So much for a 3-4

I know you're not advocating a 3-4 or anything, but Tech fans who want us to run a 3-4 are funny. They think that all you need for that scheme is a huge nose tackle, and since we have TJ Barnes (6'7, 330) then it's a no-brainer. But the 3-4 is more about linebackers than anything, and we don't have one linebacker who fits a 3-4. They've gotta be huge, practically NFL-size...which is why most colleges don't run it, because they don't have the personnel.
 
4-3 seems to have worked good for us over the years. Dont see a need in changing.
 
GTRulz said:
4-3 seems to have worked good for us over the years. Dont see a need in changing.
Click to expand...

especially given the number of hybrid players we have on the edge that could be a down lineman or play end; or switch between end & LB

this also means we can switch between various formations and really mess with the QBs
 
I'm not an advocate of any particular alignment. I just want us to run whatever gets our best players on the field. Speculation with losses was that we might switch to a 3-4 to do that. Now it's looking like 4-3, or nickel, might be our best alignments.

What about a 5-1-5? Does anyone run anything like that?
 
beej67 said:
What about a 5-1-5? Does anyone run anything like that?
Click to expand...

Several teams run a 4-2-5, where the "nickel" is really just a speedy linebacker or an oversized safety.

I would suggest that trading a linebacker or secondary guy for another lineman, even if he's someone who can play in a two-point or drop into coverage, probably isn't the best idea when we're in a conference that passes as much as the ACC.
 
I would suggest that trading a linebacker or secondary guy for another lineman, even if he's someone who can play in a two-point or drop into coverage, probably isn't the best idea when we're in a conference that passes as much as the ACC.
Click to expand...

A 5-1-5 would be a lot better at pass coverage than run stopping.
 
Ish said:
I know you're not advocating a 3-4 or anything, but Tech fans who want us to run a 3-4 are funny. They think that all you need for that scheme is a huge nose tackle....
Click to expand...

In addition to a big NT and big LB's, you forgot big DE's. Really my understanding is that 3-4 OLB's are 4-3 LB/DE "tweeners" and 3-4 DE's are 4-3 DE/DT "tweeners".

Both of which IMO we have in abundance. What we DON'T have next year is a very adequate backup nose-tackle, or enough true DT types to fill a depth chart. So we don't fit either scheme that well. The choice is to move some big DE's to DT, or to move some little DE's to LB. Why is one necessarily better than the other?

I'm cool with you thinking I'm funny, even though I'm not really an advocate. I just happen to think a nominal 3-4 is what we're headed for based both on recruiting and on what I've heard CPJ say on the air. Given that he said just a few weeks ago that "we might be in a 3-4", I think it's just kinda weird that anyone could think we definitely won't.

At any rate I think it's mostly semantics, which is what I think both CPJ and CDW would tell us. We were a hybrid 4-3/3-4 this year and will probably be next year.

If Hall usually has his hand down, we are a 4-3. If he swaps off at LB and pass rusher with AT Barnes on the other side, then we're a 3-4. That's about the size of the difference, from my "fan" point of view. That and what we happen to call the positions of the interior DL's.

I pretty much trust the coaches to make this decision. But I do think our roster going forward looks much more like a 3-4 than a 4-3. Two gigantic NT's, only one 280-300 pound DT type (Walls), and LOTS of 270 pound DT/DE tweeners and 250 pound DE/LB tweeners.
 
beej67 said:
A 5-1-5 would be a lot better at pass coverage than run stopping.
Click to expand...

pretty much equal to a 3-3-5, I guess.


If we have serviceable DT's, then we should probably stay with the 4-3. But, the 3-4 works in college. UVA has run it for years pretty successfully. If our personnell dictated it, then I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it. CPJ has said as much as well. I don't think our LB's are incapable of running the 3-4. In fact, I think they could be fine with it. I see Jefferson as and OLB and perhaps Barnes or Sylvester. I see Griffin and Jackson or again perhaps Sylvester as the inside guys. I just see Jefferson as more of an edge-setting OLB rather than a roaming MLB.

It'll be interesting to see where all these DE's end up, and the type of defense we will develop. Defense is still my main point of optimistic concern over the long haul.
 
GoldenTornado said:
In addition to a big NT and big LB's, you forgot big DE's. Really my understanding is that 3-4 OLB's are 4-3 LB/DE "tweeners" and 3-4 DE's are 4-3 DE/DT "tweeners".

Both of which IMO we have in abundance. What we DON'T have next year is a very adequate backup nose-tackle, or enough true DT types to fill a depth chart. So we don't fit either scheme that well. The choice is to move some big DE's to DT, or to move some little DE's to LB. Why is one necessarily better than the other?

I'm cool with you thinking I'm funny, even though I'm not really an advocate. I just happen to think a nominal 3-4 is what we're headed for based both on recruiting and on what I've heard CPJ say on the air. Given that he said just a few weeks ago that "we might be in a 3-4", I think it's just kinda weird that anyone could think we definitely won't.

