4-3 or 3-4 Defense?

[thirtyseven]

Does anyone think that switching from the 3-4 to the 4-3 is a mistake like me?

Here are my reasons
1. Easier to recruit athletic LB than DT
2. More complex blitzing schemes
3. A 3-4 allows more speed on the field
4. We are deep at LB not at DT
5. Did I mention SPEED?

 

[ELKMT]

I am for the the switch to the 4-3. I agree with you that it is harder to get DT than LB but I disagree about getting speed on the field. Our problems in the past have been poor pass coverage. That is due to the lack of speed at LB. If you look at our LB this season they are all lighter and faster than in years past (exception being hendricks, but lewis, harris, knight, and Muahmad were all recruited as safeties.) In the 4-3 we put more speed on the field with our outside line backers which helps in coverage. It was frustrating last year watching Knapton try and cover te and wrs because he did not have the speed. Also remeber in recent years our safeties were forced to play ten yards off of their coverage in case a lb got beat by their man. That won't happen this year because of the speed at lb. If you watch the scrimmages our cb are playing up and will be allowed to bump on the line and move in front of passes, which will lead to more ints.

In a nutshell we are better off going with a 4-3 because it allows better speed on the field and allows better pass coverage. This helps in the pass happy mountain west, although recruiting DT may be a problem right now I expect DC will get recruiting quality players. (Purcell was a true frosh and beat out many of glenn's recruits for playing time). DE isn't a problem because in the 4-3 because we can recruit the same linebacker type that we recruited before in the 3-4.

 

[Stuck]

Good reading, Marcus. I like the analysis. I hope you are right. My hopes are that we are improved on offense and don't lose anything defensively this year.

 

[TheRealUW]

There are pros and cons to each defensive scheme, but the differences between the schemes call for different types of players at certain key positions. Based on our current personnel, I believe the 4-3 defense is the most appropriate defense for us at this time.

First off, in a 3-4 defense you need a BIG nose guard, as his job is essentially to plug up the middle and eat up blockers. If you look at our roster, we really only have one guy like that, JC transfer Sumter. Based on the fact that he has never played a down of D1 college football, I wouldn't feel very confident trusting him to do the job. Even if he was capable, we really have no other players to give him a break or take over for him in the case that he was injured.

Furthermore, the other two down lineman in a 3-4 defense are very similar to the types of players you would see playing DT in a 4-3 defense (think about how big both Fletcher and Unrein were). Now, this doesn't bode well for us as one of our thinnest and weakest positions on the team is that DT position.

Finally, the outside linebackers in a 3-4 are ideally exeptional athletes. The OLB's in the 3-4 are the primary pass rushers, so they have to be big enough to take on a offensive tackle, but they also must be nimble enough to drop into pass coverage. I don't really feel like we have anybody who fits that mold on the current roster. We do have some athletic LB's, but they don't possess the size necessary to be able to take an O-tackle on and win.

 

[fromolwyoming]

3-4-better at stopping the short-mid range passes. And unless you blitz a linebacker or 2, you're going to have a hard time putting pressure on the QB. Plus, when you blitz said LB(s), it opens up a space for the QB to throw to.

4-3-MUCH better pass rush that allows you to free up your line backers for coverage, don't need MASSIVE linemen to go up against twice as many O-linemen (can focus more on speed for the pass rush) and, when blitzing, it is easier to open up holes for the LBs to run through to get into the QB's face.

 

[WyoBrandX]

I hear we are going to run more man coverage from the 4-3 and rely less on zone coverages. Anyone else hear that?

 

[fromolwyoming]

I hear we are going to run more man coverage from the 4-3 and rely less on zone coverages. Anyone else hear that?

Yep. Was in the Boomerang the other day.

 

[Cornpoke]

I think a 4-3 certainly fits the talent we have. I think DC would rather run a 3-4 but you gotta play to your strengths. We also have the secondary to play a lot of man this year which I'm excited about.

My favorite scheme is the 3-3-5 as it's easier to recruit for and it the best against the spread offense. Gotta love NCAA on ps3

 

[Poke Around]

The 4-3 is purely DC's choice and it's what he wants to run. It's what he is familiar with and feels comfortable with. It's not a matter of how personnel fits, but rather how the man in charge wants to have his defense run. Nothing wrong with that but this was a choice, not something that was forced on DC by the talent level.

 

[Alysa]

It seems that the 3-4 is gaining more popularity for a few reasons that you already mentioned.
With all the big guys today it is strange that it is hard to find DT for a 4 man front.
I know the 3-4 is used to help put speed on the field and defend the pass etc.
My poor lil' ol' SMU uses the 3-4 for all the passing in the conference and the difficulty in finding DT.

I really like the 4-2-5. TCU uses a 4-2-5.

 

[fromolwyoming]

It seems that the 3-4 is gaining more popularity for a few reasons that you already mentioned.
With all the big guys today it is strange that it is hard to find DT for a 4 man front.
I know the 3-4 is used to help put speed on the field and defend the pass etc.
My poor lil' ol' SMU uses the 3-4 for all the passing in the conference and the difficulty in finding DT.

I really like the 4-2-5. TCU uses a 4-2-5.

Only problem I have with the 4-2-5, is that unless the LBs you have are burners, you'll have a hell of a time trying to stop the short pass or run (if the RB gets past the linemen).

 

[mrtnt3x]

It seems that the 3-4 is gaining more popularity for a few reasons that you already mentioned.
With all the big guys today it is strange that it is hard to find DT for a 4 man front.
I know the 3-4 is used to help put speed on the field and defend the pass etc.
My poor lil' ol' SMU uses the 3-4 for all the passing in the conference and the difficulty in finding DT.

I really like the 4-2-5. TCU uses a 4-2-5.

Only problem I have with the 4-2-5, is that unless the LBs you have are burners, you'll have a hell of a time trying to stop the short pass or run (if the RB gets past the linemen).

Our 4-3 is pretty much a 4-2-5 or base nickle in that Ghalli Muhammed was a DB coming out of high school, he has added some weight, can still fly, so more or less a glorified safety that plays closer to the line.