"When I first started coaching defense...I was always in the 3-4 and I hope one day to maybe get back to that"

[Mavric]

Peyton Newell and Kevin Maurice are sufficient for a 3-4 NT. Otherwise, the Collin Miller's might be the closest thing to what would need to be brought in for the OLB.

 

I guess I don't know what college NTs check in at but NFL guys are usually at least 320 of not 330 or better.

 

Maurice may be close but I don't know if he's the space eater to fill the middle. I don't think Newell would do very well in that position.

[OH HSKR FAN]

2018/2019. At the earliest. Calm down.

[GBRFAN]

2017 if we have a NT on roster this year that blows up or bring in a Juco or transfer

[Cdog923]

Peyton Newell and Kevin Maurice are sufficient for a 3-4 NT. Otherwise, the Collin Miller's might be the closest thing to what would need to be brought in for the OLB.

 

Neither are the ideal size for a 3-4 NT. Valentine would have worked perfectly had he come back.

[EmeraldIngot]

Tl;dr, I really like the 3-4 and wouldn't mind seeing it here at Nebraska. Feel free to skip the long winded X's and O's discussion below.

 

 

The 3-4 defense follows in a similar philosophic trend as the shift from a 5-2 defense to a 4-3 defense: that is, removing a (relatively) slow down lineman for a faster, more reactive linebacker. In a lot of ways, the 3-4 is able to showcase that versatility at the expense of a stifling run defense. The 5-2 put 5 defensive lineman against 5 offensive linemen, and unless a TE or a FB chipped in on a block, it was a series of one on one matchups. That meant that a difference in skill level (or a size advantage) could seriously impact either side of the ball. A good O-linemen could completely nullify a D-lineman, or a D-lineman could reliably penetrate into the backfield and disrupt plays. The offer sive counter to the 5-2 was the Wishbone and other option offenses, designed to remove a D-lineman from the equation by forcing him to make a choice, and reading that choice to do the opposite of what the lineman was trying to stop. He effectively removed himself from the play, which allowed a numbers advantage at the point of attack. In response, moving a D-lineman from the field and adding another linebacker who is not usually immediately blocked and who could more quickly react to an option attack gave defenses the ability to stop the rush for (usually) small gains at the expense of having a lower rate of tackles for loss. This is how football schemes develope, with innovation and counter innovation. The 4-3 prompted development of the West Coast offense, which in turn was countered by the nickel, which was countered by the spread, which was countered by the dime (or peso, depending on the look of the base alignment) which was countered by the spread option and run/pass option and variable routes for the WR. This is, of course, just an overview without getting into the minutia of Quarters vs Tampa-2 or Sky coverage vs cloud coverage vs robber coverage. Just accept that within each base alignment, there are lots of wrinkles depending on what you're trying to do at that particular time.

 

The 3-4, like most formations on either side of the ball, cannot reliably be proven to have been invented by a particular person. I'm judging the general time period when formations start to be used more widely across the various levels of football. However, the 3-4 only seems to have started gaining steam in the higher levels of football around the mid 2000's. The 90's saw a lot of offensive innovations, such as the spread starting to become popular and a renewal of interest in option offenses, and later on in the early 2000's, the two were rolled into the same system as the spread option. (The two most prominent examples being Chip Kelley and Urban Meyer). Defenses are still in a state of Flux, trying to counter these offensive systems designed to put defensive players in no win situations while also putting the ball into a skill players hands in the open field. Most defenses these days are exercises in limiting the damage as opposed to being the stifling walls they once were.

 

This fact is why I believe that the 3-4 is (currently) the best defensive system to run in college football today. Simply put, it has more flexibility. It can adequately run just about any defensive philosophy against just about any offensive philosophy in its base formation, and additional wrinkles can make it more specialized against certain offensive philosophies. Assuming they are practiced, they can be easily shifted into a more advantageous setup depending on what the opposing offense is trying to do with less substitution than a 4-3 would require. (That last fact is why I believe the NFL, with their limited rosters, are more and more moving to this form of defense).

 

For example, the opposing offense lines up in a two TE I formation. By shifting the DE's closer to the DT, pinching in the OLBs, dropping one or both safeties into the box, you have, effectively, a 5-4 front against a run play or a 5-2 against a pass, assuming man coverage. If the offense lines up in a 2x2 spread formation, your OLBs could split out to cover the slots, or if you want to run a zone, you could run Quarters coverage with the OLBs defensive the flats. If it's a run, you would still have a 7 man front. By simple formation shifts and easy responsibilities based on if the play is a run or a pass (which every defense has) you can have overwhelming numbers defensively at the point of attack. This gives you a good advantage no matter what an offense tries to do. It can be run with either a contain or a spill run defense philosophy. It can be run with just about any form of pass defense (though it works best with a two safety defense, it can adjust to a one high or three high very easily, depending on if you simply want to rotate your coverage or if you want to switch to one of the nickel formations the 3-4 has to offer).

