How would a one-gap 4-3 defense fix our issues?

[CanesAreAble]

I'm not suggesting that a scheme change wouldn't be beneficial. I just want the defense corrected. I don't really care what we run. Just looking for some X's & O's talk on how playing the "Miami 4-3" could patch things up quickly. What are the simplified coverage keys for our LBs that will shore up our underneath coverage?

A post I made in another thread:

How do you hide bad LBs and safeties?

Whether you're in man or zone, they have to cover somebody. Against Duke, 31 got beat for a TD in man coverage. How do you limit 31 and 59's shortcomings? At Safety, 2 and 22 are banged up, so what do you do with 30?

People had been clamoring for McCord to play on early downs, and he looked lost against the run.

I've been thinking about how we'd look playing a simple one-gap 4-3. Maybe we'd be a lot better, but we'd still have clear deficiencies, namely at Safety and Linebacker. We still wouldn't have difference-makers at DT, and our DEs would be susceptible against the run. Thinking back on the 2000-06 defenses, not a ton of first or second year guys started and made an impact on the line. Baraka Atkins comes to mind, but he'd redshirted, and he was a pretty big guy coming out of high school.

McCord had more of a John Square build as a true freshman.

The one thing I can say is that the scheme didn't do Chickillo any favors. He probably should've played at 250 lbs or so.


The upside of playing the "Miami 4-3" is you can rely on the quickness of your D-linemen to shoot gaps and be disruptive. The downside is you still have to be disciplined, otherwise RBs can get to the second level with ease and gash you. You also need rangy, aggressive LBs.

In terms of our current front 7 personnel, I don't really think we have great fits for either scheme. Our DTs aren't really disruptors, and our DEs are still a little too light to hold up on the edges all game. Plus our LBs and Safeties are not rangy playmakers. I still think guys like 31, 59, 22, and 30 can get exploited.

There's been a lot of talk that our defense is too complex and therefore we've had to strip things down and be so bare-bones to the point of remedial coverage. How would a scheme change make the coverage and the looks harder for the QB to read?

Regardless of what happens, I think we're going to look a lot different on defense next year. There's either going to be a complete overhaul with something closer to a "Miami 4-3", or we might start seeing more true 3-4 packages with both McCord and AQM playing the OLB roles together.

 

[DiegoCane]

I think look no further then what our defenses looked like with Shannon at HC. They were flawed, not overly talented but still managed to have total defenses in the 20s and 30s.

In 2008 Glenn Cook had a team high 76 tackles, Bailey team high 5 sacks and we still managed to finish 26th in total defense at 315 yards a game.

Pretty crazy to think about.

 

[DeadPoets]

I think look no further then what our defenses looked like with Shannon at HC. They were flawed, not overly talented but still managed to have total defenses in the 20s and 30s.

In 2008 Glenn Cook had a team high 76 tackles, Bailey team high 5 sacks and we still managed to finish 26th in total defense at 315 yards a game.

Pretty crazy to think about.

That is pretty amazing. We had become so spoiled by top 5 defensive units every year from 00-05 that being 26th seemed like a failure. (and at times it looked bad)

Simply put though... and I'm sure I'm echoing others in saying this... the 1 gap system allows our speed to get up field and be disruptive vs engaging and creating walls at the LOS.
You're able to play a lot more m2m behind that because the QB doesn't have ALL day to throw (which again is a strength of So Fla athletes, m2m).
There's much less thinking involved in a m2m defense. You can have breakdowns in the back 7 but make up for it with your front 4 at times.

The biggest disadvantage to the 1 gap 4-3 is you often lose containment of scrambling QBs & crossing/pick routes become problematic. Shannon would use a S or OLB to contain scrambling QBs (Vick in '05). Crossing routes started to become an issue as our front 4 became less & less talented. The plays had time to develop & Bobby Petrino (along with Rich Rodriguez) were a few of the early OC/HCs to expose Shannon a bit.

All in all the positives far outweigh the negatives imo. Some will argue that the 3-4 is beneficial in today's game because of all the spread formations.
The goal is still the same against spread formations... get speed on the field (which we stubbornly are opposed to today) & have a pass rush (which we rarely have).

