remember...maybe ever.

Take one of the nation's worst defense from last year. Give them their third new DC in four years. Throw away everything they've been taught and implement an entirely new scheme (which i do like, btw), add in lack of depth at pretty much every position and a ten game stretch in our schedule with most of our hardest opponents being road games.

Its possible that by game 10, high schools could score on us, from sheer fatigue and depletion.

I think the changes will benefit us down the road. If you look at the depth chart, we dont lose many starters for 2018 and will have a better schedule.

But 2017 looks like an uphill climb to me, defensively. Even "average" may be difficult.

I hope I'm wrong.

Here's the hope that I have. This scheme calls for fewer "checks" when they line up which should be less confusing (and apparently it is according to the players and staff) and will enable them to play faster without having to process so much from a mental standpoint prior to a play.

Also, what it seems that we have done many times in the past is to lay back, play soft and try to react after the snap of the ball. This type of defense calls for a more aggressive approach which I hope will pay dividends. What we played last year and before seemed to keep the defense on its heels a lot of the time and I don't think that is ever a good idea.

Finally, the 3-4 provides a multitude of options to the defense in terms of alignment and more importantly, "who" is going "where", which helps keep the offense honest and makes it more difficult for them to anticipate what the defense will do.

Those three things alone should help but in the end if tackling, pressure and coverage isn't improved this could just be a year that becomes another learning curve. We will find out which way this goes in time, but I do believe that we will be improved.

[Al Boarland]

Here's the hope that I have. This scheme calls for fewer "checks" when they line up which should be less confusing (and apparently it is according to the players and staff) and will enable them to play faster without having to process so much from a mental standpoint prior to a play.

Also, what it seems that we have done many times in the past is to lay back, play soft and try to react after the snap of the ball. This type of defense calls for a more aggressive approach which I hope will pay dividends. What we played last year and before seemed to keep the defense on its heels a lot of the time and I don't think that is ever a good idea.

Finally, the 3-4 provides a multitude of options to the defense in terms of alignment and more importantly, "who" is going "where", which helps keep the offense honest and makes it more difficult for them to anticipate what the defense will do.

Those three things alone should help but in the end if tackling, pressure and coverage isn't improved this could just be a year that becomes another learning curve. We will find out which way this goes in time, but I do believe that we will be improved.

I expect to see a lot of RPO's from our opponents this coming season.  This means a couple things as it relates to your post. 

1.  The checks will be an issue in that an RPO is designed to give false reads (see checks).
2.  If the there are three options in the RPO the defense is going to be reacting in that if they play the run the QB will just hit the pass play or keep it.  If they play the pass the QB is give it to the RB or keep it.  There is no right answer and the only thing that limits the RPO plays are lack of execution by the offense.  We still lack the talent to overcome any misreads.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I expect to see a lot of RPO's from our opponents this coming season.  This means a couple things as it relates to your post. 

1.  The checks will be an issue in that an RPO is designed to give false reads (see checks).
2.  If the there are three options in the RPO the defense is going to be reacting in that if they play the run the QB will just hit the pass play or keep it.  If they play the pass the QB is give it to the RB or keep it.  There is no right answer and the only thing that limits the RPO plays are lack of execution by the offense.  We still lack the talent to overcome any misreads.

You are assuming that the defense just lays back and reads and reacts as it has in the past. That is not what this 3-4 is about. It is designed to pressure the offense, just as the offense has pressured defenses in the past through RPO's. The defense isn't going to be right with their pressure all of the time but when they are, the idea is to disrupt the timing of a play, even RPO's. This should level the playing field to some extent with a more aggressive defense. More of a chess match. The defense won't always be right, but neither will the offense guess right all of the time. I'll take aggressive over laying back and reacting, every time and take the chances involved.

[Al Boarland]

You are assuming that the defense just lays back and reads and reacts as it has in the past. That is not what this 3-4 is about. It is designed to pressure the offense, just as the offense has pressured defenses in the past through RPO's. The defense isn't going to be right with their pressure all of the time but when they are, the idea is to disrupt the timing of a play, even RPO's. This should level the playing field to some extent with a more aggressive defense. More of a chess match. The defense won't always be right, but neither will the offense guess right all of the time. I'll take aggressive over laying back and reacting, every time and take the chances involved.