 

As you can see, it is a very versatile system, and given the abundance of offensive attacks, having that kind of versatility is practically required. A 4-3 can do the same, but not without regular substitutions or package plays. And that's not even touching on the wide and varied blitzes a 3-4 is able to do, coming at the QB from nearly any angle while disguising it very well from pre-snap reads.

 

That said, this defense is not perfect. First and formost, it works best when the DL are using a two-gap technique, and your DL will only do more than simply occupy blockers when they are as skilled as Rich Glover. (Look at a replay of '71 NU vs OU and watch how he gets off blocks. It's a great example on how a two-gap technique is run well). In particular, your nose tackle needs to be enough of a threat to force the OL to double team him EVERY PLAY. If not, the offensive guards will be able to climb up and block your MLBs, and run plays will gash you up the center for 10 yards a run each play (hello, Melvin Gordon...). Also, you need transcendent talent at OLB to be able to pass rush, get off blocks, cover TEs and WRs, and have the size and speed to not be outrun or pushed around. Your MLBs also need to have some tremendous combination of skill and athketicism, because O-linemen are going to be trying to block them all game. Not to mention your DBs will have to be comfortable with both zone coverage and man coverage. You need a lot of talent across the board to make the 3-4 a stifling one. The only real upside to that is that if your talent at one spot is lacking, you can usually make up for it at different spots.

 

The last downside to this system is that, being a jack of all trades kind of defense, it will be less effective against offenses that specialize to one extreme or another. This is less obvious in the NFL because everyone is an elite player there, and having a 105 man roster in college does allow you to have a more specialized personnel package for specialized offenses, the lack of regular playing time for some of your package players will be exploited. Mercilessly. So a dedicated power run team like Wisconsin or Stanford, with absolute mountains for all their players will see some success, even with stacking the box with your comparatively smaller, faster players. Also, teams that specialize in the most extreme of spread attacks (like any team coached by Mike Leach...) will find some success in the air, even when you're dropping 8 into coverage. That said, the 3-4, with some wrinkles and personnel packages will be able to, at the very least, slow down specialized offenses, and if your team has an offense with a pulse, you should be able to pull off the shootout win.

 

So, all of that said, the 3-4 is my preferred defense because it can adequately adapt to the current state of the offenses in the college football world. If you read it this far and you want to discuss more of the details, I'd love a chance to debate.

[The Dude]

Tl;dr, I really like the 3-4 and wouldn't mind seeing it here at Nebraska. Feel free to skip the long winded X's and O's discussion below.

The 3-4 defense follows in a similar philosophic trend as the shift from a 5-2 defense to a 4-3 defense: that is, removing a (relatively) slow down lineman for a faster, more reactive linebacker. In a lot of ways, the 3-4 is able to showcase that versatility at the expense of a stifling run defense. The 5-2 put 5 defensive lineman against 5 offensive linemen, and unless a TE or a FB chipped in on a block, it was a series of one on one matchups. That meant that a difference in skill level (or a size advantage) could seriously impact either side of the ball. A good O-linemen could completely nullify a D-lineman, or a D-lineman could reliably penetrate into the backfield and disrupt plays. The offer sive counter to the 5-2 was the Wishbone and other option offenses, designed to remove a D-lineman from the equation by forcing him to make a choice, and reading that choice to do the opposite of what the lineman was trying to stop. He effectively removed himself from the play, which allowed a numbers advantage at the point of attack. In response, moving a D-lineman from the field and adding another linebacker who is not usually immediately blocked and who could more quickly react to an option attack gave defenses the ability to stop the rush for (usually) small gains at the expense of having a lower rate of tackles for loss. This is how football schemes develope, with innovation and counter innovation. The 4-3 prompted development of the West Coast offense, which in turn was countered by the nickel, which was countered by the spread, which was countered by the dime (or peso, depending on the look of the base alignment) which was countered by the spread option and run/pass option and variable routes for the WR. This is, of course, just an overview without getting into the minutia of Quarters vs Tampa-2 or Sky coverage vs cloud coverage vs robber coverage. Just accept that within each base alignment, there are lots of wrinkles depending on what you're trying to do at that particular time.

The 3-4, like most formations on either side of the ball, cannot reliably be proven to have been invented by a particular person. I'm judging the general time period when formations start to be used more widely across the various levels of football. However, the 3-4 only seems to have started gaining steam in the higher levels of football around the mid 2000's. The 90's saw a lot of offensive innovations, such as the spread starting to become popular and a renewal of interest in option offenses, and later on in the early 2000's, the two were rolled into the same system as the spread option. (The two most prominent examples being Chip Kelley and Urban Meyer). Defenses are still in a state of Flux, trying to counter these offensive systems designed to put defensive players in no win situations while also putting the ball into a skill players hands in the open field. Most defenses these days are exercises in limiting the damage as opposed to being the stifling walls they once were.