With that being said... it's not what Golden knows. I don't expect us to head that direction and quite frankly it's not a good sign if your HC (who's background is 3-4) starts trying new ****.

I expect Golden to be a little bit better than Ron Zook, from a W's & L's perspective, but the 2 will probably have similar tenures at their schools. Great recruiters, mediocre development of talent, & below average X's & O's.

The saying "it's not about the X's & O's it's about the Jimmy's and Joe's" holds much less water today than it did 10, 20, 30 years ago when everybody ran the same **** and there wasn't much parity. CFB today is a coach's world. You've got guys micromanaging games from the sideline, all sorts of systems and schemes that can be tough to prepare for and emulate in practice, etc etc etc.

 

[CaneMutiny06]

One problem that we currently have is that we had several players gain weight in anticipation of the move to 3-4 this year. Chick and Porter are the two that stand out. Both would probably need to shed pounds for a 1 gap to be more effective for us at the moment.

Prior to the Duke game our backers had been decent in run support, so I could live with McCord and AQM seeing more time at DE even if it meant being more vulnerable to the run. You could still rotate Green in on a lot of the rushing downs. I think the reward as far as QB pressures, TFLs and sacks would have worth the added risk.

Added with the presumably simplified keys for the LBs, and the net result still wouldn't have equaled a "good" defense, but likely one capable of yielding less yards and points than the current group. Say, 100 yards less per game or so on average against conference opponents, which would put us around 40th in total D vs conf opponents compared to our current ranking of 99th. That obviously still isn't "where we want to be", but it maybe nets us at least one more win thus far (and we don't know how the final 3 games could go either), and maybe makes some of our other performances look better. That to me is a significant enough difference to have justified going a different route with the defense before this season.

 

[252cane]

The 3-4 is not good vs spread offenses. Saban uses the 4-3 a lot beause teams use spread vs them.

Look at fsu vs spread teams they play a 4-2-5.

We don't have the d-lineman to be a 2-gap D. Our guys are 3 techniques (1 gap).

Bama is really the only team that is using the 2-gap with success. Bama d-lineman are huge. You have to have big powerful guys up front for it to work.

 

[DiegoCane]

I think it is also fair to note on my previous post that offenses have changed a lot in the last 5 years.

25th ranked offense in 2008: 417 ypg
25th ranked offense in 2013: 468 ypg

I also don't care if we run a 3-4, 4-3 or anything else. I just want to see a more aggressive approach, its hard for players to make plays in such a passive defense. That is why I think we have some players that look far worse then they actually are.

 

[RiDLer80]

The 3-4 is not good vs spread offenses. Saban uses the 4-3 a lot beause teams use spread vs them.

Look at fsu vs spread teams they play a 4-2-5.

We don't have the d-lineman to be a 2-gap D. Our guys are 3 techniques (1 gap).

Bama is really the only team that is using the 2-gap with success. Bama d-lineman are huge. You have to have big powerful guys up front for it to work.

Point one is very true. There was even an article recently where Saban said because of spread offenses he's not in their base 3-4 80% of the time. He says, yeah they're a 3-4 base but they rarely play base defense because of the spread teams. If Golden wants to tell me they're using the 3-4 to better defend spread teams, then all that tales me is we'll still have LBs matched up against slot WRs.

Also, Pruitt, FSUs DC from Bama, tried to implement Bama's 3-4 this season. After realizing within the first couple of weeks of this season that they didn't after the personnel to run it properly, he implemented a 4-3 that has since improved their defense. Why can't we adapt to our personnel instead of forcing them into this style of defense that doesn't fit them?

Chick is too big now. He was better suited as a 4-3 DE. Pierre is better suited as a 4-3 DT than a 3-4 DE. Same with Luther Robinson. Porter is gonna be a NT either way. Green is not athletic to be asked to drop into coverage as a 3-4 OLB (he's really not athletic enough to be playing at all).

Perryman is a true WLB in a 4-3 as is Grace. McCord and AQM shouldn't be paying this year, but they can be 4-3 DEs with no problem once they add the proper weight.

