K-Time and the 4-3 defense

[Tskware]

K-Time, you have been adamant about switching to the 4-3. You are one of the better posters on here, so tell us who would play in what position if we switched to a 4-3 next season? And would it make a difference?

I will make some educated guesses myself:

Eli Brown and Jordan Jones at OLB, Kash Daniel at MLB (have no opinion about potential backups, Kobie Walker would be one, I suppose, if he ever gets healthy)

DE: Denzil Ware, Love (moves from MLB), Allen (has to put on a lot of weight though to play every down), Laster, Kengara Daniel

DT: Middleton and Pringle are the starters, then Miggins, Elam, Dubose, et al

 

[Kingseve1]

We would be able to put more pressure on QB with this alignment. the only time we've ever stopped the run is with great DTs and equally good lbers

 

[Chimaera717]

To be honest, Jones' pursuit speed and motor is so good, despite him not yet taking good angles all the time, that he might be a solid option at MLB in the 4-3. That being said, I think with another year of speed training and learning defensive alignment, Kash will be too good to keep off the field.

Love is a senior, so he's not going to be switching positions (or playing for us at all) next year. Ware/Allen/Kengara/Laster/hopefully one of the big time DE's we're after would be the rotation there, and I think we all agree that Ware and Allen can be complete stars.

And remember, we're going to be getting back a stud run safety in Darius West, so we'll be able to play a lot more aggressively in the box than we currently are (I don't think *anyone* would argue that our current safeties are good at coming up against the run).

That being said, there's almost no chance of us switching to the 4-3 because Stoops will not fire his buddy Eliot, so it's all rather moot. If Mitch forces his hand, maybe.

 

[TBCat]

I don't think the 3-4 is connected to Eliot at all. Stoops has been pushing it. I also don't see anything that is broke now that will be fixed by going to a 4-3. The 3-4 is becoming more popular these days and will probably become the standard defense at some point.

 

[Chimaera717]

I don't think the 3-4 is connected to Eliot at all. Stoops has been pushing it. I also don't see anything that is broke now that will be fixed by going to a 4-3. The 3-4 is becoming more popular these days and will probably become the standard defense at some point.

The problem with the 3-4, as UK currently runs it, is that it requires a nose tackle to take up two blockers on every play or you're almost always outnumbered at the line of scrimmage. And we don't have a nose tackle who is capable of doing that well. When every opposing run play ends up with guards freely pulling onto our linebackers, that's how you end up gashed for 8 yards a carry. The 4-3 gives us a better opportunity to make plays at the point of attack with our current personnel. IF UK were to recruit a nose tackle who can do more than stand still and push outwards with his arms, perhaps this changes.

 

[gamecockcat]

I think I'd consider a hybrid 4-3 (or some other configuration that is unique). 2 big DTs in the middle and then 5 230-260 lb guys who are hybrid DL/LB types. We obviously can't recruit enough good DL to consistently field a good front-4 with depth so I say - quit trying. We can surely get 4-6 pretty good ones for the DT position. We've been pretty good at recruiting LBs and we shouldn't have too much trouble having 10 on the roster who can play decently. We'll be undersized but our speed will be much better. Add in an aggressive scheme (no more of the 'read and react', please) and we could fashion a defense that could be competitive. What we're doing now is not working and is just plain embarrassing. Joshua Dobbs is an average QB and he has looked like the Heisman winner four years in a row. We consistently make mediocre QBs look awesome. When every play works just exactly how it's drawn up, I guess it's easy to look great.

Think I might reconsider the huge CB emphasis, too. Their height only affects maybe 2-3 plays a game. Their inability/unwillingness to press cover a WR affects about 30 plays a game. Maybe a 5'-11" CB with half a step more speed would be better than a 6'-4" CB who gives up 10 yards of cushion on every play.

 

[Mr Schwump]

K-Time, you have been adamant about switching to the 4-3. You are one of the better posters on here, so tell us who would play in what position if we switched to a 4-3 next season? And would it make a difference?

