3-4 vs. 4-3 on Defense

[RaisedHusker]

If you have a 3-4 defense, you can have a better blitz package. A speedy linebacker on a tackle or a guard would be good. Our defense has been great on the run for years. Now, we can blitz more with 4 linebackers. Remember in old school, it was sick how the defenses penetrated the offensive lines. I saw alot of Quarterbacks pissed off on that penetration(ie Peyton Manning). Charlie McBride took total advantage of this scheme. He would show a 4-3 then move to a 3-4. We need to bring back the rover!

That is what made our defense great!!

A 3-3 defense with a rover. A Charlie McBride defense.

 

[Ericinho]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

 

[RaisedHusker]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

We don't need a good d-front. Just an athlete to play the rover.

Oh, ironically. Most defensive coordinators studied Charlie's defense in the 1980's and caught up to us. Using the rover in the defense will stop alot of "stud" players who kill us. Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

 

[DJR313]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

That's funny, Bo Pelini has no idea what this is.

 

[RaisedHusker]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

That's funny, Bo Pelini has no idea what this is.

Bo Pelini was a "bring the house" kind of guy/

If you have a athetic rover on you team that will disrupt a play, would you want that player in the defensive scheme?

 

[gamecocks]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

We don't need a good d-front. Just an athlete to play the rover.

Oh, ironically. Most defensive coordinators studied Charlie's defense in the 1980's and caught up to us. Using the rover in the defense will stop alot of "stud" players who kill us. Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

I thought that the mid 90s was when Charlie's defense actually became the "in thing" since we finally had the speed that was necessary to stop the Florida teams.

Back to the topic, the 3-4 needs big tough lineman that can demand double teams every play to allow the linebackers to make plays. I don't think we have that with this years team, as Turner would only be double teamed on pass plays where his speed is a factor. Suh may demand it for about 50% but I don't think he would demand it every play the whole game. The other lineman haven't even proved they can beat a single person off the ball let alone demand a double team every play. A lot of people may think that the front three are not that big of a deal to the defense since they don't get a lot of sacks or tackles but they are more important to the whole defense than the speedy linebackers are.

 

[TarheelTrojan]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

We don't need a good d-front. Just an athlete to play the rover.

Oh, ironically. Most defensive coordinators studied Charlie's defense in the 1980's and caught up to us. Using the rover in the defense will stop alot of "stud" players who kill us. Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

I thought that the mid 90s was when Charlie's defense actually became the "in thing" since we finally had the speed that was necessary to stop the Florida teams.

Back to the topic, the 3-4 needs big tough lineman that can demand double teams every play to allow the linebackers to make plays. I don't think we have that with this years team, as Turner would only be double teamed on pass plays where his speed is a factor. Suh may demand it for about 50% but I don't think he would demand it every play the whole game. The other lineman haven't even proved they can beat a single person off the ball let alone demand a double team every play. A lot of people may think that the front three are not that big of a deal to the defense since they don't get a lot of sacks or tackles but they are more important to the whole defense than the speedy linebackers are.

http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/usc_...nt_defense.html Here is a link explaining how USC's 4-3 defense last year was often confused (by me and others) as a 3-4. I gives good insight into the 4-3 as played by USC and the USC defense you will be seeing next September. Enjoy.

 

[NUpolo8]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

That's funny, Bo Pelini has no idea what this is.

Bo Pelini was a "bring the house" kind of guy/

If you have a athetic rover on you team that will disrupt a play, would you want that player in the defensive scheme?

I thought Bo Pelini was a "shape your hat completely off center" kind of guy.

 

[huskerjack23]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

We don't need a good d-front. Just an athlete to play the rover.

Oh, ironically. Most defensive coordinators studied Charlie's defense in the 1980's and caught up to us. Using the rover in the defense will stop alot of "stud" players who kill us. Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

I thought that the mid 90s was when Charlie's defense actually became the "in thing" since we finally had the speed that was necessary to stop the Florida teams.

Back to the topic, the 3-4 needs big tough lineman that can demand double teams every play to allow the linebackers to make plays. I don't think we have that with this years team, as Turner would only be double teamed on pass plays where his speed is a factor. Suh may demand it for about 50% but I don't think he would demand it every play the whole game. The other lineman haven't even proved they can beat a single person off the ball let alone demand a double team every play. A lot of people may think that the front three are not that big of a deal to the defense since they don't get a lot of sacks or tackles but they are more important to the whole defense than the speedy linebackers are.

http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/usc_...nt_defense.html Here is a link explaining how USC's 4-3 defense last year was often confused (by me and others) as a 3-4. I gives good insight into the 4-3 as played by USC and the USC defense you will be seeing next September. Enjoy.

That's a great link. I kind of already knew about 4-3 Over and Under and how confusing it can look, but then you see the subtle nuances of the formations (gap responsibilities, lining up, and stances) and it becomes a little more clear.

 

[Ericinho]

My only qualm really is that nearly every time we've gotten into the 3-4 we've been burned. Even last season, we got burned. Now we have more talent at LB (or at least it seems, along with health) this season...so it could work. It's just, I don't know if I'm down with Nebraska being a base 3-4 team.

 

[mbhusker13]

As sort of stunts, yes, but base defense...not for it. We don't have the talent on the line to do that just yet.

We don't need a good d-front. Just an athlete to play the rover.

Oh, ironically. Most defensive coordinators studied Charlie's defense in the 1980's and caught up to us. Using the rover in the defense will stop alot of "stud" players who kill us. Use a "player" who follows a "player" from another team, that would be a good thing.

Charlie switched to the 4-3 in the early 90's after studying Florida State's D. We have a "Rover" in Cosgrove's defense, he just calls the position a "Joker" out of the nickel I believe.

 

[mbhusker13]

My only qualm really is that nearly every time we've gotten into the 3-4 we've been burned. Even last season, we got burned. Now we have more talent at LB (or at least it seems, along with health) this season...so it could work. It's just, I don't know if I'm down with Nebraska being a base 3-4 team.

I agree mostly, but it did seem to work well against Texasn Tech.

 

[Overland Park Husker]

My only qualm really is that nearly every time we've gotten into the 3-4 we've been burned. Even last season, we got burned. Now we have more talent at LB (or at least it seems, along with health) this season...so it could work. It's just, I don't know if I'm down with Nebraska being a base 3-4 team.

I agree mostly, but it did seem to work well against Texasn Tech.

Texas Tech runs a completely different kind of offense. Its good to drop the linebackers back to help cover the short and quick passes. BC and Coz have stated they wanted to stop the run first. This is usually accomplished better with 4 d-linemen. Look at the Auburn and Oklahoma games. They couldn't run on us. I think a 4-3 in the Big XII is ideal because so many good teams want to run it down your throat (OU, Tex, TexAM, even KSU although thats about all they can do). I like the idea of mixing a 3-4 in with the 4-3 to help get more speed on the field, but I'm no defensive coach, so this is just my opinion.

 

[Ericinho]

More 3-4 stunts would be good against Nevada. They have that quick strike offense like Tech. Not literally, but the dishing out of passes is quick and short.

I have no problem with some 3-4, I just don't want to see it become the base defense. Like stated by many of you...the Big XII is full of teams that just want to run it all over you...so switching the defense up could help a lot. Especially when other teams obviously watch film. They think they might see a certain base or style, but then we switch it up when we play them.

 

[mjmartin1970]

I think a 3-4 can be very effective at stopping the run IF you have at least two D-lineman who can eat up two blocks and allow the LB's to make plays. However, IF we were going to switch to a 3-4, last year would have been the year. We had the perfect linemen to do this and didn't. Thus, I think we will only see it once in a while this year.