Defensive Scheme

[dre1919]

So I play Notre Dame on NCAA Football 11 every year (of course) and I have met with limited success using the 3-4 defense versus something else, namely the 4-3. I had been running it until just recently in the interest of realism, but I have never been a fan of the 3-4. Sure, it's just a video game, but it got me thinking.

What really is a compelling argument for running the 3-4? I know that it was originally created to be a lighter weight, more pass defense oriented defense. What you give up in strength and size with a fourth down lineman you replace by adding speed and coverage skills of a linebacker. But to me, depending on the personnel, it would seem better suited to use a 4-3 as your base unless you are specifically playing a very pass heavy team. Sure, a lot depends on the personnel you have because talent generally cures all ills, but seriously...the 3-4 gets owned on this game, and often times in real life, by very good rushing teams. So, anyone have good points as to why Notre Dame should stick to a 3-4 instead of a base 4-3?

 

[Sherm Sticky]

This was discussed a little in another thread. Notre Dame is playing the 3-4 right now, because of personnel reasons. We don't have the depth or playmakers along the D-line to run a 4-3. Also, we do have good depth at LB. Hopefully if we can ever get depth and quality talent along the line we will switch to a 4-3. Hey the Steelers have been running a 3-4 for decades and it's worked out well for them.

 

[mick2]

for the 3-4 to be its best you need a serious beast at NT, ala casey hampton. to draw a dbl team.

also a hybrid linebacker/pass rusher like james harrison that has to be acounted for in every play.

Ian williams is a nice NT but i think he would be better suited fr a 4-3 with another tackle beside him, and prince shembo seems to be that hybrid guy. louis nix could be the anchor for the next few years.

also i dont think we'll see a shift to 4-3 especially with so many colleges implementing a spread offense.

 

[Freeman Ara]

As long as Diaco is here we will run a 3-4. He learned the 3-4 under Groh at UVA and was brought to UC by Kelly specifically to run the 3-4 AFTER UC went to a BCS bowl running the 4-3. It also allows ND to recruit fewer playmakers along the DL to be successful. We haven't been able to get the big guys up front we need, in the numbers we need, to be able to run a dominant 4-3. Instead of needing 8-10 talented DL guys, now we only need about 6-7 in any 4 year period. We need to quit changing systems every year, upgrade the talent, and let these kids grow in the system and we should be ok.

 

[chgocub23]

See I don't play Ncaa 11 very often, but I as well use Notre Dame, and I routinely have a top 5 defense. now i know it's just a video game and since i'm in control things are different, but i'm able to completely shut down opposing teams, where as when i'm on offense it seems like my quarterbacks goal is to have as many ints as touchdowns

 

[kmoose]

So I play Notre Dame on NCAA Football 11 every year (of course) and I have met with limited success using the 3-4 defense versus something else, namely the 4-3. I had been running it until just recently in the interest of realism, but I have never been a fan of the 3-4. Sure, it's just a video game, but it got me thinking.

What really is a compelling argument for running the 3-4? I know that it was originally created to be a lighter weight, more pass defense oriented defense. What you give up in strength and size with a fourth down lineman you replace by adding speed and coverage skills of a linebacker. But to me, depending on the personnel, it would seem better suited to use a 4-3 as your base unless you are specifically playing a very pass heavy team. Sure, a lot depends on the personnel you have because talent generally cures all ills, but seriously...the 3-4 gets owned on this game, and often times in real life, by very good rushing teams. So, anyone have good points as to why Notre Dame should stick to a 3-4 instead of a base 4-3?

My personal opinion, formed from watching professional and college football fairly religiously for 30+ years, is that a 4-3 needs a dominant MLB, to be really successful. I don't think ND has a dominant MLB on the roster. Teo and Calabrese are both solid ILBs, but I don't think either one of them is dominant. You can get away with not having a dominant MLB, if the guy is a playmaker. AJ Hawk and Brian Bosworth are two good examples of dominant MLBs. Even when you gameplanned for them, and double and triple teamed them, they still dictated what an offense could, or couldn't, do. An example of the "playmaker" kind of MLB would be ND's own Courtney Watson. He didn't dominate games, but he made about a dozen or so plays, every game, either in the backfield or right at the line of scrimmage, and usually those plays came on crucial down and distances for the offense. I just don't think that we have the personnel, at this time, to run a 4-3. I know you made mention of this fact, but my question to you would be, "Why should ND change their base defense, based on the results of a video game?"

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...

What really is a compelling argument for running the 3-4?

NFL demographics and complicated blitzing schemes really drive its success.

Moreso than any other time, the NFL really has a glut of two types of players: the 330 lb space eaters, and the 250 lb beasts that are much faster than in previous generations. This has led to designing a defense where you put the sumo in the middle to eat up two gaps or blockers, and put your speedy 250 pounders on the edge as pass rushers, outside run stoppers and pass coverage personnel.

