3-4 and 4-3 Under - the front 7 (long)

[CanesAreAble]

Not Lu but I think it was lack of confidence in ANYTHING. We had neither the personnel nor the experience to effectively play the run or the pass well last year, so it became "everybody bail and hope the QB makes a mistake somewhere before the endzone, and maybe we can tighten up in the red zone."

I agree.

Just wondering why we didn't play as much nickel.

Last year almost seemed like more of a tutorial than anything.

 

[Coach Macho]

All in all, I think we'll see A LOT less times with 3 LBs on the field. I hope they've got that **** in order this year. If I see a SSLB over a slot, I'm just going to have addict-like flashbacks to 16 yard completions by average QBs.

Do you think that was due to more confidence in the LBs in zone coverage as opposed to the inexperienced CBs? Or perhaps overcompensation for the porous run defense (which was MUCH worse earlier in the season when Porter was out)?

Part of the reason we sucked against the run was BECAUSE we kept our OLB's on the slots. We took our 7th man out of the box. We only had 4 D-linemen and 2 LB's in the box against the run. Your guys up front have to be beast for that.

 

[Coach Macho]

Not Lu but I think it was lack of confidence in ANYTHING. We had neither the personnel nor the experience to effectively play the run or the pass well last year, so it became "everybody bail and hope the QB makes a mistake somewhere before the endzone, and maybe we can tighten up in the red zone."

I agree.

Just wondering why we didn't play as much nickel.

Last year almost seemed like more of a tutorial than anything.

Probably cause we weren't playing 'man' in those situations. Unless you're playing 'man' there's really no reason to sub in a nickel for the slot. In zone, that LB usually has the flats or maybe he'll play a hook/curl zone. That's not really an assignment that an OLB can't handle.

 

[FlipT]

This is a good scheme if you have a Justin Smith-type guy upfront to cause chaos. Also, the backup to this position cant be a complete drop off. The problem with this scheme is arrogance by the DC along with personnel. When teams spread out you have to have a package that can cover, but still honor the run. Most DCs hate making this in-game adjustment.

 

[Coach Macho]

This is a good scheme if you have a Justin Smith-type guy upfront to cause chaos. Also, the backup to this position cant be a complete drop off. The problem with this scheme is arrogance by the DC along with personnel. When teams spread out you have to have a package that can cover, but still honor the run. Most DCs hate making this in-game adjustment.

Doesn't really have to be a "package" if you have a Safety like Deon Bush.

You keep all of your LB's in the box and you walk Bush down over the slot. Now you're playing single-high, whether it be Cover-1 (man) or Cover-3, you still have the athletes to match up.

Now you can defend the run and the pass.

However... (and this is where Saban's genius comes into play, and I have to wonder if D'Onofrio applies the same principals)

When you're in any single high defense, you're vulnerable to FOUR VERTS. (four vertical routes by the the offense) The soft spot in the Cover-3 is the seams. Saban, the genius that he is, invented a version of Cover-3 that can defend four verticals. (he calls it "Rip-Match" and "Liz-Match") It allows the defense to keep 8 in the box and defend the vertical passing game. The flat defenders (usually a Safety or OLB) read the #2 WR. If #2 runs VERTICAL or OUT, he stays with him. If #2 runs in, he passes him off to the inside LB's and continues to drop to his flat responsibility.

This can force alot of turnovers for the defense because when QB's see Cover-3 at the snap, many times they're throwing the seam route right now. Then when the ball is snapped the vertical routes from #2 (which are usually open in Cover-3) are now being carried by the flat defender. Even if your flat defender can't run step for step the #2 WR, as long as he's in his hip pocket he's okay. This forces the QB to lob the ball over the top rather than throw the ball on a line like he normally would to the seam route in Cover-3. With that lob pass it gives the Safety extra time to get over and make a play. Basically it turns into Cover-5 if the offense runs four verticals.

You've now given your defense the ability to stop the run by keeping 8 in the box, and the ability to stop the vertical passing game by using "pattern matching".

Alabama isn't just great on defense because they recruit well. That little arrogant **** over there is a genius.

 

[BigPoppaCane]

GREAT STUFF

 

[MIATL513]

Not sure I following you here.

Twins or trip formations means there are only 6 gaps in the box, so a 4-2 alignment is enough if the defensive players maintain gap integrity and don't get destroyed by the OL ... And is more than enough if you are playing 2 gap, as the backers are schemed to be "free" in that situation.

The issues against the run last year were based on talent (guys not good or strong enough) and player gap assignment error. The scheme was fine, IMO.

All in all, I think we'll see A LOT less times with 3 LBs on the field. I hope they've got that **** in order this year. If I see a SSLB over a slot, I'm just going to have addict-like flashbacks to 16 yard completions by average QBs.

Do you think that was due to more confidence in the LBs in zone coverage as opposed to the inexperienced CBs? Or perhaps overcompensation for the porous run defense (which was MUCH worse earlier in the season when Porter was out)?

