TGHusker Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I have yet to warm up to the 3/4 D. I have not been impressed by the results under SF or MR. My understanding of the concept is that you need premium line backers to make it work - esp Outside LB who can be both great pass rushers and be able to cover RBs and TE on pass plays as needed. My understanding is that the D line is to be stout enough to defend against the run but basic responsibility is to plug the holes so the LB can mop up either with pass rushing or stopping running plays. It seems to me, that it takes more elite athletes to make it work. We haven't had those elite guys on D as linebackers or great rush ends either. So, maybe it is a good D if / when we have better athletes. Correct me if my understanding is incorrect. I would like us to discuss the merits of the 3/4 vs the base 4 DL defense. I believe only 3 teams in the Big 10 run the 3/4 D. Is this the right D for the Big 10 - which is heavy on great runners and great OLs?? How is it better or worse for NU in our current situation vs a base D in your opinion. Vote in the poll and then elaborate why yes or no. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment
TheSker Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 One of the advantages of the 3-4 is the ability to disguise what you're doing more often. Adam Carriker did a podcast about the differences this week and one of my takeaways was the opponents' OL can have more communication issues dealing with a 3-4. 1 Quote Link to comment
Head Coach Scott Frost Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I hit no, not because I like prefer 4/3 but because I don't prefer either. Really just want to see quality defense Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 If you really watch...most downs end up with 5 guys on the LOS...3 or 4...it is almost always 5 guys up there. Quote Link to comment
Undone Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I'd like Option C to be "It probably doesn't actually matter" and then I'd vote for that one. I was vocal against the 3-4 initially but after seeing definitive results from the way Wisconsin runs theirs (with average to sort-of-good talent), I'm pretty convinced it doesn't really matter that much. The 3-4 should be the best scheme at limiting big chunk running plays if you align your guys correctly. So in theory it's actually a decent scheme in the B1G. 1 Quote Link to comment
Igetbored216 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 4-3 or 3-4 doesn't matter. Both can work, if you have the players. Both can fail, if you don't have the players. Last year didn't work because we were missing some players. Bo's defense also wasn't very good towards the end of his tenure, because he was missing some players. Quote Link to comment
Hilltop Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 IMO the 3-4 can handle the speed of the spread offenses a little bit better than a base 4 can. In the end, any of the variations discussed can work with the right players on the field. Quote Link to comment
TGHusker Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, Undone said: I'd like Option C to be "It probably doesn't actually matter" and then I'd vote for that one. I was vocal against the 3-4 initially but after seeing definitive results from the way Wisconsin runs theirs (with average to sort-of-good talent), I'm pretty convinced it doesn't really matter that much. The 3-4 should be the best scheme at limiting big chunk running plays if you align your guys correctly. So in theory it's actually a decent scheme in the B1G. C is added plus a D Quote Link to comment
SFW Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line. Stop the run first D! If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable. The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been. 1 Quote Link to comment
TheSker Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 9 minutes ago, SFW said: I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line. Stop the run first D! If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable. The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been. Chinander's actually is mostly predictable right now. That has mostly to do with not having better talent yet to run it and lack a familiarity caused by having 3 defensive coordinators in 4 years. 1 Quote Link to comment
Undone Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 This comment: 11 minutes ago, SFW said: I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line. and this comment: 11 minutes ago, SFW said: If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable. are kind of in contradiction to each other. That's because Wisconsin doesn't exactly have massive size on their D-line and they definitely don't have big size for their linebackers. I do agree about creating more disguised packages, though. Strongly agree actually. 2 minutes ago, TheSker said: Chinander's actually is mostly predictable right now. That has mostly to do with not having better talent yet to run it and lack a familiarity caused by having 3 defensive coordinators in 4 years. This is the hopium that we pack into our pipe and smoke...but it isn't a for sure thing. It might just be that Chinander insists on keeping things overly simplistic, scheme-wise. Time and only time will tell there. 3 Quote Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Undone said: This comment: and this comment: are kind of in contradiction to each other. That's because Wisconsin doesn't exactly have massive size on their D-line and they definitely don't have big size for their linebackers. I do agree about creating more disguised packages, though. Strongly agree actually. This is the hopium that we pack into our pipe and smoke...but it isn't a for sure thing. It might just be that Chinander insists on keeping things overly simplistic, scheme-wise. Time and only time will tell there. Hopium... that is great! Quote Link to comment
suh_fan93 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, SFW said: I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line. Stop the run first D! If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable. The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been. Summed up my thoughts entirely. Quote Link to comment
BIG ERN Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 If you wanna run a 3-4 you better have good LBs. If you wanna run a 4-3 you better have a good D line. Our LBs were absolute garbage and I still feel that the Daniels and Davis Bros along with Stille were pretty solid for what we wanted to do and we still looked like crap. Therefore, our LBs have to improve a ton to be successful. That or find a new DC. 2 1 Quote Link to comment
Hilltop Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, BIG ERN said: If you wanna run a 3-4 you better have good LBs. If you wanna run a 4-3 you better have a good D line. Our LBs were absolute garbage and I still feel that the Daniels and Davis Bros along with Stille were pretty solid for what we wanted to do and we still looked like crap. Therefore, our LBs have to improve a ton to be successful. That or find a new DC. I'm guessing some of the best defensive minds in the game would have looked bad at times this year with the available talent. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.