So much for a 3-4

[BerryGT]

interesting debate. only thing i'd point out is maybe some are using the size of players that are still recruits or freshmen and calling them tweeners but they'll probably bulk up by junior year and won't be tweeners any more. just a thought.

 

[Jacket59]

Hehehehe. Now if someone were to advocate a 30-stack base D, then we could really get a good defensive alignment argument going, huh 59? ;) :rolleyes:

Wanted to make sure you knew that my post was just a humorous response to beej's 5-1-5 comment (which I'm sure was mostly in jest as well). I think you are agreeing with my humor there, but just wanted to clarify and make sure you didn't think I was equating the 3-3-5 to the 3-4 we've been debating about.

I'm in complete agreement with your posts throughout this thread.

 

[Jacket59]

The semantics of the 3-4 vs. the 4-3 are being blown out of proportion imo. It doesn't matter what base personnell group you have out there, you can line up anywhere you want. With our 4-3 base, our alignment was mostly a 5-2 with the SAM lined up on the LOS over the TE. The 5-2 is essentially the same as the 3-4 with 2 LB's walked up closer to the LOS.

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY real difference in a 3-4 and 4-3 is swapping a DL for an LB. And the debate and CPJ's comments were spawned by the real concern over quality DT depth next year.

Whatever base personnell you have out there, defense is still about gap control and responsibilities. In either defense, your gonna have both DL's and LB's whose primary responsibility is the A, B, C, or D gap. If they can do it in a 4-3, then they can do it in a 3-4.

My primary reason for liking the idea of the 3-4 is that, like CPJ's offense, it differentiates us slightly in recruiting and preparation. I think there is a huge abundance of DE/LB hybrids available for recruiting. We can get those guys better than anybody around us if we run a 3-4 and can say we run what the NFL runs (doesn't really matter, but could be a perception advantage). I know of several personally from my coaching days that would be perfect 'tweeners like that. Think about Darryl Roberson, Michael Johnson, Eric Henderson, Phillip Wheeler, Key Fox, Gerris Wilkerson .... All of those guys could've been great at DE or LB and have played both positions at some point in their careers.

Think about Adamm Oliver, Joe Anoai, Mansfield Wrotto, Eric Henderson again, those guys would be good as 3-4 DE's. The one position that would be a little different would be the nose and it really doesn't have to be that different. You don't have to have a Terrence Cody to be successful in the 3-4. Barnes and Lanier seem to fit that position perfectly, just based on size. Walls could probably do it. Vance and Richard could've done it fine. Both of those guys would've been fine at nose or DE I think.

4-3 or 3-4 can be successful with our players if it gets good coaching.

I loved Tenuta's 4-3 because it wasn't conventional. It differentiated us in recruiting and preparation. I still think that's what will be most successful at Tech, and why CPJ is the perfect fit here.

 

[GoldenTornado]

interesting debate. only thing i'd point out is maybe some are using the size of players that are still recruits or freshmen and calling them tweeners but they'll probably bulk up by junior year and won't be tweeners any more. just a thought.

Thanks Berry.

This is all guesswork, for sure!

My guess is that neither Wilson nor any of our 2009 DE commits will grow into 290 pound 4-3 DT types. That's one of the principal reasons I see us in more of a 3-4 type scheme. With the loss of Drew, we are only gonna have three guys total who wouldn't be very undersized as 4-3 DT's. And two of those three guys are gigantic two-gap nose tackle types.

I see Cross as a 275 pound guy like Peters and Morgan, who could play 3-4 DE.

The other four young DE's, we would just have to see how much they grow and how well they run.

 

[GoldenTornado]

I think you are agreeing with my humor there, but just wanted to clarify and make sure you didn't think I was equating the 3-3-5 to the 3-4 we've been debating about.

Thanks 59. I did get it and we are definitely on the same page up and down the line. And I agree this is a great thread. It's fun to get into the nuts and bolts of football from time to time, even if most of us have no business doing it! :p

Didja read the scribd article I linked? It's pretty informative about Wommack's defensive philosophies and I'm curious what you think, as you sound pretty expert unlike me. I just learn from books, articles, and my football coach brother.

As you pointed out about the 50-front look we've used, I think we've we've definitely seen a good bit of odd front defense. In my limited understanding this is the exact opposite of a 4-3. Agreed?

I could not agree more about the contrarian nature of defensive recruiting for a 3-4 matching up really well with our contrarian offensive recruiting. And I think this is the direction PJ's natural personality and philosophies would lean.

As long as we can find a few big NT types, then we could afford to recruit DE/DT and LB/DE "tweeners" that aren't as ideal for most 4-3 schools. And we have in fact done that quite a lot this year. I see this as a huge advantage for us.

Finally, what big-name school have we competed with the most for defensive recruits under CPJ? In my opinion, Alabama. Hmmm.......

I remember there were two DE/TE guys that we tried to get in on late, both kinda "tweeners". Billingsley and Williams. Billingsley is on their DC as a 3-4 DE at 275 pounds.