From there, with 4 LB's you can really get some complicated blitzing schemes, particularly zone-blitzes using the SS (think T. Polumalu) and outside LB's.

I don't think it works as well in college because you don't get too many Terrance Cody's and you don't have enough time/practices/years to make the blitzing schemes very complicated. I also tend to think the DE's in a 3-4 have to be more like NT's than regular DE's, and you just don't get too many 290 DE's at the college level.

 

[Old Man Mike]

The 3-4 once the players understand its basics is going to make it a lot easier for Diaco to create confusing pressure packages to mess up both 21st century passing attacks and even many running plays. The future of defense [unless you have all NFL players on your college team] is going to be disguise and trickery. The complexities of the spread passing attacks, and the emergence of short dart-thrower passing as a replacement for running plays, demands it.

And I said before elsewhere on the board, things like the 3-3-5 will appear more as well. [I saw another case of a pre-snap "mill-around" non-alignment the other day in the pros too]. These so-called gimmick defenses turn out to be variations of the old familiar defenses play-to-play anyway---you don't know which OLB will be an old-style DE on some calls, etc. The comment about Palomalu above is another example of the interchangeability of parts that futuristic defensive coaches are aiming for. By the way, if "Richard" Lebeau [Steelers DC] thinks something works, I'd bet on it.

 

[aaronb]

I have several problems with the 3-4 at the college level.

1. Recruiting. Most college D-linemen want to get after the QB and get some glory. However a 3-4 D-Lineman is basically a guy who eats up blocks and gets beat up.

2. Pressure on the QB. In a 4-3, you can get consistent pressure from rush ends. To get pressure from the 3-4 you have to commit linebackers on blitzes to get backfield pressure

3. Seems to lead to too much assignment confusion. The whole scheme is reliant on assignment blitz packages. This leads to blown assignments when guys miss their ques. We have seen far too much of it in both recent 3-4 incarnations.


I'd love for BK to bite the bullet and switch back to the 4-3. It should greatly benefit recruiting along the Dline. Should also allow us a much bigger pool of defensive players to which we can recruit from. Also 24 or 32 NFL teams are running a 4-3 base. So if we are trying to recruit NFL prospects to ND. We are probably better served in running an NFL style defense here.


Just my humble opinions anyways.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The 3-4 once the players understand its basics is going to make it a lot easier for Diaco to create confusing pressure packages to mess up both 21st century passing attacks and even many running plays. The future of defense [unless you have all NFL players on your college team] is going to be disguise and trickery. The complexities of the spread passing attacks, and the emergence of short dart-thrower passing as a replacement for running plays, demands it.

And I said before elsewhere on the board, things like the 3-3-5 will appear more as well. [I saw another case of a pre-snap "mill-around" non-alignment the other day in the pros too]. These so-called gimmick defenses turn out to be variations of the old familiar defenses play-to-play anyway---you don't know which OLB will be an old-style DE on some calls, etc. The comment about Palomalu above is another example of the interchangeability of parts that futuristic defensive coaches are aiming for. By the way, if "Richard" Lebeau [Steelers DC] thinks something works, I'd bet on it.

It's all cyclical. You're right that zone blitzes, 3-4s, 3-3-5s and disguised coverages are the proper response to the spread and defenses are starting to trend that way. But then offenses will adjust, and you'll see more teams like Wisconsin taking advantage of teams built light and fast by attacking them straight up the middle with big linemen and 250 pound running backs.

My only problem with the Kelly hiring is that ND is trying to adapt to the current trend. I would have rather gotten a coach who understood how teams were reacting to the current trend and was ready to exploit that. Still, at the end of the day football isn't chess and Kelly may be the right guy to get this program turned around.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I have several problems with the 3-4 at the college level.

1. Recruiting. Most college D-linemen want to get after the QB and get some glory. However a 3-4 D-Lineman is basically a guy who eats up blocks and gets beat up.

2. Pressure on the QB. In a 4-3, you can get consistent pressure from rush ends. To get pressure from the 3-4 you have to commit linebackers on blitzes to get backfield pressure

3. Seems to lead to too much assignment confusion. The whole scheme is reliant on assignment blitz packages. This leads to blown assignments when guys miss their ques. We have seen far too much of it in both recent 3-4 incarnations.


I'd love for BK to bite the bullet and switch back to the 4-3. It should greatly benefit recruiting along the Dline. Should also allow us a much bigger pool of defensive players to which we can recruit from. Also 24 or 32 NFL teams are running a 4-3 base. So if we are trying to recruit NFL prospects to ND. We are probably better served in running an NFL style defense here.


Just my humble opinions anyways.

