3-4 Defense front next year
- Thread starter sogocat
- Start date
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
It's not that easy to just switch to a 3-4. To do it effectively, you need to have the right players, and we really don't. Our Defensive ends and outside linebackers are not suited to play a 3-4 very effectively. Not big enough. A good 3-4 has big, run stuffing D-ends, and bigger, pass rushing outside linebackers. Our players just don't fit that scheme.
Linebacker depth isn't going to be THAT good--just good enough to finally be sufficient for a 4-3. And once recruiting is over, I think that you will see the DL as better than you expect. :biggrin:
Janny is right. In order to be successful in the 3-4 your outside linebackers better have the size and strength of a DE as well as the speed and agility to occasionally drop back in coverage. ISU historically (and currently) has undersized LB's that are more suited to a 4-3 scheme.
Agree with all of this plus a few more reasons not to try a switch in alignment. To play an effective 3-4, you need a dominant 2-gap nose to anchor the line. You should be at least 2 deep at this position and the current team probably doesn't have a single player who fits this profile. Another factor is that both WB and PR have proven that they can coach successful 4-3 defenses throughout their entire careers. It makes no sense to take them out of their element especially when the majority of high school defenses that they recruit talent from also plays a 4-3 style defense. Fortunately, the staff will continue to build on what they are doing and won't give a second thought to messing up the best thing that the team has going for it.
3-4 DEs are tall DTs in the 4-3 and we don't have anyone big enough to play NT. I agree about the LB's.. Knott and Klien in the middle, and lattimer at OLB. Not sure who the other one would be, but they are typically small 4-3 DEs.
All in all, not happening. Don't have the line to pull it off, and that is by far the most important part.
All in all, not happening. Don't have the line to pull it off, and that is by far the most important part.
Last edited:
It it not about depth it is about quality. The fewer players you have on the field at a certain position the better those players have to be. Maybe we should play a 5-2.
First off, we didn't really play a 3-4 persay against Mizzou, we played a Nickel with one of the ends dropping back into pass coverage against the snap, making it resemble more of a 3-3-5. Second, the reason why we "stuffed" the run against Mizzou with the 3-3 is because Mizzou hasn't been effective running the ball all season, something EVERYBODY knew going into the game anyway. Third, dropping 8 back into a pass coverage zone is how you keep Mizzou's spread passing in check - it causes confusion with the Mizzou QB as he can't decipher what's going on downfield, forcing him to dump the ball for shorter gains.
There is a reason why we used this against Mizzou - because Mizzou is susceptible to it. Mizzou can't run the ball and it helps limit their downfield passing game. If we were to try running a 3-3 Nickel against a team capable of running the ball, for instance, Nebraska or Iowa, our defense would get gashed for 5-10 yards a play MINIMUM because our front 7 has enough problems stopping a power run game in the 4-3 formation. They would be MURDERED in a 3-4. Perhaps it's a formation we can work towards 4-5 years from now by recruiting for it, but running a 3-4 set as our base defense starting next year wold be a BAD IDEA, especially if we want any hope of making a bowl next year.
But I just love how, if a particular defense worked against a particular team, all of a sudden we should run it all the time without pausing a moment to think about why that formation worked against that particular team...
There is a reason why we used this against Mizzou - because Mizzou is susceptible to it. Mizzou can't run the ball and it helps limit their downfield passing game. If we were to try running a 3-3 Nickel against a team capable of running the ball, for instance, Nebraska or Iowa, our defense would get gashed for 5-10 yards a play MINIMUM because our front 7 has enough problems stopping a power run game in the 4-3 formation. They would be MURDERED in a 3-4. Perhaps it's a formation we can work towards 4-5 years from now by recruiting for it, but running a 3-4 set as our base defense starting next year wold be a BAD IDEA, especially if we want any hope of making a bowl next year.
But I just love how, if a particular defense worked against a particular team, all of a sudden we should run it all the time without pausing a moment to think about why that formation worked against that particular team...
We may actually have some decent DE's next year. Hopefully Lattimer can keep progressing. Maggitt had some flashes this year. And and CPR and Wally have been talking up Nelson.
Plus, I wouldn't mess with our LB situation too much. Knott and Klein are clearly the strength of our defense, and we should use them in the best way possible. It sure seems like they are comfortable in the 4-3.
Plus, I wouldn't mess with our LB situation too much. Knott and Klein are clearly the strength of our defense, and we should use them in the best way possible. It sure seems like they are comfortable in the 4-3.
But just for fun this would be my guess.
Nelson/Maggit--Knott---Klien---Lattimer/Neal
------Lang/Jenson---Rump/Woods/Black---McDonough
Our DL would have to bulk up... especially at NT... you just need a big run stuffer who eats up multiple blockers... and our OLB's would need to work on quickness and be able to drop back in coverage at times...
Nelson/Maggit--Knott---Klien---Lattimer/Neal
------Lang/Jenson---Rump/Woods/Black---McDonough
Our DL would have to bulk up... especially at NT... you just need a big run stuffer who eats up multiple blockers... and our OLB's would need to work on quickness and be able to drop back in coverage at times...
Theres no way in hell we would turn to a 3-4. As said before the front three guys have to be run-stuffers and quite frankly we dont have many of those if not one. Secondly we are thin as it is at LB. I could see putting Rosie and Lattimer at LB but I just dont see it happening.
Actually you would need more linemen than LB's since in the 3-4 your OLB's are typically 4-3 DE's.. but we don't exactly have the Linemen either.
If someone really balloons up and we have a legit NT then we could pull it off... but unless Wally has some experience with it I'd assume just stick with what he does best.