At any rate I think it's mostly semantics, which is what I think both CPJ and CDW would tell us. We were a hybrid 4-3/3-4 this year and will probably be next year.

If Hall usually has his hand down, we are a 4-3. If he swaps off at LB and pass rusher with AT Barnes on the other side, then we're a 3-4. That's about the size of the difference, from my "fan" point of view. That and what we happen to call the positions of the interior DL's.

I pretty much trust the coaches to make this decision. But I do think our roster going forward looks much more like a 3-4 than a 4-3. Two gigantic NT's, only one 280-300 pound DT type (Walls), and LOTS of 270 pound DT/DE tweeners and 250 pound DE/LB tweeners.
Click to expand...

Great post. +1
 
I'd like to see us run a 10-0-1 with Morgan Burnett as the entire defensive backfield.

Seriously, the subtle difference between the play and line up escapes me. I remember when 3-4 was the trend and I watched Lawrence Taylor, an OLB, routinely go to the line and crash the backfield and sack QBs. I thought he didn't play much differently than a DE.

I am not old enough to remember before the 4-3 was in fashion, but I do remember Bobby Ross at Maryland running a 5-2 with a DL that matched up the OL with a noseguard over center.

I have also seen some teams run a 4-3 with a NT and no DE on one side. Gotta be disruptive for a center to have a NT in his face if the line splits are wide.
 
Jacket59 said:
If we have serviceable DT's, then we should probably stay with the 4-3. But, the 3-4 works in college. UVA has run it for years pretty successfully.
Click to expand...

Nick Saban has run a 3-4 very successfully in college as well.

Saban usually has four pass rushers. One of the OLB's will line up with his hand down making the defense on most plays indistinguishable from a shaded 4-3.

TJ Barnes, like Terence Cody, is most likely a two-gapper who is gonna be in a 0- or 1-technique whether the D is nominally a 3-4 or 4-3.
 
GoldenTornado said:
In addition to a big NT and big LB's, you forgot big DE's. Really my understanding is that 3-4 OLB's are 4-3 LB/DE "tweeners" and 3-4 DE's are 4-3 DE/DT "tweeners".

Both of which IMO we have in abundance. What we DON'T have next year is a very adequate backup nose-tackle, or enough true DT types to fill a depth chart. So we don't fit either scheme that well. The choice is to move some big DE's to DT, or to move some little DE's to LB. Why is one necessarily better than the other?

I'm cool with you thinking I'm funny, even though I'm not really an advocate. I just happen to think a nominal 3-4 is what we're headed for based both on recruiting and on what I've heard CPJ say on the air. Given that he said just a few weeks ago that "we might be in a 3-4", I think it's just kinda weird that anyone could think we definitely won't.

At any rate I think it's mostly semantics, which is what I think both CPJ and CDW would tell us. We were a hybrid 4-3/3-4 this year and will probably be next year.

If Hall usually has his hand down, we are a 4-3. If he swaps off at LB and pass rusher with AT Barnes on the other side, then we're a 3-4. That's about the size of the difference, from my "fan" point of view. That and what we happen to call the positions of the interior DL's.

I pretty much trust the coaches to make this decision. But I do think our roster going forward looks much more like a 3-4 than a 4-3. Two gigantic NT's, only one 280-300 pound DT type (Walls), and LOTS of 270 pound DT/DE tweeners and 250 pound DE/LB tweeners.
Click to expand...

Guys come on. We were never played a 3-4. We always ran our defense out of 4-3 scheme and base, with 4-3 read keys, but shifted personel around where yeah, we may have had only 3 down or rushed 3 and dropped an DE, or guys drop in zone blitzes or coverage...but don't confuse that for a 3-4 base. We lined up 4-3, and dropped a guy, that doesn't mean we played 3-4 keys, we played 4-3 keys and did that to confuse the D. BIG difference.

3-4 base is a radical change to the scheme we are learning now. Not to mention we don't have the personnel. You can't just look at size and weight and say we have the tweeners to run a 3-4. We don't...the guys we have today that would need to plan the OLB and MLB spots, are DE's and are not fast enough, comfortable to play in 2 point and make those reads and not shifty enough. We don't have the personnel. We have only two DL that can play in a 3-4 effectively and at most 1 LB, not to mention, I still don't see what advantage running a 3-4 has???? None IMO....and its harder to recruit the personnel needed to run it....

You also can't change from a 4-3 the guys are just now learning and shift to a 3-4 base in one year and expect results.

If we come out and run a 3-4 base next year. I will never post again. What PJ said was like he always says...heck preseason he said our best QB maybe on D and we will look at everyone...LOL...not one D player got a look at QB; yet everyone was posting around how burnett was going to get looks at QB...NEVER happened, same with Reese, not one snap; so just b/c PJ says it doesn't mean there is any truth. He says things...he is a coach; he peeks fan interest and likes to quip..dude has a personality. The closest we will see to a 3-4 will be like this year....4-3 base where we occasionally run a 3-3-5, or drop an end to confuse...