Part of the reason we sucked against the run was BECAUSE we kept our OLB's on the slots. We took our 7th man out of the box. We only had 4 D-linemen and 2 LB's in the box against the run. Your guys up front have to be beast for that.

 

[Canething]

Really good stuff,if I could i would mark this thread as one of my favorites

 

[rok]

We've seen the LB line up over the slot in every game of the Golden era. Should we really expect that to stop? An improved CB situation can't dictate such a drastic shift within a scheme, can it?

 

[Coach Macho]

Not sure I following you here.

Twins or trip formations means there are only 6 gaps in the box, so a 4-2 alignment is enough if the defensive players maintain gap integrity and don't get destroyed by the OL ... And is more than enough if you are playing 2 gap, as the backers are schemed to be "free" in that situation.

The issues against the run last year were based on talent (guys not good or strong enough) and player gap assignment error. The scheme was fine, IMO.

All in all, I think we'll see A LOT less times with 3 LBs on the field. I hope they've got that **** in order this year. If I see a SSLB over a slot, I'm just going to have addict-like flashbacks to 16 yard completions by average QBs.

Do you think that was due to more confidence in the LBs in zone coverage as opposed to the inexperienced CBs? Or perhaps overcompensation for the porous run defense (which was MUCH worse earlier in the season when Porter was out)?

Part of the reason we sucked against the run was BECAUSE we kept our OLB's on the slots. We took our 7th man out of the box. We only had 4 D-linemen and 2 LB's in the box against the run. Your guys up front have to be beast for that.

I'm not concerned about gaps, I'm more concerned about numbers. If they line up in 2x2 or Trips, there's 7 offensive players in the box versus our 6 defenders.

By using a QB as a running threat, he becomes your 6th blocker cause he voids out one of your defenders within the front six. The DE or a LB has to honor the QB, thus he can't chase any inside run by the RB. The offense will leave him unblocked. (he's voided against any inside run)

Now what we've got is 5 blockers + a RB against 5 defenders.

Now, if you can 2-gap then this doesn't become such a problem. I agree with you on the talent thing. However, if you bring an extra defender in the box then you don't have this problem. You now out-number the offense.

 

[guppycane]

We've seen the LB line up over the slot in every game of the Golden era. Should we really expect that to stop? An improved CB situation can't dictate such a drastic shift within a scheme, can it?

Actually I think having confidence in the DL is the more likely answer to being willing to trade out a LB for a DB.

We were afraid of teams spreading us out and gashing us with runs, so the answer was to stay in base D but play our DB's off in soft zones.

 

[LuCane]

Not sure I following you here.

Twins or trip formations means there are only 6 gaps in the box, so a 4-2 alignment is enough if the defensive players maintain gap integrity and don't get destroyed by the OL ... And is more than enough if you are playing 2 gap, as the backers are schemed to be "free" in that situation.

The issues against the run last year were based on talent (guys not good or strong enough) and player gap assignment error. The scheme was fine, IMO.

All in all, I think we'll see A LOT less times with 3 LBs on the field. I hope they've got that **** in order this year. If I see a SSLB over a slot, I'm just going to have addict-like flashbacks to 16 yard completions by average QBs.

Do you think that was due to more confidence in the LBs in zone coverage as opposed to the inexperienced CBs? Or perhaps overcompensation for the porous run defense (which was MUCH worse earlier in the season when Porter was out)?

Part of the reason we sucked against the run was BECAUSE we kept our OLB's on the slots. We took our 7th man out of the box. We only had 4 D-linemen and 2 LB's in the box against the run. Your guys up front have to be beast for that.

I'm not concerned about gaps, I'm more concerned about numbers. If they line up in 2x2 or Trips, there's 7 offensive players in the box versus our 6 defenders.

By using a QB as a running threat, he becomes your 6th blocker cause he voids out one of your defenders within the front six. The DE or a LB has to honor the QB, thus he can't chase any inside run by the RB. The offense will leave him unblocked. (he's voided against any inside run)

Now what we've got is 5 blockers + a RB against 5 defenders.

Now, if you can 2-gap then this doesn't become such a problem. I agree with you on the talent thing. However, if you bring an extra defender in the box then you don't have this problem. You now out-number the offense.

This is really good stuff.

If I can find some of my posts from last season, I said that if I had been an opponent's O-Coordinator, I'd spend 45 minutes basing every package out of these formations. Teams like Notre Dame and K-State didn't even have to throw the ball into massive windows because there was no reason to increase the risk. Instead, they had a numbers advantage inside. Against baby defensive linemen. Against baby defensive linemen being asked to play a man's technique. With LBs behind them who couldn't get proper depth. And, a back 7 that didn't know how to pass receivers to each other. And, some Safeties who had zero range.

Look, I have no idea if D'ono is a schematic genius or not, but it's hard not to acknowledge the perfect storm of trying to transition to a certain system and doing so with exactly the wrong type of players (partly because of their talent and partly because of their age).

