Wommack's schemes

G

GTJosh

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
53
A lot has been said over the last few months about what kind of offense PJ will bring to the flats, but does anyone know anything about new Defensive Coordinator Wommack's schemes?

I have heard that he does like to play aggressive and blitz, and looking at his best defenses from 2000 and 2001, they were tops in the country in a lot of categories.

Found some articles online that he likes to run 3-man fronts, but more importantly it seems that he adjusts to his personnel. Does anyone much more knowledgeable than me have any insight?
 
If he's a 3-4 kind of guy, then our recruiting will certainly help that kind of defense. Our incoming D linemen are huge. Maybe he moves M Johnson to OLB - wouldn't that be a riot.
 
I wouldn't look for too much to change from last year. 4-3 base with zone blitzes from the LBs. DE will probably spread out a little further to help their angles when rushing the passer. DBs will play both Man and Zone coverages. However, I doubt that we will live and die by the blitz like years past.

Nevertheless, I would not be totally shocked to see some 3-4 from Coach Wommack. MJ could pretty easily slide back to the 4th LB spot if he wanted to.
 
Initially I was going to attack the thought of sliding into a 3-4 because it requires different type players on the DL. But after thinking about it, Vance Walker could easily play DE and DRichard could easily handle the middle. It's not that bad an idea after all.
 
What I Expect

Based on comments by multiple coaches Wednesday, I expect us to mix up 3-4/4-3, and man/zone. I expect our defensive ends to do more pass rushing and less dropping back into coverage. The spacings of our front will also vary, and we will spread out our ends at times.

Giff & BJM are holdovers on defense, and Kelly is a holdover going to defense. Our defensive coaches know what we did last year, and know what they want to do differently. There's a lot of confidence there.

I think we have 4-3 personnel, but we are getting enough linebackers to play a 3-4 when we want.
 
We've only got 3 returning DT's in 09. Word is that neither Peters nor Morgan will be moved to DT.

So do we feel it's more important to have really good 270+ lb. DE's (which is awesome) than it is to have more than three returning scholarship DT's in 09?

If so it's not that much of a reach to think we might be moving towards a 3-4.

Especially given huge NG-sized TJ and JC, and as Techbert mentions the emphasis we are putting on LB recruiting.
 
Anything to mix it up some and maybe do something wacky like covering a TE will be a nice change of pace.
 
Re: 3-4

I believe we have proven repeatedly that we can recruit and develop good linebackers. Going to the 3-4 would be a good move particularly since we'd need less big tackles that we struggle to get.

But the 3-4 does not match up well against physical running teams and that is exactly the kind of teams that beat us right now. That makes me nervous.
 
Well, since nobody has said we're going to the 3-4 I guess that's a good thing?
 
Could college 3-4 teams have a rep for being worse against the run because they don't really have 3-4 personnel, but run it out of necessity?

Many 3-4's play one or the other OLB up in a 3-point most of the time, so you don't have fewer guys on the line. It's just that if you are using 4-3 personnel to play a 3-4 you are smaller and could get blown off the ball.

I watch and follow Alabama the most besides GT. Under Saban in 07 Bama went to a 3-4 because they didn't have enough defensive tackles. But they only went 260-280-260 on the D-line which made them 260-280-260-220 with a LB's hand down. Huge athletic MLB's helped them still have a pretty good rush D despite playing four of the top 16 rushing offenses plus Georgia and Auburn.

GT has a D-Line shortage in 09 similar to Bama's in 08, but we should have much better 3-4 personnel.

For GT a 4-3 in 09 would mean playing true frosh, moving Peters to DT and a LB or two to DE, and/or some form of magic.

But a 3-4 would only mean moving say Anderson to DE and we'd have much more ideal size than Bama's.

Assuming guys add another 5-10 pounds before then, we could be big enough and athletic enough to occupy all five OL's with three guys:

DT Barnes (330), Walls (295), Lanier (340)
DE Morgan (275), Peters (280), Egunbiwe (260), Anderson (280)
 
GoldenTornado said:
Assuming guys add another 5-10 pounds before then, we could be big enough and athletic enough to occupy all five OL's with three guys:

DT Barnes (330), Walls (295), Lanier (340)
DE Morgan (275), Peters (280), Egunbiwe (260), Anderson (280)
Click to expand...
A year early to consider JC . . . I'm sure ECI intends to use him during his senior year. :D
 
Fwiw

According to Kamaron Riley, CDW says no change in D.

http://www.macon.com/169/story/260415.html

It was a decision he made in June, but with the departure of head coach Chan Gailey and the arrival of new head coach Paul Johnson, Riley admitted that he thought about changing his mind.
"I thought about (changing) at first," Riley said. "But the defensive coordinator (Dave Wommack) assured me that there weren't going to be any changes in the way they run their defense."
 
I'm not a fan of the 3-4, because it's harder to find the linemen you need, but it appears like we might have the linemen to run it over the next few years, so I wouldn't mind a switch to it for a while.

I want schemes that get our best guys on the field.
 
ncjacket said:
No, you know what he's talking about and you are evidently in need a a pair.
Click to expand...
I guess I fail to see what growing a pair of b*lls would have to do with anything. First of all, I am well suited in that department and secondly if I or anyone else needed those in order to feel good about our coaching changes what would that say about those coahces and our team's chances next season? So, you see the argument is not a very good one. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you and he to develop a better vocabulary in order to intelligently discuss such topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top