I will make some educated guesses myself:

Eli Brown and Jordan Jones at OLB, Kash Daniel at MLB (have no opinion about potential backups, Kobie Walker would be one, I suppose, if he ever gets healthy)

DE: Denzil Ware, Love (moves from MLB), Allen (has to put on a lot of weight though to play every down), Laster, Kengara Daniel

DT: Middleton and Pringle are the starters, then Miggins, Elam, Dubose, et al

Walker's too small to play MLB. Love will stay (if he lacks speed to play MLB he sue as hell lacks speed to play DE. He's too small for DE anyway), Firios would be a back up as would RS fr Walder.

Figure Bell and TJ Carter at DE. JUCO Hoskins could figure too.

Miggins is a senior. RSs Looney/Cross could figure. UK will sign at least one more JUCO DT, probably 2 more.

Fun to speculate but doubtful Stoops abandons the 3-4.

 

[tntuk]

To be honest, Jones' pursuit speed and motor is so good, despite him not yet taking good angles all the time, that he might be a solid option at MLB in the 4-3. That being said, I think with another year of speed training and learning defensive alignment, Kash will be too good to keep off the field.

Love is a senior, so he's not going to be switching positions (or playing for us at all) next year. Ware/Allen/Kengara/Laster/hopefully one of the big time DE's we're after would be the rotation there, and I think we all agree that Ware and Allen can be complete stars.

And remember, we're going to be getting back a stud run safety in Darius West, so we'll be able to play a lot more aggressively in the box than we currently are (I don't think *anyone* would argue that our current safeties are good at coming up against the run).

That being said, there's almost no chance of us switching to the 4-3 because Stoops will not fire his buddy Eliot, so it's all rather moot. If Mitch forces his hand, maybe.

Love is a junior.

 

[anon_7tbtqcx308nxh]

UK is not switching to the 4-3. Too many spread offenses. UK will be 3-3-5 before 4-3 in the next five years as more Big 12 offenses infiltrate the SEC. Baylor's offense at Missouri is a harbinger for things to come.

 

[Chimaera717]

Love is a junior.

Wait, really? I could've sworn he transferred as a redshirt sophomore. My bad!

 

[tntuk]

Wait, really? I could've sworn he transferred as a redshirt sophomore. My bad!

Yeah - he and Hart will both be back next year.

 

[WildCard]

Not K-Time and I look forward to his response. Meanwhile, I'll offer some general "scheme" thoughts and let others fill in the names.

> A 3-4/5-2 front has the same basic problem as a 4-3 front when playing spread formation offenses (which is almost everybody these days). Somebody has to come out of the front 7 to get a 5th DB on the field to play against 4 wide sets. For this reason I have increasingly liked the 4-2-5 scheme as your entire system is "built" around a 5 DB concept (and yes, the 2 "outside safeties" have to be pretty special "hybrid DB/LB" type players). However, my opinion is not shared by many coaches as the basic 4-2-5 is still a relatively unused scheme despite the prolific use of nickel adjustments to 7 man fronts in today's game.

> A 3 down front really requires 3 DT type players (i.e., no down lineman plays wider than a 4 technique) and DT is probably the hardest position to recruit because, regardless of scheme, everyone needs/wants big men that can run. OTOH, a 4-3 front requires a 1 tech and 3 tech DTs and can play "smaller" guys at the DE positions, especially the weak side (or "rush" end) position.

FWIW, a 3 man front does not demand an oversized DT at NT but you still need players of legitimate DT size. For all the talk about "occupying 2 blockers" today's blocking schemes simply do not do that much if at all.

> In 4 down schemes the DEs are typically aligned in a wide 9 tech (W/S DE) and a 6 tech (S/S DE). They are the primary pass rushers. In this alignment the DEs have no real gap responsibility against the run but must spill all wide running plays horizontally until a hard edge is set, usually by a DB.

