3/4 vs Base D

[Ocean]

In today's game I think running a quarters high match up zone is the way to go. The 4/3 gives you the luxury of going wide 9 and easily switching in nickel and dime personnel without having to mix up the responsibilities of the down lineman. I do like the quarters high look out of a 3/4 nickel pack squeezing the ends down and replacing the nose guard. So much you can do out of the 3/4, if only you had a guy that could rush passer. 

[SFW]

I don’t known about blaming talent...we had 3-5 NFL players on this years D.  We won’t see that again for a while.  
 

Let that sink in.

[Cy the Cyclone]

I'm voting for The Flex...

[madrat]

6 hours ago, TheSker said:

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.

Adam did not do well explaining the differences.  It is very subtle and more perspective than significant changes.

[madrat]

47 minutes ago, Ocean said:

In today's game I think running a quarters high match up zone is the way to go. The 4/3 gives you the luxury of going wide 9 and easily switching in nickel and dime personnel without having to mix up the responsibilities of the down lineman. I do like the quarters high look out of a 3/4 nickel pack squeezing the ends down and replacing the nose guard. So much you can do out of the 3/4, if only you had a guy that could rush passer. 

Care to explain a little more.  Match-up zone can mean several things depending on the system.  You didn't provide much context to discern what you meant.

[TheSker]

6 minutes ago, madrat said:

Adam did not do well explaining the differences.  It is very subtle and more perspective than significant changes.

For a 5 minute segment, I thought he did fine.

[madrat]

2 minutes ago, TheSker said:

For a 5 minute segment, I thought he did fine.

But he really said nothing was the problem.  I like Adam, but in 30 seconds he could have summed it up by saying one or two points.

[Ocean]

11 minutes ago, madrat said:

Care to explain a little more.  Match-up zone can mean several things depending on the system.  You didn't provide much context to discern what you meant.

https://fishduck.com/2016/02/i-fell-in-love-with-a-defensive-system/

this sums it up decently well and its just 1 of the first few articles I just now googled. It's a little aged so the defense has changed a little bit. Brent Venables runs a lot of cover 1 out of it with 4/3 over, but I think its based on the same alignments.

 

As a side note. If you search up quarters high match-up zone you will get a whole lot of pat narduzzi, but there are quite a few really good breakdowns too. Some good videos on youtube breaking down fronts, personnel groupings, stunts, etc. 

[TheSker]

48 minutes ago, SFW said:

I don’t known about blaming talent...we had 3-5 NFL players on this years D.  We won’t see that again for a while.  
 

Let that sink in.

You're probably going to have to wait until next summer to know how many of this year's senior defenders make the NFL.

[SFW]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

You're probably going to have to wait until next summer to know how many of this year's senior defenders make the NFL.

And if so what does that say about Chinander?  

[Husker in WI]

28 minutes ago, SFW said:

And if so what does that say about Chinander?  

...Nothing? 

[SFW]

19 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

...Nothing? 

Clever 

[TheSker]

1 hour ago, SFW said:

And if so what does that say about Chinander?  

Chinander doesn't consume my thoughts about Nebraska football.

 

We get the right Jimmys and Joes on defense, we'll be good......

[SFW]

23 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Chinander doesn't consume my thoughts about Nebraska football.

 

We get the right Jimmys and Joes on defense, we'll be good......

Said Bill Callahan 

[TheSker]

5 minutes ago, SFW said:

Said Bill Callahan 

Link?