 

[Coach Macho]

Not sure I following you here.

Twins or trip formations means there are only 6 gaps in the box, so a 4-2 alignment is enough if the defensive players maintain gap integrity and don't get destroyed by the OL ... And is more than enough if you are playing 2 gap, as the backers are schemed to be "free" in that situation.

The issues against the run last year were based on talent (guys not good or strong enough) and player gap assignment error. The scheme was fine, IMO.

Do you think that was due to more confidence in the LBs in zone coverage as opposed to the inexperienced CBs? Or perhaps overcompensation for the porous run defense (which was MUCH worse earlier in the season when Porter was out)?

Part of the reason we sucked against the run was BECAUSE we kept our OLB's on the slots. We took our 7th man out of the box. We only had 4 D-linemen and 2 LB's in the box against the run. Your guys up front have to be beast for that.

I'm not concerned about gaps, I'm more concerned about numbers. If they line up in 2x2 or Trips, there's 7 offensive players in the box versus our 6 defenders.

By using a QB as a running threat, he becomes your 6th blocker cause he voids out one of your defenders within the front six. The DE or a LB has to honor the QB, thus he can't chase any inside run by the RB. The offense will leave him unblocked. (he's voided against any inside run)

Now what we've got is 5 blockers + a RB against 5 defenders.

Now, if you can 2-gap then this doesn't become such a problem. I agree with you on the talent thing. However, if you bring an extra defender in the box then you don't have this problem. You now out-number the offense.

This is really good stuff.

If I can find some of my posts from last season, I said that if I had been an opponent's O-Coordinator, I'd spend 45 minutes basing every package out of these formations. Teams like Notre Dame and K-State didn't even have to throw the ball into massive windows because there was no reason to increase the risk. Instead, they had a numbers advantage inside. Against baby defensive linemen. Against baby defensive linemen being asked to play a man's technique. With LBs behind them who couldn't get proper depth. And, a back 7 that didn't know how to pass receivers to each other. And, some Safeties who had zero range.

Look, I have no idea if D'ono is a schematic genius or not, but it's hard not to acknowledge the perfect storm of trying to transition to a certain system and doing so with exactly the wrong type of players (partly because of their talent and partly because of their age).

No doubt. I was hard on D'Onofrio in the beginning but then I got to thinking. I remember all the trials I've been through as a defensive coach, and I didn't have all of the set-backs D'Onofrio did. I remember referencing to the "perfect storm" at times last year when defending D'Onofrio. Youth, new scheme, new players, etc etc etc. The defensive side of the ball literally had nothing going for them.

 

[Pentagon Cane]

Very good analysis Lu. Alabama and Stanford run 3-4 and obviously very well. Alabama's tackles are in the 290 to 295 pound range. Their nose is in the 310 pound range. Their linebackers are +245 pounds. Their Leo is around 235 pounds. The only difference with Stanford is their tackles are in the 275 pound range.

 

[jerzeycane]

Very good analysis Lu. Alabama and Stanford run 3-4 and obviously very well. Alabama's tackles are in the 290 to 295 pound range. Their nose is in the 310 pound range. Their linebackers are +245 pounds. Their Leo is around 235 pounds. The only difference with Stanford is their tackles are in the 275 pound range.

CP is 320+ so he's perfect as a nose. OP, Hamilton, Luther and Chick have more than enough beef to hold the edges.

 

[Canesfan1899]

Football talk. Yessir. I've been trying my best, and I asked you to stop playing music or whatever you're doing up there in the cold so you can post more, but these are the threads that will make this board rival the Canestime board some years back.

Thank you.

You need to get in on the Dialogue Lu.

 

[LuCane]

Football talk. Yessir. I've been trying my best, and I asked you to stop playing music or whatever you're doing up there in the cold so you can post more, but these are the threads that will make this board rival the Canestime board some years back.

Thank you.

You need to get in on the Dialogue Lu.

Eh? Haven't gotten through the entire thread?

 

[Coach Macho]

Hamilton is a prototype 3-4 defensive end.

 

[User-4525]

I don't know as much as you guys & since you're talking football ill just keep my questions to this thread. What is the main difference between a WDE & SDE? I see guys like Thomas, AQM, Trent Harris are listed as WDE. Could they move over to SDE or are you looking for a different type of prospect at SDE?

 

[CanesAreAble]

I don't know as much as you guys & since you're talking football ill just keep my questions to this thread. What is the main difference between a WDE & SDE? I see guys like Thomas, AQM, Trent Harris are listed as WDE. Could they move over to SDE or are you looking for a different type of prospect at SDE?

SDE = strong-side DE
WDE = weak-side DE

The strong-side is typically the left side of the defense, which mirrors the strong side of the offense, i.e. the right side where the TE usually lines up. The SDE and SLB are typically going to be bigger than the WDE and WLB.