> The common 4-3 variants (Over and Under) do not change the DT responsibilities (i.e., 1 and 3 techs) but do move them from one side to the other. The SAM backer moves up on the LOS as a stand up DE on the strong side (7 tech). Over/Under does not impact the W/S DE (still in a wide 9 tech) but may push the S/S DE into a 5 tech and gap responsibility for the S/S C gap.

Line 'em up!

Peace

 

[K_TIME]

If you have ever argued our 3-4 issues are more about talent...watch this youtube clip of UT/UK highlights. I think the way we teach the 3-4 is a huge disaster. And I could find clip after clip of how UK DL are taught to play.



Go to the 1:20 mark and watch our DE/DT...then go to the 2:01 mark and watch our DE/DT....then go to 2:16 mark (this one is especially hilarious to watch our DE/DT and Elam)...then go to 2:55 mark at watch Miggins actually make his first move away from the QB trying to control the outside gap...but it was a pass play so we intentionally didn't rush Dobbs blindside....this is how our DL is taught to play on every play by Stoops/Elliot/Brumbaugh with exception of obvious passing downs when we go to a 4-3 (Ware, Miggins, Bell and Allen).

In the end...we need our DL (no matter the talent level) to attack the LOS and stop this chicken fighting with OL crap. I am not an expert in gap control but this is why we never generate negative plays on defense...we simply aren't taught to attack the LOS with exception of Jordan Jones on occasional blitzes.

As far as alignment of a 4-3...I'd argue our talent level is pretty easy to see how the front 7 would line up next year.

DE: Ware, Kenegra
DT: Middleton, Elam
DT: Pringle, Dubose
DE: Allen, Bell...Maybe Jordan Bonner if he's adjusted to college game

SLB: DeNiro Laster
MLB: Love (Should be Kash if he comes around to speed of game at all)
WLB: Jones, Eli Brown

And if teams want to go 3-4 wide sets...just pull Laster off the field and plug in Randolph in nickel packages...or Marcus Walker.

No matter you're opinion of Stoops/UK...you can't defend that mess in the youtube clips of our DL execution. I am hoping Stoops will cut loose with Elliot this year (more than enough evidence) and get a attacking style DC and stay out of scheme. Stoops can help with DBs...but his ideology of going 3-4 (being multiple) is a total disaster IMO and we'll never make any strides in SEC if we employ this scheme next few years.

 

[SSPumper]

I don't think the 3-4 is connected to Eliot at all. Stoops has been pushing it. I also don't see anything that is broke now that will be fixed by going to a 4-3. The 3-4 is becoming more popular these days and will probably become the standard defense at some point.

3-4 D won't work without elite pass rusher(s). We can't get pressure with 4-3, how in the hell are we gonna get it with 3-4? Oh yes....blitz and get gashed! This multiple D Stoops won't let go of is going to be his undoing!

 

[1Blouman]

We're playing Powder Puff with our D line.

 

[WildCard]

...This multiple D Stoops won't let go of is going to be his undoing!

"Multiple" is not the issue. In today's game you simply cannot sit back in any base 7 man front, 4 man secondary scheme. Spread formations, HUNH offenses, running QBs, etc. have eliminated the notion of playing a so called "base" scheme and occasionally subbing in a nickel back.

Peace

 

[JW PRPcoach]

What's frustrating - go back and look at film of us playing SC, Vandy, - we played what appeared to be more "one-gap" defense. Not sure why we reverted back. Scared of Dobbs running ability? Makes no sense

 

[anon_7tbtqcx308nxh]

Not K-Time and I look forward to his response. Meanwhile, I'll offer some general "scheme" thoughts and let others fill in the names.

> A 3-4/5-2 front has the same basic problem as a 4-3 front when playing spread formation offenses (which is almost everybody these days).

Peace

Not quite. Very quickly: a base 3-4 puts more speed on the field and allows more flexibility facing today's spread offenses. Specifically, if an offense breaks the huddle on 2-and-medium/long with 11 Personnel (which could be a dozen different formations) UK will have more speed on the field for run or pass. This becomes even more true if the offense is no-huddle and didn't allow a substitution.