This fact is why I believe that the 3-4 is (currently) the best defensive system to run in college football today. Simply put, it has more flexibility. It can adequately run just about any defensive philosophy against just about any offensive philosophy in its base formation, and additional wrinkles can make it more specialized against certain offensive philosophies. Assuming they are practiced, they can be easily shifted into a more advantageous setup depending on what the opposing offense is trying to do with less substitution than a 4-3 would require. (That last fact is why I believe the NFL, with their limited rosters, are more and more moving to this form of defense).

For example, the opposing offense lines up in a two TE I formation. By shifting the DE's closer to the DT, pinching in the OLBs, dropping one or both safeties into the box, you have, effectively, a 5-4 front against a run play or a 5-2 against a pass, assuming man coverage. If the offense lines up in a 2x2 spread formation, your OLBs could split out to cover the slots, or if you want to run a zone, you could run Quarters coverage with the OLBs defensive the flats. If it's a run, you would still have a 7 man front. By simple formation shifts and easy responsibilities based on if the play is a run or a pass (which every defense has) you can have overwhelming numbers defensively at the point of attack. This gives you a good advantage no matter what an offense tries to do. It can be run with either a contain or a spill run defense philosophy. It can be run with just about any form of pass defense (though it works best with a two safety defense, it can adjust to a one high or three high very easily, depending on if you simply want to rotate your coverage or if you want to switch to one of the nickel formations the 3-4 has to offer).

As you can see, it is a very versatile system, and given the abundance of offensive attacks, having that kind of versatility is practically required. A 4-3 can do the same, but not without regular substitutions or package plays. And that's not even touching on the wide and varied blitzes a 3-4 is able to do, coming at the QB from nearly any angle while disguising it very well from pre-snap reads.

That said, this defense is not perfect. First and formost, it works best when the DL are using a two-gap technique, and your DL will only do more than simply occupy blockers when they are as skilled as Rich Glover. (Look at a replay of '71 NU vs OU and watch how he gets off blocks. It's a great example on how a two-gap technique is run well). In particular, your nose tackle needs to be enough of a threat to force the OL to double team him EVERY PLAY. If not, the offensive guards will be able to climb up and block your MLBs, and run plays will gash you up the center for 10 yards a run each play (hello, Melvin Gordon...). Also, you need transcendent talent at OLB to be able to pass rush, get off blocks, cover TEs and WRs, and have the size and speed to not be outrun or pushed around. Your MLBs also need to have some tremendous combination of skill and athketicism, because O-linemen are going to be trying to block them all game. Not to mention your DBs will have to be comfortable with both zone coverage and man coverage. You need a lot of talent across the board to make the 3-4 a stifling one. The only real upside to that is that if your talent at one spot is lacking, you can usually make up for it at different spots.

The last downside to this system is that, being a jack of all trades kind of defense, it will be less effective against offenses that specialize to one extreme or another. This is less obvious in the NFL because everyone is an elite player there, and having a 105 man roster in college does allow you to have a more specialized personnel package for specialized offenses, the lack of regular playing time for some of your package players will be exploited. Mercilessly. So a dedicated power run team like Wisconsin or Stanford, with absolute mountains for all their players will see some success, even with stacking the box with your comparatively smaller, faster players. Also, teams that specialize in the most extreme of spread attacks (like any team coached by Mike Leach...) will find some success in the air, even when you're dropping 8 into coverage. That said, the 3-4, with some wrinkles and personnel packages will be able to, at the very least, slow down specialized offenses, and if your team has an offense with a pulse, you should be able to pull off the shootout win.

So, all of that said, the 3-4 is my preferred defense because it can adequately adapt to the current state of the offenses in the college football world. If you read it this far and you want to discuss more of the details, I'd love a chance to debate.

I disagree.

[ADS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did he explain what he sees as the advantage of a 3-4?

 

It's a difficult defensive set to consistently recruit for, which may be why he and a bunch of other coaches don't use it.

There are a lot of teams that still run a 3-4 as a base defense. I believe a majority of the SEC along with some PAC schools run a 3-4 as a base. I could see the advantages of running one but there are also disadvantages. You can get more speed on the field but you will also lose size. It is a pick your poison kind of deal.

Who runs it in those conferences? Alabama? Georgia may have. It's not coming. The NT and OLB positions are very difficult to recruit effectively for.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, A&M, Tennessee and Florida have ran a 3-4 as their base in the last year or 2. Both Mississippi schools and LSU are looking to run a 3-4 this coming year. Notre Dame has ran a 3-4 since Kelly took over. In the Pac, Stanford, Oregon and Washington run a 3-4 along with Cal. Indiana, Maryland and Wisconsin have been running a 3-4 off and on.

 

As far as recruiting goes, it isn't any different then recruiting for a 4-3. You have one less DT/NG to recruit and you recruit smaller DEs that can also play OLB. We have recruited some damn good OLB recruits the last couple years. The only thing hurting is the DT/NG recruiting.

The thing is, all those LB recruits have to be hits, or else we would fall right back into a depth problem at that position again.

The same thing could be said for each position on the field. Recruiting is all about hitting on the majority of your classes.