Seems like that too much of the time in the past we don't always have our best players (by position) on the field in this defense. We sub out a guy that is or was our best pass rusher or have guys that CANT play in space or do the things necessary to stop the run. :flushed::football:
Does the 3-4 allow this team to put its best players on the team?
- Thread starter Glenn Fohr
- Start date
The best players are on the field because this is a multiple defense. The issue is the best players on the team are all 2nd and 3rd year players this year. Ware was a RS FR playing one of the hardest positions in the toughest league. When Guys like Ware Allen Walker Laster get some seasoning we will start seeing there athleticism come threw in games more often.
I don't know UK's roster enough to have much input into the question. But with all the spread offense in college ball today, the multiple substitutions a DC better have a 3-4 scheme in his gameplan or there will be more receivers on the field than he can cover. The offenses are forcing defenses to get more athletic with the ability to play in space with the spread offenses. If you run a 4-3, you have 4 down guys who won't be very good in space and most 4-3 ILB or run stuffers and not great in space. With 4-5 guys going out, a couple taking the S deep, it leaves a big empty spot in the middle of the field for slots, TE or even a RB to be open. With a 3-4, your 2 OLB better be good in space and at least 1 of your ILB better be. You still send 4 every snap, but the offense doesn't know which 4 will be coming, so it gives you a little edge in the pass rush, plus it gets a more athletic defense on the field. As defenses get smaller and faster, I won't be surprised if offenses don't start moving to more power to take advantage of that. But right now, you have to recruit to play defense against spreads which means normally a 3-4 which allows you to have 8 athletic guys with the ability to run and play in space compared to a 4-3 that only allows you to have 6 guys who fit that mold unless your MLB is a freak.
As much as anything, the game of football is a "guessing game" between the OC and the DC. Regardless of his base scheme, the DC will sub in certain personnel packages based on the situation (i.e., down, distance, score, clock, scouting report, etc.). And that is why you often see some "strange" calls by the offense (e.g., run on 3rd and long; pass on 3rd and short, etc.). The only way a defense can minimize the use of such packages is to be overwhelmingly dominant with their base package players.
FWIW, IMHO, the best all around defense in terms of "adjusting without substitution" is the 4-2-5. The key here is having the 2 "outside safeties " that can both cover receivers and tackle runners.
Peace
We haven't had a lot of success running the 3-4 so far. Is our talent good enough now to be successful with it? I am for whatever gets us wins. I just want to see an attacking defense. We likely will never match up to a handful of the teams in the SEC, so I think a really aggressive defense with lots of blitzing would be best. Sure you are going to get beat occasionally, but we have very good players in the secondary to help out with blitzing and man to man coverage. We are never going to be able to play smash mouth football in my opinion.
We have barely enough experience and quality to field three down with some backup. That, to me is a big reason we don't use four down.
I like the 4-2-5, especially with McWilson play the "hybrid" safety/linebacker position.
Agreed on whatever gets us wins is what matters most. The defense actually blitzed quite a bit last season. They had to since CJ Johnson was the only effective pass-rusher.
I like it too. TCU runs a defense with coverage wrinkles that has been effective against spread offenses. It'd be hard to pull-off at UK at this moment though. TCU and Ole Miss are able to pull it off because they have great defensive linemen, and defensive backs that are strong, physical tacklers. That was not AJ Stamps strong suit.
The future looks bright at those positions though. I've long suspected one reason UK wants to recruit long DBs is for a hybrid safety/LB position. They did it with McWilson some last season, but only when they didn't feel threatened by the other teams passing attack (i.e. Missouri and Vandy).
When you recruit for a 3-4, you will have fewer DL than 4-3 teams do.
And who is the other one? [winking]
It takes TWO of those guys to play the scheme effectively. And they both have to be not just good players against the run and pass but smart players. Much of the defensive adjustments fall on their shoulders.
I was trying to "remember" how much UK blitzed last season. FWIW, I consider it a "blitz" when you bring more than 4 guys (JACK is going to rush on almost every passing down unless, for some reason, you want to drop 8).
I noted in some other threads this staff has slowly transitioned from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and there are considerable difference in the way the front 7 play. Furthermore, they have done this w/o a 3-4 guru on the staff. The 3-4 is more complex up front and it may take a staff of 4-3 guys a few years to fully understand the nuances and complexities of this scheme.
Peace