UK runs a 4-2-5 out of their nickel since Stoops arrived. At the beginning of the season, they split coverage duties like some Big 12 defenses do. UK won't run it full time because they don't recruit like Ole Miss, and offenses in the SEC don't mandate it (yet). Could well be the full-time defense in the near future though.

Generally, as Stoops said on his call-in show Monday, another factor on the three man front versus four man front is he "hasn't been able to recruit defensive linemen like at FSU." It takes a very special athlete to be a 4-3 defensive end.

 

[anon_7tbtqcx308nxh]

If you have ever argued our 3-4 issues are more about talent...watch this youtube clip of UT/UK highlights. I think the way we teach the 3-4 is a huge disaster. And I could find clip after clip of how UK DL are taught to play.



Go to the 1:20 mark and watch our DE/DT...then go to the 2:01 mark and watch our DE/DT....then go to 2:16 mark (this one is especially hilarious to watch our DE/DT and Elam)...then go to 2:55 mark at watch Miggins actually make his first move away from the QB trying to control the outside gap...but it was a pass play so we intentionally didn't rush Dobbs blindside....this is how our DL is taught to play on every play by Stoops/Elliot/Brumbaugh with exception of obvious passing downs when we go to a 4-3 (Ware, Miggins, Bell and Allen).

In the end...we need our DL (no matter the talent level) to attack the LOS and stop this chicken fighting with OL crap. I am not an expert in gap control but this is why we never generate negative plays on defense...we simply aren't taught to attack the LOS with exception of Jordan Jones on occasional blitzes.

As far as alignment of a 4-3...I'd argue our talent level is pretty easy to see how the front 7 would line up next year.

DE: Ware, Kenegra
DT: Middleton, Elam
DT: Pringle, Dubose
DE: Allen, Bell...Maybe Jordan Bonner if he's adjusted to college game

SLB: DeNiro Laster
MLB: Love (Should be Kash if he comes around to speed of game at all)
WLB: Jones, Eli Brown

And if teams want to go 3-4 wide sets...just pull Laster off the field and plug in Randolph in nickel packages...or Marcus Walker.

No matter you're opinion of Stoops/UK...you can't defend that mess in the youtube clips of our DL execution. I am hoping Stoops will cut loose with Elliot this year (more than enough evidence) and get a attacking style DC and stay out of scheme. Stoops can help with DBs...but his ideology of going 3-4 (being multiple) is a total disaster IMO and we'll never make any strides in SEC if we employ this scheme next few years.

I get the frustration, but it comes from a hindsight perspective. It wasn't an obvious passing down and so your attack should be balanced. You don't know if UT will run it, throw a screen, or try and QB draw. UK's athletes aren't good enough to run upfield, and then adjust immediately to a play that will hurt them. Miggins behaved as he was coached. It actually shows he is well-coached.

If UK switched to a 4-3, and asked Ware, Allen, and Daniel to hand in the dirt DEs they would get punished relentlessly by much heavier offensive tackles and/or tight ends. This personnel has been recruited and developed for the 3-4. There is no going back unless you want to set the defense back at least one year but probably two or three.

If UK is in their base personnel then never expect much of a pass rush, because UK is not expecting anything more than a quick three-step pass if not a run. That's why UK must be successful on 1st down (as any team would). Then they can rush when the offense can't afford to be balanced and must sell out for the pass.

 

[VikingsCat]

Not quite. Very quickly: a base 3-4 puts more speed on the field and allows more flexibility facing today's spread offenses. Specifically, if an offense breaks the huddle on 2-and-medium/long with 11 Personnel (which could be a dozen different formations) UK will have more speed on the field for run or pass. This becomes even more true if the offense is no-huddle and didn't allow a substitution.

UK runs a 4-2-5 out of their nickel since Stoops arrived. At the beginning of the season, they split coverage duties like some Big 12 defenses do. UK won't run it full time because they don't recruit like Ole Miss, and offenses in the SEC don't mandate it (yet). Could well be the full-time defense in the near future though.