I like the idea of an aggressive defense, but I'm concerned about having the players to make impact plays.  The offense is potent, so it will be key for them to put up points because we are going to get burned.  It's just a matter of how much.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I like the idea of an aggressive defense, but I'm concerned about having the players to make impact plays.  The offense is potent, so it will be key for them to put up points because we are going to get burned.  It's just a matter of how much.

Playing more aggressively instead of laying back will likely allow fewer bigger plays to occur. That is what killed us last year.

[DeltaBoy]

I want us to play as well as we did with the Bermuda triangle in 2015.

[Al Boarland]

Playing more aggressively instead of laying back will likely allow fewer bigger plays to occur. That is what killed us last year.

I disagree.  Playing aggressively will allow for more explosive plays if the defense doesn't disrupt the play.  I think you are assuming that wanting to be aggressive means you will be successful.  That's not necessarily the case.  If the defense blitzes and the DB are running with the WR's.  Than the O can leak out a RB and gain a lot of yards.  If you send in the LB's you are leaving the middle of the field open for drag routes and shallow crossing routes.  Those are just a few examples.  If they don't get to the QB there are going to be issues.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I disagree.  Playing aggressively will allow for more explosive plays if the defense doesn't disrupt the play.  I think you are assuming that wanting to be aggressive means you will be successful.  That's not necessarily the case.  If the defense blitzes and the DB are running with the WR's.  Than the O can leak out a RB and gain a lot of yards.  If you send in the LB's you are leaving the middle of the field open for drag routes and shallow crossings.  Those are just a few examples.  If they don't get to the QB there are going to be issues.

As I said above, using an aggressive approach there may be times that the offense guesses right but there will also be times that the defense guesses right and stops the play for a loss or a short gain. In my experience aggressive is better and it doesn't allow the offense to dictate the outcome as it did so many times the last two years.

If you still disagree, watch some of these videos on the 3-4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47iHcktLGEk

[Steef]

Here's the hope that I have. This scheme calls for fewer "checks" when they line up which should be less confusing (and apparently it is according to the players and staff) and will enable them to play faster without having to process so much from a mental standpoint prior to a play.

Also, what it seems that we have done many times in the past is to lay back, play soft and try to react after the snap of the ball. This type of defense calls for a more aggressive approach which I hope will pay dividends. What we played last year and before seemed to keep the defense on its heels a lot of the time and I don't think that is ever a good idea.

Finally, the 3-4 provides a multitude of options to the defense in terms of alignment and more importantly, "who" is going "where", which helps keep the offense honest and makes it more difficult for them to anticipate what the defense will do.

Those three things alone should help but in the end if tackling, pressure and coverage isn't improved this could just be a year that becomes another learning curve. We will find out which way this goes in time, but I do believe that we will be improved.

Don't disagree.  Like I said, I like the 3-4. I also like aggressive attitude.

But it's a high energy-high risk scheme. Over penetrating is a common occurrence with inexperience. And this scheme requires rotating players...or your starters will run out of gas in the third quarter.

I fear we will see fourth quarter collapse. Last year, the collapse was team spirit. This year, the spirit is willing but the depth chart is weak.

And whoever scheduled us for 10 games straight, is a sadist.

[Al Boarland]

Don't disagree.  Like I said, I like the 3-4. I also like aggressive attitude.

But it's a high energy-high risk scheme. Over penetrating is a common occurrence with inexperience. And this scheme requires rotating players...or your starters will run out of gas in the third quarter.

I fear we will see fourth quarter collapse. Last year, the collapse was team spirit. This year, the spirit is willing but the depth chart is weak.

And whoever scheduled us for 10 games straight, is a sadist.

Well, roster depth is always going to be an issue.  I think MHF is just hoping the risk generates enough reward.  That and he just has a preference for the 3-4 for reasons he has stated.  My concern is we don't have the elite talent at the critical positions for the 3-4 to work.

[jkstock04]

Don't disagree.  Like I said, I like the 3-4. I also like aggressive attitude.

But it's a high energy-high risk scheme. Over penetrating is a common occurrence with inexperience. And this scheme requires rotating players...or your starters will run out of gas in the third quarter.

I fear we will see fourth quarter collapse. Last year, the collapse was team spirit. This year, the spirit is willing but the depth chart is weak.

And whoever scheduled us for 10 games straight, is a sadist.

According to some this is the deepest and strongest depth we have had since joining the SEC.