I agree with what you said, but Alabama runs a 3-4. Win and you will get the players no matter what scheme you run.

 

[Rocket89]

I have several problems with the 3-4 at the college level.

1. Recruiting. Most college D-linemen want to get after the QB and get some glory. However a 3-4 D-Lineman is basically a guy who eats up blocks and gets beat up.

2. Pressure on the QB. In a 4-3, you can get consistent pressure from rush ends. To get pressure from the 3-4 you have to commit linebackers on blitzes to get backfield pressure

3. Seems to lead to too much assignment confusion. The whole scheme is reliant on assignment blitz packages. This leads to blown assignments when guys miss their ques. We have seen far too much of it in both recent 3-4 incarnations.


I'd love for BK to bite the bullet and switch back to the 4-3. It should greatly benefit recruiting along the Dline. Should also allow us a much bigger pool of defensive players to which we can recruit from. Also 24 or 32 NFL teams are running a 4-3 base. So if we are trying to recruit NFL prospects to ND. We are probably better served in running an NFL style defense here.


Just my humble opinions anyways.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but as I was reading your post I was thinking about how all of that was true.....for the 4-3 Notre Dame ran last year.

1. Not much argument here, this year we've seen a lot of gap responsibilty from KLM and Johnson, but KLM at least seems to be pressuring the QB a lot more.

2. We're getting more pressure this year, not a whole lot more but it's better.

3. I've never seen a team so confused in my whole life as the 2009 Irish defense.

Of course, Tenuta isn't the most sane of DC's out there, so the 4-3 last year really isn't a good example...

 

[irishtrain]

Let me say this about scheme, it has no positive or negative value. It can work either way. You need players. Where have you heard that before. Here's the point--last week in the LSU/Ala game LSU lost 3 DB's in the first half and replaced all 3 with at least 2 freshman and a redshirt freshman or soph and didnt miss a beat. In fact I thought the replacements played more aggressively and really hit. Thats the reward of having an admn say to the coach get 'em in here and go win. You guys are missing the point on scheme,coach,atmosphere,jumbo tron,campus police,old fans not cheering, turf, and any other reason for Notre Dame losing its place. Turn your eyes to the admn and ask 'do they want to win'. These other schools have answered that question with an emphatic 'yes'.

 

[DaBLKIrishman]

The only difference between the two schemes to me is the versatility that the 3-4 can present. Which can cause confusion for opposing offenses if executed properly. We should stay with the 3-4 and perfect it. Wasn't Holtz successful with the 3-4 for many years and did it with undersized nose tackles at that.

 

[irishff1014]

The 3-4 that works for the steelers is really out of the questoin because the blitiz so much that it really isn't a 3-4. Team that run alot i personally think you would rather have a 4-3 so that you have one less o-lineman going to the next level block a line backer.A 3-4 can really help you when it comes down to sending alot of pressure.

 

[aaronb]

Either scheme can probably be successful. Problem is that the 3-4 needs a bit more time for people to learn. College is a 4 year on the field proposition.

Ultimately we need to decide what we want to run, AND STICK WITH IT!!!!!!

It makes the defense look slow, when kids are worrying about assignments. Too much thinking and not enough reacting.

We've done ourselves no favors by switching schemes for 4 seasons in a row. Pick a scheme and run it. No more flip flopping.

 

[lookingdeadred]

Why do you say a 3-4 takes longer to learn?

Why do you say a 3-4 takes longer to learn?

I would suspect more high schools run a 3-4 than a 4-3, so most recruits should be at least somewhat experienced with it.

Either scheme can probably be successful. Problem is that the 3-4 needs a bit more time for people to learn. College is a 4 year on the field proposition.

Ultimately we need to decide what we want to run, AND STICK WITH IT!!!!!!

It makes the defense look slow, when kids are worrying about assignments. Too much thinking and not enough reacting.

We've done ourselves no favors by switching schemes for 4 seasons in a row. Pick a scheme and run it. No more flip flopping.

 

[aaronb]

I would suspect more high schools run a 3-4 than a 4-3, so most recruits should be at least somewhat experienced with it.

We ran 4-3 at both HS's that I attendend. However I graduated in 97. So things may have changed? The 4-3 is such a base responsibility defense to learn. It just seems like a simple easy defense.

Maintain your gap
Ends rush but maintain gap
Linebackers either drop in coverage or run after the ballcarrier


We keep hearing all this stuff about ND not having any outside speed. I wonder if it's more a side effect of guys not feeling comfortable with their 3-4 reads? Thinking about what to do, instead of firing off the ball and reacting.

We witnessed something similar on the Oline during the 2007 debacle. Too many missed blocks where 2 linemen were looking for someone to block. Charlie simplified the blocking schemes and the offense improved.

Maybe its time to Diaco and Kelly to do the same on defense?