Generally, as Stoops said on his call-in show Monday, another factor on the three man front versus four man front is he "hasn't been able to recruit defensive linemen like at FSU." It takes a very special athlete to be a 4-3 defensive end.

This is what Stoops said according to JR's transcript;

"Callerasks if UK could run a 5-man defensive front. Stoops points out with their 3-4 that's essentially what they're doing, and they're trying to get bigger by doing that. Stoops points out it's tougher to recruit defensive linemen at UK than it was at Florida State, and that's one reason they're going with the 3-4 instead of a 4-3."

 

[K_TIME]

. Miggins behaved as he was coached. It actually shows he is well-coached.

If UK switched to a 4-3, and asked Ware, Allen, and Daniel to hand in the dirt DEs they would get punished relentlessly by much heavier offensive tackles and/or tight ends. This personnel has been recruited and developed for the 3-4. There is no going back unless you want to set the defense back at least one year but probably two or three.

I'll disagree entirely with you on a few points.
1. On the play you quoted Miggins was well coached...He may have followed the coaching play call correctly..but that is total BS scheme by coaches IMO. I know we wanted to keep Dobbs in a pocket with his running ability...but you can't coach a DL to line up head on tackle and then go opposite way of the ball. That is just nonsense. You can form a pocket and gap integrity while still pursuing the QB.

2. As far as how impossible it is to get 4-3 DE. I'd argue many teams go small on edge rushers and do just fine. Allen and Ware can line up as a 5 or 7 technique and attack the outside shoulder of bigger tackles...even on run plays and hold up. Both are bigger than almost all TE we face.

I don't know how you can watch the youtube clips I attached and argue this schematic philosophy is legit. Thta was embarassing to watch the lack of explosion on DL in those plays. I agree with prpcoach...it's like we reverted back to what we were doing first 2 game of year when we were fine with a 1 gap technique vs. USC, Vandy, etc.. I am a total loss for where the defense is heading under Stoops and Ell8iot

 

[WildCard]

Not quite. Very quickly: a base 3-4 puts more speed on the field and allows more flexibility facing today's spread offenses. Specifically, if an offense breaks the huddle on 2-and-medium/long with 11 Personnel (which could be a dozen different formations) UK will have more speed on the field for run or pass. This becomes even more true if the offense is no-huddle and didn't allow a substitution.

UK runs a 4-2-5 out of their nickel since Stoops arrived. At the beginning of the season, they split coverage duties like some Big 12 defenses do. UK won't run it full time because they don't recruit like Ole Miss, and offenses in the SEC don't mandate it (yet). Could well be the full-time defense in the near future though.

Generally, as Stoops said on his call-in show Monday, another factor on the three man front versus four man front is he "hasn't been able to recruit defensive linemen like at FSU." It takes a very special athlete to be a 4-3 defensive end.

Gus, we disagree here and that is perfectly OK. It makes for good conversation. [winking]

Yes, the 3-4 theoretically puts more speed on the field but that is a really a question of how good are your LBs. I would also speculate that most 4-3 W/S DEs are just as fast as most of the LBs in a 3-4. They are asked to use their speed differently but that is not really the point. Personnel groups using a true TE are really on the decline except at programs that still run basically a "power" offense. The real point being here some form of a 10 or 20 personnel group is most common.

IMO, it is easier (and more effective) to make formation adjustments with a 5 man secondary than a 4 man secondary. While there are other problems with a 3 man front (no scheme is perfect) if I were going with 3 down linemen I would probably opt for a 3-3-5 base rather than a 3-4-4 base. And, in the big picture, I think those hybrid DB/LB types are "easier" to find than DTs.

Anything is better with a "very special athlete" but I totally disagree about notion of finding DEs for the 4-3, especially when compared to the need for DTs. IMO, DT is the absolute hardest position to recruit because, regardless of scheme, everyone wants and looks for the same thing in DTs (i.e., size, get off and foot speed). As I said before in a 4-3 base you can play a "smallish but quicker" DL at S/S DE and can get away with a really "small" pass rusher at W/S DE.

