Our base 4-3 defense

[Red is Power]

If our base 4-3 defense does very well albeit against SDSU, do we consider a switch to a 3-4 defense or 3-3-5 or hell, even 3-5-3? We have athletic linebackers to run it, do we not? It just seems like when we are in our base 4-3 defense, Bo gets creative with blitzes and our defense performs great. Why not consider a switch? Get the best talent/advantage on the field. Thoughts?

[Hunter94]

I give up on trying to figure a Bo-fense.

[EbylHusker]

I don't give a sh#t what formation they're in.

 

If you're playing man, get pressure on the f'ing quarterback. It's not a hard concept. We've seen this team do it this season, and it has worked, right up until the coaches went pu&&y and backed off. This is high school ball level stuff that every fan knows and it blows my mind that it has escaped the grasp of our coaches. More than anything else, that has to change, and it hasn't changed for several years, which is extremely worrying.

[Red is Power]

I give up on trying to figure a Bo-fense.

 

Why is that? I'm pretty confident we will see a much better defensive performance in our 4-3 alignment. It's not the best competition to brag about if we shut their offense down. We're still young on defense however fans will likely denounce the win even if we hold them to under 100 yards of offense and win 63-0.

[Red is Power]

I don't give a sh#t what formation they're in.

 

If you're playing man, get pressure on the f'ing quarterback. It's not a hard concept. We've seen this team do it this season, and it has worked, right up until the coaches went pu&&y and backed off. This is high school ball level stuff that every fan knows and it blows my mind that it has escaped the grasp of our coaches. More than anything else, that has to change, and it hasn't changed for several years, which is extremely worrying.

 

Agreed. The whole man/zone issue last week was pretty crazy. Even I knew before Spielman spoke about lack of pressure in man coverage and letting Hundley pick us apart. It was a head scratcher. I don't like the read and react or bend but don't break defense. I think we need to ATTACK offenses rather than let them dictate the game. I would prefer a QB getting put on their a## by a LB going 200 mph even if it results in a 15 yard pass.

[ADS]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

[Red is Power]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

 

True but I think we'll see dramatic results with more LB's on the field. We can be a bit more creative in blitz packages and zone coverage.

[Redux]

Lets just call our leaky defense "Multiple". It wouldnt matter if the playbook didnt require kids straight out of high school to play like NFL vets.

[wiuhusker]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

 

True but I think we'll see dramatic results with more LB's on the field. We can be a bit more creative in blitz packages and zone coverage.

Our secondary now has enough problems breaking down and tackling people. Not sure more LB would help that. And everyone knows pelini doesn't play zone

[Red is Power]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

 

True but I think we'll see dramatic results with more LB's on the field. We can be a bit more creative in blitz packages and zone coverage.

Our secondary now has enough problems breaking down and tackling people. Not sure more LB would help that. And everyone knows pelini doesn't play zone

 

We may see zone coverage. I think he knows maybe what he is doing isn't working and needs to mix it up.

[Mavric]

If our base 4-3 defense does very well albeit against SDSU, do we consider a switch to a 3-4 defense or 3-3-5 or hell, even 3-5-3? We have athletic linebackers to run it, do we not? It just seems like when we are in our base 4-3 defense, Bo gets creative with blitzes and our defense performs great. Why not consider a switch? Get the best talent/advantage on the field. Thoughts?

As usual, we will use whatever fit the offense the opponent runs. So far, that has called for more than that standard four DBs. Sounds like SD St. might run more 21 personnel which would call for a 4-3 look.

[Red is Power]

If our base 4-3 defense does very well albeit against SDSU, do we consider a switch to a 3-4 defense or 3-3-5 or hell, even 3-5-3? We have athletic linebackers to run it, do we not? It just seems like when we are in our base 4-3 defense, Bo gets creative with blitzes and our defense performs great. Why not consider a switch? Get the best talent/advantage on the field. Thoughts?

As usual, we will use whatever fit the offense the opponent runs. So far, that has called for more than that standard four DBs. Sounds like SD St. might run more 21 personnel which would call for a 4-3 look.

 

I just don't get it. I guess I am old school. In 1995 did we not run a 4-3 defense against Florida's spread fun and gun offense? Did we not attack that offense with blitzes? If it worked then, why couldn't it work today? At least Osborne knew he needed speed on D back in the 90's. Do we not have speedy defensive players as of today? If so, why could we not use that vs UCLA? I really question Bo on this one.

[Ocean]

If our base 4-3 defense does very well albeit against SDSU, do we consider a switch to a 3-4 defense or 3-3-5 or hell, even 3-5-3? We have athletic linebackers to run it, do we not? It just seems like when we are in our base 4-3 defense, Bo gets creative with blitzes and our defense performs great. Why not consider a switch? Get the best talent/advantage on the field. Thoughts?

 

 

As far as defensive formation goes, I've really been pondering at how well these guys would do in a 4-4 base 2gap front with the option of having an extra defender coming off of either edge. Would, more than likely, be a nickel base personnel with many of the same principles as the current set-up, but with the option of going to a Tampa 2 style zone over the top. Another in-game tweak would be to go to full on zone cover 3 with 4 underneath and a 4 man attacking 1gap front. The base defense wouldn't be much different than what the team is already running. However, the extra sets may be tricky to implement in season, but at least the linebackers would be given more liberty to run around and make plays and the cover corners would give the wide receivers and the opposing coaches different looks. Just a thought from a wanna be X's and O's guy.

 

Note- My high school ball team ran a 4-4 base cover 3 2gap. Worked fairly well considering we had very little talent.

[ADS]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

 

True but I think we'll see dramatic results with more LB's on the field. We can be a bit more creative in blitz packages and zone coverage.

Tackling from the LB's in the past has not been the problem, they just couldn't catch anyone (outside of Lavonte). The safeties and corners are another story, although I do like what I've seen so far from Cooper.

[The King]

It doesn't matter what your base defense is when you struggle with open field tackling. Something we haven't done well for the past two seasons.

 

True but I think we'll see dramatic results with more LB's on the field. We can be a bit more creative in blitz packages and zone coverage.

Tackling from the LB's in the past has not been the problem, they just couldn't catch anyone (outside of Lavonte). The safeties and corners are another story, although I do like what I've seen so far from Cooper.

 

Still think Cooper + Charles Jackson is our best S combo.