After watching this team for four games, especially against the option, it is apparent that we need some out of the box thinking. I posted this on the rivals site, but I'm hopeful someone like Moose might have the ear of someone close enough to plant a seed.
I know this is basically a high school D, but IMO, we need to go to the 5-2 against these option teams. We could put three large bodies in the middle and put Deuce and Blair on the outside. Lord knows it would turn two great middle backers loose. Our corners are good enough to play man on these option teams and that would eliminate the surprise throw on occasion. Our free safety could play centerfiled and we could take the strong safety and utilize him in any way we want. I really think this could be the answer to so many issues facing our D, especially against the option teams. It is a simple defense to install and could easily be done in a week. The surprise aspect wouldn't hurt either.
Great coaches coach to their team's strength and certainly away from it's weaknesses.
Just my two cents, but something drastic needs to happen in the way of change.

Where do you suppose we get the lineman to run this style of defense? We have 17 defensive lineman now and a large portion of them are freshmen. The 3-4 allows us to utilize fewer DL which in turn allows us to red shirt them.

AppSt94 wrote:The 3-4 allows us to utilize fewer DL which in turn allows us to red shirt them.

Common misconception. You need more DL for a 3-4 than a 4-3.

4-3 has two defensive tackles and two defensive ends. The 3-4 uses a nose tackle and two defensive tackles.

Need two DL per snap for a base 4-3 and 3 DL per snap in a base 3-4... one of whom should be a massive wall of human flesh.




And, to the OP-- you can easily switch to a 5-2 look out of a 3-4 by walking your outside linebackers up to the line of scrimmage -- called the 3-4 Okie. Alabama does this quite often... as well as most 3-4 teams, including us.

Saturday, because of the scheme or fear, we had no run support on there motion to a sweep. When we did force the ball inside.....there was no inside help.

skjellyfetti wrote:

AppSt94 wrote:The 3-4 allows us to utilize fewer DL which in turn allows us to red shirt them.

Common misconception. You need more DL for a 3-4 than a 4-3.

4-3 has two defensive tackles and two defensive ends. The 3-4 uses a nose tackle and two defensive tackles.

Need two DL per snap for a base 4-3 and 3 DL per snap in a base 3-4... one of whom should be a massive wall of human flesh.




And, to the OP-- you can easily switch to a 5-2 look out of a 3-4 by walking your outside linebackers up to the line of scrimmage -- called the 3-4 Okie. Alabama does this quite often... as well as most 3-4 teams, including us.

Thanks for explaining my misconception.

I have to disagree on needing more DL. A true 3-4 has a NT and 2 DEs. The problem is finding a true (300+) NT and large (285+) and quick DEs who look more like 4-3 DTs. The NTs on App's roster fit the mold of 4-3 DTs. The DEs need to be big enough to take on blocks but quick enough to shoot the gaps. I know Woody wanted the guys to lose weight but I thought Blair was the perfect size as a 3-4 DE and I felt Duece could've put on a few more pounds. The coaches could partially steal skjelly's idea and play Bronson at NT, Burns and Blair at DE/DT and move Duece to rush OLB. Based on the personnel, I think the team is more suited for a 4-3.

moonshine wrote:I have to disagree on needing more DL. A true 3-4 has a NT and 2 DEs. The problem is finding a true (300+) NT and large (285+) and quick DEs who look more like 4-3 DTs. The NTs on App's roster fit the mold of 4-3 DTs. The DEs need to be big enough to take on blocks but quick enough to shoot the gaps. I know Woody wanted the guys to lose weight but I thought Blair was the perfect size as a 3-4 DE and I felt Duece could've put on a few more pounds. The coaches could partially steal skjelly's idea and play Bronson at NT, Burns and Blair at DE/DT and move Duece to rush OLB. Based on the personnel, I think the team is more suited for a 4-3.

I agree with you. I think we all need to remember that this is the first year running the 3-4 in a transition year and it will take at least a year to adapt the personell to the system. I do believe most of what we are doing is with an eye toward next year and the future which doesn't always translate to the best performance for this year. (For the record I don't personally like the 3-4 for a college team but no one asked me and Coach Woody knows a little more about football than I do).

As far as the poster that said a 5-2 would work best against the option, if you just move the 2 outside backers up to the line of scrimmage then you basically have a 5-2.

I would like to see man coverage or at least match-up man in your zone, we leave too many open spots in zone.