[bphi11ips]

After watching Saturday, I'm somewhere between Steef and Muskogee.  Muskogee, as a former player, will always be the eternal optimist and have the coach's back.  Nothing wrong with that.  Steef is usually pretty supportive of the coaches, too, but where the defense is concerned, he has been pretty realistic this year.  I agree there has never been as many question marks about the defense entering a season as there will be this year.  He did a good job of explaining why.

Having said that, I liked what I saw in terms of athleticism and aggressiveness from the back 8.  You have to temper that with the format of the drills and the defense's familiarity with the offense.  However, I don't think we'll see the holes in the middle of the defense we saw last year.  First, we have two linebackers in the middle watching the play develop.  Last year it looked at times like Ellis was guessing.  For some reason he seemed to guess wrong more often than he guessed right, leaving running lanes that led to more big plays than I can remember in any season.  Second, De'Jon Harris and Dre Greenlaw are simply much more athletic than Ellis.  Both of those guys will play on Sundays.  On the outside, Randy Ramsey was not highly rated or recruited out of high school, but his length and speed are beginning to show, as is his leadership and maturity.  If Jamario Bell can develop the same way, we could have a formidable starting group of linebackers.  On the back end, we now have some real experience.  Hopefully that will lead to better tackling and fewer big plays over the top.  Ryan Pulley can be a difference maker while the defense is feeling its way through the new scheme early in the season. 

Ironically, the biggest question marks now seem to be up front, especially where depth is concerned.  Agim and Jackson were two of the most highly recruited defensive lineman to ever come out of Arkansas.  For whatever reason, Jackson has not lived up to the billing, but he's now a senior with a lot of money at stake next year, and he is the prototypical 3-4 nose.  Agim showed flashes of brilliance last year as a freshman, but he lacked consistency.  You have to love his aggressiveness, and he might be better with some maturity.  He's also a tweener playing what is closer to tackle than end.  Austin Capps is a beast with potential to be a really good tackle, but we don't know much about him other than that he is a tremendous athlete.  Not sure what we have behind those guys, and they can't play 70 or 80 downs a game and win the battles in the trenches very often in the fourth quarter of SEC games.

We'll know a lot more about this defense after TCU and A&M.  TCU will bring the quick strike passing game, and A&M will bring the line and backs.  If we can get by those two, it could be a very good season, because by November this defense could be really good. 

[Al Boarland]

According to some this is the deepest and strongest depth we have had since joining the SEC.

It's possible.  I recall hearing that about the DL last season.  Personally, I don't think it's there at LB.  It may be better than it has been, but I don't think it's where it needs to be to see the kind of turnaround many are looking for.

[GuvHog]

Don't disagree.  Like I said, I like the 3-4. I also like aggressive attitude.

But it's a high energy-high risk scheme. Over penetrating is a common occurrence with inexperience. And this scheme requires rotating players...or your starters will run out of gas in the third quarter.

I fear we will see fourth quarter collapse. Last year, the collapse was team spirit. This year, the spirit is willing but the depth chart is weak.

And whoever scheduled us for 10 games straight, is a sadist.

If they were 10 straight difficult games I would agree with you. Fortunately though, in the middle of that 10 game stretch is a non-conference gimmie game against a lower division team that will allow the coaches to rest a lot of starters. That makes a BIG difference.

[jkstock04]

It's possible.  I recall hearing that about the DL last season.  Personally, I don't think it's there at LB.  It may be better than it has been, but I don't think it's where it needs to be to see the kind of turnaround many are looking for.

I think it's a bunch of BS that people say every year every coach. But it is noteworthy how some view us as having thin quality depth and others view this team as being the deepest it's ever been in the modern era of football.

I heard Bo Mattingly on the radio rave about it last year during the offseason. Running the 3-4 we had better have some quality depth at LB.

[Al Boarland]

I think it's a bunch of BS that people say every year every coach. But it is noteworthy how some view us as having thin quality depth and others view this team as being the deepest it's ever been in the modern era of football.

I heard Bo Mattingly on the radio rave about it last year during the offseason. Running the 3-4 we had better have some quality depth at LB.

I think some are looking at the number of bodies and have faith that they will be developed above what their recruiting rating and offer list indicate.  Just as I use talent to predict a season I tend to stay with where the recruiting services rate players or look at their offer list.  Who did that have offers from?  How hard did the programs that recruit at a high level go after them? 