IMO, in a 3 down scheme you need 3 really good DTs. The more I watch good 3 down teams play, the more I am convinced they are good not because of their LBs or oversized NT but good because ALL of their DLs are really "high quality" DTs and bring size, get off and foot speed to the defense. IOW, because of collective great individual talent they can do with 3 what other teams do with 4.

FWIW, I don't see UK in a "true" 4-2-5 very often. And by "true" I mean 2 ILBs behind and inside 4 DLs. it appears to be a very situational alignment for them. When UK is in this alignment they usually play the DEs in a 2 point stance and I'm not sure why they do that.

All JMO.

Peace

 

[anon_7tbtqcx308nxh]

I'll disagree entirely with you on a few points.
1. On the play you quoted Miggins was well coached...He may have followed the coaching play call correctly..but that is total BS scheme by coaches IMO. I know we wanted to keep Dobbs in a pocket with his running ability...but you can't coach a DL to line up head on tackle and then go opposite way of the ball. That is just nonsense. You can form a pocket and gap integrity while still pursuing the QB.

2. I'd argue many teams go small on edge rushers and do just fine. Allen and Ware can line up as a 5 or 7 .

3. I don't know how you can watch the youtube clips I attached and argue this schematic philosophy is legit. Thta was embarassing to watch the lack of explosion on DL in those plays. I agree with prpcoach...it's like we reverted back to what we were doing first 2 game of year when we were fine with a 1 gap technique vs. USC, Vandy, etc.. I am a total loss for where the defense is heading under Stoops and Ell8iot

1. The team keeps gap integrity together and not a specific player. Where are his teammates on that play?
2. Some do but it's very rare to have a 4-3 DE that is their size. I think Allen could very well grow into one but for now he's 30 lbs too light, and Ware will always be three inches too short even if he also puts on 30 lbs.
3. I agree with you in the macro sense that I'm not sure where the defense is heading either, but my prescription is better fundamental execution and building more depth. I think you could change the scheme, as you suggest, and we'd still be left with the same result due to those underlying causes.

Also, UK always one-gaps in its nickel package, but I take it to mean you would like it on every down.

 

[anon_7tbtqcx308nxh]

FWIW, I don't see UK in a "true" 4-2-5 very often. And by "true" I mean 2 ILBs behind and inside 4 DLs. it appears to be a very situational alignment for them. When UK is in this alignment they usually play the DEs in a 2 point stance and I'm not sure why they do that.

Fair.

It burrows a bit into semantics, and I could very well be technically wrong, but when I see Allen rush from the boundary side in those situations I call him a DL based on his actions (95% he's pass-rushing). Some call it a 3-3-5 and I wouldn't disagree with them for it.

It was interesting earlier in the year, they seem to have gotten away from it, when they'd have Bell and Allen rushing from the standing position. I suppose someone could label that a 2-4-5.

 

[JW PRPcoach]

Gus, the only time they truly "1-gap" is in their 4 man front. We played, why I don't know, quite a bit of 3 man nickel on Sat. You could argue it was dime, but 3 lb's were on the field (ware/Allen, brown, and Love)
And for the record, we absolutely sucked when in that scheme. No pressure on QB, no gap integrity on runs, and we didn't cover very well either.
My guess is our lack of depth caused us to go really "vanilla " and we just hoped someone made a play or they made a mistake.
I'm willing to give them a one game pass since so much improvement has been shown, but I cringe at the thought of facing Lamar J in 11 days

 

[Mr Schwump]

I don't know if the UK D was in a 3-4 or a 4-3 or a 1-10 or a 10-1 but their disappointing showing Sat looked to be "let Dobbs run and let's hope he falls down." Surely to god they can do better.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

And for the record, we absolutely sucked when in that scheme. No pressure on QB, no gap integrity on runs, and we didn't cover very well either.

But other than that, it was pretty good, no? heh