You want to know what's the benefit of the 4-3 vs 3-4 for us, Able? Players in their natural positions.

 

[Pennmed Canefan]

It wouldnt. Right now we dont have the personnel to be great playing any style of defense. More importantly, it might be more in line with what the fans are craving in this anti-donofrio phase but it can be mucked up just as badly as the current defense if not well-implemented. As a fact, the latter shannon/lovett defenses were MUCH more prone to the big play if one guy didnt do their job than this D. That's part of being aggressive. This defense is so soft that these mistakes get limited and we get nickel and dimed down the field which the fans hate. Nonetheless, if you install such a defense and guys dont understand, you are looking at gashes repeatedly. If we had that instead of this and fans had never seen this, the vitriol for the DC would be just as strong the complaints would be different.

I like that style of defense and it probably fits the Miami player mentality better but realistically defense is about implementation more than style IMO and Donofrio's willingness to overcomplicate everything could transition just as well to 43. I'm convinced that we have t even seen what he wants to do in terms of aggression but he may never get there because he can't install the basics. It's funny because he's the anti-Shannon but we all recall that so many disliked Shannon when he was around just letting the athletes turn it loose.

 

[DFT31J]

Well, we couldn't be any worse if we switched to a 4-3.

Our defense is ranked 116th in the country! We have the worst defense in the ACC for the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW.

It defies credulity!

 

[AsylumGodfather]

Miami switching back to a 4-3 defense would be going back to what the players have known since elementary school and would be beneficial from a QB pressure & TFL standpoint. Plus I think their mood would improve as they could be aggressive like they know instead of this passive bull**** that it doesn't seem like they're picking up at all.

 

[AUcane]

The 3-4 is not good vs spread offenses. Saban uses the 4-3 a lot beause teams use spread vs them.

Look at fsu vs spread teams they play a 4-2-5.

We don't have the d-lineman to be a 2-gap D. Our guys are 3 techniques (1 gap).

Bama is really the only team that is using the 2-gap with success. Bama d-lineman are huge. You have to have big powerful guys up front for it to work.

Point one is very true. There was even an article recently where Saban said because of spread offenses he's not in their base 3-4 80% of the time. He says, yeah they're a 3-4 base but they rarely play base defense because of the spread teams. If Golden wants to tell me they're using the 3-4 to better defend spread teams, then all that tales me is we'll still have LBs matched up against slot WRs.

Also, Pruitt, FSUs DC from Bama, tried to implement Bama's 3-4 this season. After realizing within the first couple of weeks of this season that they didn't after the personnel to run it properly, he implemented a 4-3 that has since improved their defense. Why can't we adapt to our personnel instead of forcing them into this style of defense that doesn't fit them?

Chick is too big now. He was better suited as a 4-3 DE. Pierre is better suited as a 4-3 DT than a 3-4 DE. Same with Luther Robinson. Porter is gonna be a NT either way. Green is not athletic to be asked to drop into coverage as a 3-4 OLB (he's really not athletic enough to be playing at all).

Perryman is a true WLB in a 4-3 as is Grace. McCord and AQM shouldn't be paying this year, but they can be 4-3 DEs with no problem once they add the proper weight.

You want to know what's the benefit of the 4-3 vs 3-4 for us, Able? Players in their natural positions.

Actually, there is a lot of literature out there that says a 3/4 or 3-3-5 is the best for a spread.

Point is, to defend the spread, you have to be multiple.

 

[Bennubird]

The issue is bigger than the scheme. Frankly, speaking I have zero confidence in our DC to implement any defense or to develop our players.

His personnel decisions are questionable at best (#30, #22, #59, etc. - good kids I'm sure not UM caliber defenders or not coached up to be), and he's shown little ability to make meaningful in game adjustments to counter what our opponents do (Wide Splits University, Va Tech's underneath routes, Duke's "vaunted" rushing attack). Worse still is that teams who unquestionably have less talent than us and that aren't even notable offenses have run, passed, and scored almost at will against us.