Are there a few that play beyond their ranking?  Yes.  But, asking a program to do that with the number of players it would require to take a step forward is asking a lot.  There just aren't that many diamonds in the rough and no staff is that good at evaluating talent. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

After watching Saturday, I'm somewhere between Steef and Muskogee.  Muskogee, as a former player, will always be the eternal optimist and have the coach's back.  Nothing wrong with that.  Steef is usually pretty supportive of the coaches, too, but where the defense is concerned, he has been pretty realistic this year.  I agree there has never been as many question marks about the defense entering a season as there will be this year.  He did a good job of explaining why.

Having said that, I liked what I saw in terms of athleticism and aggressiveness from the back 8.  You have to temper that with the format of the drills and the defense's familiarity with the offense.  However, I don't think we'll see the holes in the middle of the defense we saw last year.  First, we have two linebackers in the middle watching the play develop.  Last year it looked at times like Ellis was guessing.  For some reason he seemed to guess wrong more often than he guessed right, leaving running lanes that led to more big plays than I can remember in any season.  Second, De'Jon Harris and Dre Greenlaw are simply much more athletic than Ellis.  Both of those guys will play on Sundays.  On the outside, Randy Ramsey was not highly rated or recruited out of high school, but his length and speed are beginning to show, as is his leadership and maturity.  If Jamario Bell can develop the same way, we could have a formidable starting group of linebackers.  On the back end, we now have some real experience.  Hopefully that will lead to better tackling and fewer big plays over the top.  Ryan Pulley can be a difference maker while the defense is feeling its way through the new scheme early in the season. 

Ironically, the biggest question marks now seem to be up front, especially where depth is concerned.  Agim and Jackson were two of the most highly recruited defensive lineman to ever come out of Arkansas.  For whatever reason, Jackson has not lived up to the billing, but he's now a senior with a lot of money at stake next year, and he is the prototypical 3-4 nose.  Agim showed flashes of brilliance last year as a freshman, but he lacked consistency.  You have to love his aggressiveness, and he might be better with some maturity.  He's also a tweener playing what is closer to tackle than end.  Austin Capps is a beast with potential to be a really good tackle, but we don't know much about him other than that he is a tremendous athlete.  Not sure what we have behind those guys, and they can't play 70 or 80 downs a game and win the battles in the trenches very often in the fourth quarter of SEC games.

We'll know a lot more about this defense after TCU and A&M.  TCU will bring the quick strike passing game, and A&M will bring the line and backs.  If we can get by those two, it could be a very good season, because by November this defense could be really good. 

Just to be clear, I don't expect this defense to turn it around and produce all-world results, especially this first year. What I do hope for is that the aggressive nature of this defense will produce more wins in individual battles at the LOS, both on runs and increased pressure on the offense when passing. That should take some amount of pressure off the LB's and Secondary in coverage where the opponent doesn't have all day to pick us apart.

Having said all of that, all that I am hoping for is an improvement to just average numbers this first year. How many more games would we have won last year if the defense had produced average numbers and the offense didn't feel that all of the pressure was on them to win the games?

As an example of this look at the 3rd and 4th quarter of the Alabama game LY. 2 INT's thrown in the 3rd and 1 in the 4th. That handed Alabama 14 points.

Vs. LSU we threw 2 INT's that handed them 14 points.

Vs. Missouri, we were inside their 10 twice , once in the 3rd once in the 4th and both times threw INT's to kill our drives.

Vs. Va Tech, two INT's thrown in the 3rd quarter and another in the 4th and all three turned into VT scores.

I believe that every single one of those were as a result of the offense (and AA) feeling like they had to put the game on their backs because they couldn't rely on the defense to hold up their end.

It is for those reasons that I think that if the defense can improve to just an average level of production that we will find ourselves an improved team over 2016. But I don't think it takes an optimistic viewpoint to come to that opinion.

[GuvHog]

Just to be clear, I don't expect this defense to turn it around and produce all-world results, especially this first year. What I do hope for is that the aggressive nature of this defense will produce more wins in individual battles at the LOS, both on runs and increased pressure on the offense when passing. That should take some amount of pressure off the LB's and Secondary in coverage where the opponent doesn't have all day to pick us apart.

Having said all of that, all that I am hoping for is an improvement to just average numbers this first year. How many more games would we have won last year if the defense had produced average numbers and the offense didn't feel that all of the pressure was on them to win the games?

As an example of this look at the 3rd and 4th quarter of the Alabama game LY. 2 INT's thrown in the 3rd and 1 in the 4th. That handed Alabama 14 points.