 

[GTRules]

5 DL commits so far. Hot damn.

Michael Jordon didn't worry about defense, we shouldn't either.

 

[Jacket59]

Thanks 59. I did get it and we are definitely on the same page up and down the line. And I agree this is a great thread. It's fun to get into the nuts and bolts of football from time to time, even if most of us have no business doing it! :p

Didja read the scribd article I linked? It's pretty informative about Wommack's defensive philosophies and I'm curious what you think, as you sound pretty expert unlike me. I just learn from books, articles, and my football coach brother.

As you pointed out about the 50-front look we've used, I think we've we've definitely seen a good bit of odd front defense. In my limited understanding this is the exact opposite of a 4-3. Agreed?

I could not agree more about the contrarian nature of defensive recruiting for a 3-4 matching up really well with our contrarian offensive recruiting. And I think this is the direction PJ's natural personality and philosophies would lean.

As long as we can find a few big NT types, then we could afford to recruit DE/DT and LB/DE "tweeners" that aren't as ideal for most 4-3 schools. And we have in fact done that quite a lot this year. I see this as a huge advantage for us.

Finally, what big-name school have we competed with the most for defensive recruits under CPJ? In my opinion, Alabama. Hmmm.......

I remember there were two DE/TE guys that we tried to get in on late, both kinda "tweeners". Billingsley and Williams. Billingsley is on their DC as a 3-4 DE at 275 pounds.

I enjoy this kind of message board discussion immensely. This is actually talking "football". :D

Yes, the 50 defense is the opposite of the 4-3 as far as odd and even front. That's really the biggest subtle difference in the 4 man front vs the 3 man front. For an even (4) man front, you really need a fantastic middle LB to have great success. For the odd man front, no single LB has to be ultra great, but having a very good middle DL (ie nose) is needed. Of course you can do things to accomodate a lack for both defenses and Tenuta scheme did this well, but he had very good to fantastic MLB's in Smith, Wilkinson, and Wheeler. I think that was a big source of our struggles this year was that we had pretty good players as LB's but no fantastic MLB. Of course that MLB needs a good running mate in the 50 front we ran so much of, which we also had (Fox, Reis, Hall, and Guyton). I think we had another good one of those this year in Griffin.

We had a good defense this year. But you have to wonder what kind of struggles we would've had without the fantastic front 4 we had. That's what we're all wondering about for next year.

In football, defense, and life, there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat. We've just got to find the best way to fit us for the most longterm success.

I didn't have time to read your link about Wommack, but I definitely plan to (tomorrow hopefully). I'm looking forward to finding out more about him. I give him kudos for the job he did this year, but I'm still a little reserved in believing in him fully. I did believe in Tenuta for many reasons already stated. Hopefully Wommack will be successful longterm here.

 

[H-town]

I loved Tenuta's 4-3 because it wasn't conventional. It differentiated us in recruiting and preparation. I still think that's what will be most successful at Tech, and why CPJ is the perfect fit here.

I never was a fan of Tenuta's 4-3. A 3 step drop and a slant route beat us every time.

 

[GoldenTornado]

I didn't have time to read your link about Wommack, but I definitely plan to (tomorrow hopefully). I'm looking forward to finding out more about him. I give him kudos for the job he did this year, but I'm still a little reserved in believing in him fully. I did believe in Tenuta for many reasons already stated. Hopefully Wommack will be successful longterm here.

59, I don't have your coaching experience, but as a numbers junkie I can tell you one very underrated thing Wommack clearly has over Tenuta: he consistently generates a very high number of turnovers, and his track record is getting long enough to eliminate dumb luck as a big factor.

If GT gets one turnover against LSU then CDW will have produced a stellar 30 takeaways in four out of six seasons as a DC. Tenuta's best season ever at GT or UNC was 28 turnovers. So already CDW has now produced more takeways in four of his six seasons than Tenuta ever did in 7 seasons as an ACC DC.

I could be imagining it, but our guys seem to work much harder at stripping the ball than in past years, especially in run defense. Occasionally this means giving up a few more yards due to not always just concentrating on wrapping up. But, like Tenuta's blitzing, it seems to be a risk-reward type of emphasis. You can afford a few missed tackles for 10 more yards, if it also means a half dozen more turnovers on the season.

And I don't think too many people would question that our DB coaching has looked much improved this year, especially considering how often we had two true freshmen on the field.

I definitely share everyone's concerns about the D-line. But two things that make me feel better are the fact that we rotated the DL backups in more than any other position, and the numerous glowing reports about TJ Barnes.

 

[BuzzCzar]

I never was a fan of Tenuta's 4-3. A 3 step drop and a slant route beat us every time.

likely b/c 2 of the 3 LB were on their way to the QB along with a safety leaving us with noone to cover the short routes... not really accurate, but you get the idea

TENUTA NOT SCARED, TENUTA BLITZ!!!