I'm not an expert at the technical aspects of the game, but I'm getting better. To the initial question, we don't have enough guys on our DL with the size and strength you'd need to play 2 gap technique. Porter could do it, but this season he's been pedestrian at it. Pierre came here as a DE. And Luther Campbell excelled at getting penetration (1-gap), but he too has struggled at 2 gap. Add to that, that our LBs who technically should be running free to make tackles often shoot the wrong gap or over pursue (#59). And our senior safeties should be sideline leaders.

 

[killa1storm]

I think it would help your LB's in coverage at the least. They have less run-fit responsibilities in a 4-3 (generally, it depends on what type of 4-3 because different variations have 3-4 and 5-2 concepts) than in a 3-4. This would allow them extra time to read keys upfront and could even allow them to have deeper depth in their drops. The whole point of the 4-3 is to have the guards covered so your LB isn't responsible for as much upfront.

 

[sebastian91]

I think look no further then what our defenses looked like with Shannon at HC. They were flawed, not overly talented but still managed to have total defenses in the 20s and 30s.

In 2008 Glenn Cook had a team high 76 tackles, Bailey team high 5 sacks and we still managed to finish 26th in total defense at 315 yards a game.

Pretty crazy to think about.

That is pretty amazing. We had become so spoiled by top 5 defensive units every year from 00-05 that being 26th seemed like a failure. (and at times it looked bad)

Simply put though... and I'm sure I'm echoing others in saying this... the 1 gap system allows our speed to get up field and be disruptive vs engaging and creating walls at the LOS.
You're able to play a lot more m2m behind that because the QB doesn't have ALL day to throw (which again is a strength of So Fla athletes, m2m).
There's much less thinking involved in a m2m defense. You can have breakdowns in the back 7 but make up for it with your front 4 at times.

The biggest disadvantage to the 1 gap 4-3 is you often lose containment of scrambling QBs & crossing/pick routes become problematic. Shannon would use a S or OLB to contain scrambling QBs (Vick in '05). Crossing routes started to become an issue as our front 4 became less & less talented. The plays had time to develop & Bobby Petrino (along with Rich Rodriguez) were a few of the early OC/HCs to expose Shannon a bit.

All in all the positives far outweigh the negatives imo. Some will argue that the 3-4 is beneficial in today's game because of all the spread formations.
The goal is still the same against spread formations... get speed on the field (which we stubbornly are opposed to today) & have a pass rush (which we rarely have).

With that being said... it's not what Golden knows. I don't expect us to head that direction and quite frankly it's not a good sign if your HC (who's background is 3-4) starts trying new ****.

I expect Golden to be a little bit better than Ron Zook, from a W's & L's perspective, but the 2 will probably have similar tenures at their schools. Great recruiters, mediocre development of talent, & below average X's & O's.

The saying "it's not about the X's & O's it's about the Jimmy's and Joe's" holds much less water today than it did 10, 20, 30 years ago when everybody ran the same **** and there wasn't much parity. CFB today is a coach's world. You've got guys micromanaging games from the sideline, all sorts of systems and schemes that can be tough to prepare for and emulate in practice, etc etc etc.

Good post. I would say, though, that I don't think AG is opposed to getting speed on the field. I think he wants to get speed on the field, but he just doesn't have it in guys he can trust enough. Maybe he needs to throw these young guys in the fire and see how they do, but then you run the risk of destroying their confidence (worse than it already likely is). I also doubt that the scheme they're running is premised on not rushing the QB. That would, of course, be a very bad idea. For whatever reason, it's not getting done, and AG and co. need to get it fixed really quick.

 

[LuCane]

It wouldnt. Right now we dont have the personnel to be great playing any style of defense. More importantly, it might be more in line with what the fans are craving in this anti-donofrio phase but it can be mucked up just as badly as the current defense if not well-implemented. As a fact, the latter shannon/lovett defenses were MUCH more prone to the big play if one guy didnt do their job than this D. That's part of being aggressive. This defense is so soft that these mistakes get limited and we get nickel and dimed down the field which the fans hate. Nonetheless, if you install such a defense and guys dont understand, you are looking at gashes repeatedly. If we had that instead of this and fans had never seen this, the vitriol for the DC would be just as strong the complaints would be different.