Vs. LSU we threw 2 INT's that handed them 14 points.

Vs. Missouri, we were inside their 10 twice , once in the 3rd once in the 4th and both times threw INT's to kill our drives.

Vs. Va Tech, two INT's thrown in the 3rd quarter and another in the 4th and all three turned into VT scores.

I believe that every single one of those were as a result of the offense (and AA) feeling like they had to put the game on their backs because they couldn't rely on the defense to hold up their end.

It is for those reasons that I think that if the defense can improve to just an average level of production that we will find ourselves an improved team over 2016. But I don't think it takes an optimistic viewpoint to come to that opinion.

It's hard for the defense to hold up their end when they were left on the field for most of the second half against Missouri and VTech. because the offense collapsed.

[LZH]

Playing more aggressively instead of laying back will likely allow fewer bigger plays to occur. That is what killed us last year.

I think it's fair to ask then why were we so successful in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember)?  They played the same scheme as we did last year and did pretty well, so I assume they could handle all the checks and reads without sacrificing speed to the ball.  And if that is the case, then are we changing the defense because we now have less talented players than we did then?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It's hard for the defense to hold up their end when they were left on the field for most of the second half against Missouri and VTech. because the offense collapsed.

Defense left on the field most of the second half? How many plays did Arkansas and Missouri run in that game Guv? Ark-85 Missouri-56

Now I'll grant you that the Va Tech game was a different story with us running 65 plays to their 78. And it was turnovers in our end of the field, 3 in the 3rd and 1 in the 4th that put the defense in a bad position (3 inside our 20 and another inside our 33) to defend, leading to 28 VT points that handed them the game. But again, I feel (JMO) that all of those occurred because the offense felt pressured to make things happen (forcing balls) to win the game instead of knowing that they had a defense that they could count on to hold up their end. You don't have to agree, but I have seen that happen before.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think it's fair to ask then why were we so successful in 2014 or 2015 (can't remember)?  They played the same scheme as we did last year and did pretty well, so I assume they could handle all the checks and reads without sacrificing speed to the ball.  And if that is the case, then are we changing the defense because we now have less talented players than we did then?

It was 2014, Robb Smith's 1st year. That's a good question but I think (as I recall) that it might have been because the front 7 were playing more aggressively at the LOS. We were just average in terms of TFL and less than average in Team Sacks (though I think we accumulated more later in the season than earlier) but overall, it turned out to be a good defense. A bigger question is, why did we get away from what made that defense better? Some will say it was the talent of Spaight, Flowers and Philon and they certainly made huge contributions, but that can't be all of it.

[LZH]

It was 2014, Robb Smith's 1st year. That's a good question but I think (as I recall) that it might have been because the front 7 were playing more aggressively at the LOS. We were just average in terms of TFL and less than average in Team Sacks (though I think we accumulated more later in the season than earlier) but overall, it turned out to be a good defense. A bigger question is, why did we get away from what made that defense better? Some will say it was the talent of Spaight, Flowers and Philon and they certainly made huge contributions, but that can't be all of it.

There are just things about BB's teams here that I just can't figure out, at all.  Just when you think you know what you're looking at or what to expect, then it seems to flip 180 degrees.  If I get teased for waffling, well duh.....damn good reasons sometimes.

I do like the move to the 3-4, even though I highly doubt we have the personnel to run it next year without seeing more defensive meltdowns.....but ya gotta start somewhere.  Question in my mind since January is: did Smith get worse as a coach, did BB not oversee the defense as much, were our players just not that good?......or was it all three?

[hawginbigd1]

I think some are looking at the number of bodies and have faith that they will be developed above what their recruiting rating and offer list indicate.  Just as I use talent to predict a season I tend to stay with where the recruiting services rate players or look at their offer list.  Who did that have offers from?  How hard did the programs that recruit at a high level go after them? 

Are there a few that play beyond their ranking?  Yes.  But, asking a program to do that with the number of players it would require to take a step forward is asking a lot.  There just aren't that many diamonds in the rough and no staff is that good at evaluating talent.

I think it's a bunch of BS that people say every year every coach. But it is noteworthy how some view us as having thin quality depth and others view this team as being the deepest it's ever been in the modern era of football.

I heard Bo Mattingly on the radio rave about it last year during the offseason. Running the 3-4 we had better have some quality depth at LB.