Now, Wommack has never run a 3-4 in his career either....add that to the equation

Although, I DO have to say....if you said we will move to a 3-3-5...I could believe that more. 1, wommack has run that in the past 2, its not the same as a 3-4 requiring cloggers and 2 gappers....3-3-5 is more of a speed defense, and over the past 5 years, including this year...we ran 3-3-5 in nickel and WHOLE bunch......i could see this!!!! But again...don't see any perceived benefit other than helping stop spread pass teams. But we have nickel to do that.

JUST My Opinion...doesn't make me right....but those are my thoughts on paper so to speak :)
 
GoldenTornado said:
In addition to a big NT and big LB's, you forgot big DE's. Really my understanding is that 3-4 OLB's are 4-3 LB/DE "tweeners" and 3-4 DE's are 4-3 DE/DT "tweeners".

Both of which IMO we have in abundance.
Click to expand...

What? Which roster are you looking at, ours or Nick Saban's?

Where are the huge defensive ends, or the huge/fast OLBs?
 
33jacket said:
3-4 base is a radical change to the scheme we are learning now. Not to mention we don't have the personnel.
Click to expand...

Well, CPJ and CDW both said we are a hybrid between 4-3 and 3-4. I guess that might've been coachspeak though. Just designed to entertain. Dudes have personalities. ;)

I still don't see what advantage running a 3-4 has???? None IMO....and its harder to recruit the personnel needed to run it....
Click to expand...

Right, got it. That must be why both Navy and GSU ran a 3-4 under CPJ: it was harder to recruit for and offered no other advantages! :rolleyes:

Now, Wommack has never run a 3-4 in his career either....add that to the
equation
Click to expand...

Well, Buddy Green ran a 4-3 under Amato at NCSU, then ran a 3-4 all six years at Navy. So I'm not sure that means anything.

As for Wommack's defenses -- check out:

http://d.scribd.com/docs/28tcoiybpb99lgvu7xh2.pdf

This here piece of virtual interwebs paper says that Dave Wommack's Nasty Bunch defenses at Southern Miss ran 4-3, 5-2 Okie and 3-4 Okie defenses. So they were hybrids, like he runs/will run at GT. They used a hybrid DL naming scheme with: DE, DT, NT and Bandit. The Bandit was basically an OLB in the Okie schemes, and a DE in the 4-3 schemes. The NT was head up on center in the Okie schemes, but not in the 4-3 schemes which varied but often found him in a 3-technique.

Anyway I feel that means pretty much epic fail on the "Dave Wommack != 3-4" angle.

I think people are taking this whole 3-4 vs. 4-3 thing WAY too seriously. It reminds me of the way so many folks went nuts at the idea of running the triple-option, though the differences here are WAY more subtle.

Personally I'm a contrarian and I like the idea of being perceived a little different than everyone else. Hell, I think that is the Georgia Tech way and it's one reason CPJ is such a fantastic fit for us, because he is nothing if not a stubborn contrarian and he clearly enjoys that status.

So I like the idea of nominally being a 3-4 team.

But it really doesn't matter. The coaches are gonna do what they're gonna do, it's gonna be whatever will win us the most games, and it isn't really gonna be a true 3-4 OR a true 4-3. We will vary between 3, 4 and 5 guys in a 3-point stance, and Barnes will be a two-gapper either head-up on the center or on his shoulder the majority of the time.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the decision to call it a "3-4" or a "4-3" for roster purposes primarily has to do with whether the coaches feel the hybrid "bandit end" position (in Wommack's Southern Miss parlance) should be fundamentally with the LB's or the DL's for position coaching purposes.
 
Ish said:
What? Which roster are you looking at, ours or Nick Saban's?

Where are the huge defensive ends, or the huge/fast OLBs?
Click to expand...

Three of our top four returning DL's are current underclassmen who weigh in the 270's. They are very big for college DE's.

We have a lot of younger DE's who are the size of 3-4 LB's. Are they fast enough to play OLB? Well probably not in the NFL. But we won't be running an NFL 3-4 because, you know, we're like, not an NFL team.

But however fast we are, is how fast we are. If we have 250 pound guys who aren't fast enough to play in a two-point stance, then I'm sure the coaches will take that into account when choosing scheme. But I bet they're faster and a LOT bigger than some of the guys CPJ had playing 3-4 OLB at Navy.

Finally -- it's pretty well proven that 230-240 pound guys can be very effective college 4-3 DE's. Gerris Wilkinson was one, and VT routinely plays guys that size at DE.
So why do you think an 3-4 OLB has to be bigger than a 4-3 DE has to be? That doesn't make sense. FWIW one of Nick Saban's starting OLB's is 230. One of Navy's was under 200, but that's another story.

Anyway if Bama is bigger and faster than us, which they probably are, then they are bigger and faster whether we call our D a 4-3 or a 3-4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top