One only needs to look at the recruiting rankings for the past 5 years to see simply this is the most talented roster in the modern era of Hog football. Couple that with low attrition, and a plethora of 3* walk-ons and you have a very talented roster.

Are there a few question marks sure, but my personal evaluation is the talent depth is suited for this change. Depth behind Greenlaw, Ramsey, and Harris is unknown, but clearly talented based on recruiting rankings and the limited times I have had eyeballs on them. The Hog position is a big question mark for me, Roesler athletic enough to play it? Bell clearly is, but no experience. Does Taylor end up playing there part of the time? What about Gabe Richardson?

Assuming Greenlaw returns to form, LB play will be better than it has been since BB got here. simply because there are better athletes playing there, and I have seen enough to know they are better.

Biggest question mark for me is do we finally find a way to get adequate safety play out of the players that have been there, or does one of the newcomers take a spot or both. For 2 years our safety play has been anywhere from Horrible to Below average. You would think that at the very least that another year of experience would provide some improvement by itself.

I have said it all along, many will be surprised by the effectiveness of this new defense and the players in it, especially in the front 7.

[hawginbigd1]

It was 2014, Robb Smith's 1st year. That's a good question but I think (as I recall) that it might have been because the front 7 were playing more aggressively at the LOS. We were just average in terms of TFL and less than average in Team Sacks (though I think we accumulated more later in the season than earlier) but overall, it turned out to be a good defense. A bigger question is, why did we get away from what made that defense better? Some will say it was the talent of Spaight, Flowers and Philon and they certainly made huge contributions, but that can't be all of it.

I think it is simple, people focus on those 3 and don't remember or think about the play of Mitchell, Turner, and to some degree Gaines.

[GuvHog]

It was 2014, Robb Smith's 1st year. That's a good question but I think (as I recall) that it might have been because the front 7 were playing more aggressively at the LOS. We were just average in terms of TFL and less than average in Team Sacks (though I think we accumulated more later in the season than earlier) but overall, it turned out to be a good defense. A bigger question is, why did we get away from what made that defense better? Some will say it was the talent of Spaight, Flowers and Philon and they certainly made huge contributions, but that can't be all of it.

In my opinion the defensive recruiting during CBB's first 2 years was somewhat sub par and that's what led to the defensive problems the last 2 years. It seemed that the defensive recruiting did begin to improve starting in 2015 and I believe we'll see that become evident this coming season.

[LZH]

In my opinion the defensive recruiting during CBB's first 2 years was somewhat sub par and that's what led to the defensive problems the last 2 years. It seemed that the defensive recruiting did begin to improve starting in 2015 and I believe we'll see that become evident this coming season.

So you'd say Smith was fired because of a lull in recruiting?

[elksnort]

Ball control on offense is Arkansas' defense's best friend.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

There are just things about BB's teams here that I just can't figure out, at all.  Just when you think you know what you're looking at or what to expect, then it seems to flip 180 degrees.  If I get teased for waffling, well duh.....damn good reasons sometimes.

I do like the move to the 3-4, even though I highly doubt we have the personnel to run it next year without seeing more defensive meltdowns.....but ya gotta start somewhere.  Question in my mind since January is: did Smith get worse as a coach, did BB not oversee the defense as much, were our players just not that good?......or was it all three?

I may be totally wrong, but I think that there was some conflict between Smith and some of his assistant's about the focus of the scheme. I'll just say that Segrest's reputation for aggressive D-Linemen preceded him at Arkansas. More often than not, we didn't see that aggression being turned loose under Smith. And, I remember Bielema commenting after the season about how difficult this past season had been for Rhoads because of what he has been and done in the past, and I don't think that he was referring to having been a HC. The DB's have already commented about how much easier this defense is with 2 reads instead of having 4 in the 4-3.

And if we listen to the comments of the defense this spring, they seem a lot more fond of Rhoads approach than they were of Smith's. Just listen to them and you can read between the lines though they are guarded in their remarks.

[nchogg]

Last year we were not getting lined up. Players were too busy patting themselves on the back after they made a play. Just think how many times that happened in each game. I like what I have seen so far in the 3-4. I like the aggressive play because you will not see players not lined up when the ball is snapped.  :razorback:

[jkstock04]

One only needs to look at the recruiting rankings for the past 5 years to see simply this is the most talented roster in the modern era of Hog football. Couple that with low attrition, and a plethora of 3* walk-ons and you have a very talented roster.

If this is the case we should see a minimum of 8 wins/year from here on out. My biggest question mark is what the identity of this team will be. Are we going to be smash mouth and stout defense? Or continue on like last year as a passing team and try and outscore opponents with weak defense.

I agree with what someone said above. Slow ball control would be our best defense. Still mind boggling to me what a mess the O-line was last year. In my opinion Bielema needs to get back to ball control smash mouth football because that's what he knows best. Last year had to be fantasy world football for him...exact opposite of what he is about.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If this is the case we should see a minimum of 8 wins/year from here on out. My biggest question mark is what the identity of this team will be. Are we going to be smash mouth and stout defense? Or continue on like last year as a passing team and try and outscore opponents with weak defense.

I agree with what someone said above. Slow ball control would be our best defense. Still mind boggling to me what a mess the O-line was last year. In my opinion Bielema needs to get back to ball control smash mouth football because that's what he knows best. Last year had to be fantasy world football for him...exact opposite of what he is about.

Plays Vs. P-5 Opponents

                      O        D
TCU                72       90
A&M                82       59
Alabama           84       51
Ole Miss           83       70
Auburn             64       69
Florida              75        51
LSU                  55        67
Miss St             67        68
Missouri            85        56
Va Tech            65        78
                      732      659
                      73.2     65.9

[hawgmasta]

It was 2014, Robb Smith's 1st year. That's a good question but I think (as I recall) that it might have been because the front 7 were playing more aggressively at the LOS. We were just average in terms of TFL and less than average in Team Sacks (though I think we accumulated more later in the season than earlier) but overall, it turned out to be a good defense. A bigger question is, why did we get away from what made that defense better? Some will say it was the talent of Spaight, Flowers and Philon and they certainly made huge contributions, but that can't be all of it.

I often wonder the same thing, I mean all three of those guys are still on NFL rosters so they were definitely that talented. Maybe Smith being his first year as DC in the sec after only being a DC one year at Rutgers there wasn't enough tape on him for opposing coaches to figure him out. It sure seems the next few years with a talent drop off they had him figured out.

[Vantage 8 dude]

.....said everyone on Hogville since forever.

Well look at it this way: odds are sooner or later those who keep saying are likely to be right. So let's hope it's this year. Besides, optimism really doesn't cost a thing. 

[LZH]

Well look at it this way: odds are sooner or later those who keep saying are likely to be right. So let's hope it's this year. Besides, optimism really doesn't cost a thing. 

Ha!  Optimism?  Right after the spring game?  Am I on Hogville...?         

[Steef]

If they were 10 straight difficult games I would agree with you. Fortunately though, in the middle of that 10 game stretch is a non-conference gimmie game against a lower division team that will allow the coaches to rest a lot of starters. That makes a BIG difference.

We had three Hogs injured last year vs LaTech.

[theFlyingHog]

An aggressive defense works better for our overall philosophy which is controlling the ball and the clock, right? Either get in there and get stops and get off the field or give up a big play and....get off the field. We don't want our defense on the field as a rule of philosophy. IF we can make this work then questions of depth aren't very relevant.

Disclaimer: I am not worried about depth on defense.

[LZH]

An aggressive defense works better for our overall philosophy which is controlling the ball and the clock, right? Either get in there and get stops and get off the field or give up a big play and....get off the field. We don't want our defense on the field as a rule of philosophy. IF we can make this work then questions of depth aren't very relevant.

Disclaimer: I am not worried about depth on defense.

If you're gonna have a sure-fire quick-hit offense, then you need to concentrate the bulk of your quality depth on defense because they're gonna be on the field for so long.  Not saying our smash-mouth offense doesn't require a lot of depth on defense, but it's a different animal.  Problem is, I'm not sure about anything on defense right now....as in: starters.

[Vantage 8 dude]

Ha!  Optimism?  Right after the spring game?  Am I on Hogville...?         

I ALWAYS try to be optimistic no matter when. I figure one can either be positive, negative or somewhere in between. While being generally positive can have its downside when things don't work out, it still gives one a generally better feeling/outlook no matter what the outcome/circumstances.

[HF#1]

I'll wait and see. Still think we get murdered by teams with an average O-line.

[CFB_Fanatic]

According to some this is the deepest and strongest depth we have had since joining the SEC.

And those people would be wrong.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

And those people would be wrong.

Why?