I like that style of defense and it probably fits the Miami player mentality better but realistically defense is about implementation more than style IMO and Donofrio's willingness to overcomplicate everything could transition just as well to 43. I'm convinced that we have t even seen what he wants to do in terms of aggression but he may never get there because he can't install the basics. It's funny because he's the anti-Shannon but we all recall that so many disliked Shannon when he was around just letting the athletes turn it loose.

You apparently changed the argument from what difference it would make in "fixing our issue" to "we can't be great at any defense." It has little to do with anti-D'Onofrio. People around here would likely support the devil if it got us defensive results. While I agree it can be mucked up regardless of what philosophy and scheme are implemented (and we've seen examples of it), the question was "How would ______ fix our issues?"

Our issue right now isn't being a "great" defense. Our issue right now is we can't even be a mediocre defense. We struggle across almost our entire schedule. Yesterday, I made a post where I showed that we've basically been the "best game of the season" for an unacceptable amount of teams on our schedule.

Here it is below: http://www.canesinsight.com/threads/59426-Are-you-prepared-for-the-rebuild-to-take-5-years/page4
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, there may be too many variables that affect games day-to-day when looked at as "what did one team do against that team."Then you have to look at what EVERY team did against Duke. Then you'll say "Ok, but that was only one game for us." Except, it's not:

We underperformed the week before relative to what virtually everyone else had done against VTech, too. VTech came into our game as a disaster of an offense. They didn't only get yards. They scored at will. Maybe you'll say they improved? The very next week I watched a decimated Maryland team confuse Logan Thomas and render him useless on 3rd downs, as opposed to his field day against us.

We underperformed against Wake, as well, relative to virtually every team on the entire schedule. You can say, "hey, they improved as the season went on." Except the very next week they put up 198 yards and 0 points on a Syracuse team that has allowed nearly 27 points a game.

We underperformed against UNC relative to literally every team on their entire schedule except Middle Tennessee State (who allowed 11 more yards than us).

Those are 4 teams, as examples, who basically had their best day of the year against our defense. Do we just bring out the best in other teams? Maybe you'll say "yards don't matter." Sure, they're not the end-all (almost nothing, standing alone, is the end-all), but they're a good enough indicator from which we can compare performances - especially when it spans across multiple teams.

We can say for certainty that we underperformed and were taken advantage of relative to other teams in multiple games. It's not an outlier. It's a pattern. Maybe they don't mean everything, but there's enough there to take away some legitimate concern. Instead, you've called people clowns for noting this data and called the discussion of the comparisons "dumb."

 

[LuCane]

To get to the substance of your post, DeadPoets addressed most of it.

To fix some of our problems, we don't have to go to the other extreme. There isn't a limited set of two choices when choosing a style of defense. You don't play a variant of "Al Groh's base version 3-4" or loose and free "Miami 4-3." There are adjustments Coach Golden can make to his current scheme that would immediately pay dividends. Of course, there is the chance that it would place us in a greater risk of big plays and it would fly in the face of the foundation of "less mistakes to victory." But, something has to be done.

Also, you can one-gap out of the 3-4. Maybe not out of the UVA playbook, but certainly there are 3-4 teams who one-gap. There are also 4-3 Under teams who play a lot like 3-4 teams that one-gap. One-gap/two-gap decision isn't something to be viewed as a solution in and of itself. What coverage packages are you combining with the decision to one-gap or two-gap? It all works together, as most know.

 

[RyanCane26]

McCord should've been getting burn in the early blowout games and maybe he wouldnt have looked so lost vs. Duke

 

[Big Sky Cane]

I think there's a "misconception" about 1 gap defense and "allows us to get upfield". You don't just "shoot your gap and get up field". We'd still be engaging the O-linemen and controlling your gap the vast majority of the time.

 

[dg151]

Also, Pruitt, FSUs DC from Bama, tried to implement Bama's 3-4 this season. After realizing within the first couple of weeks of this season that they didn't after the personnel to run it properly, he implemented a 4-3 that has since improved their defense. Why can't we adapt to our personnel instead of forcing them into this style of defense that doesn't fit them?

We did this for 2 years.

 

[dg151]

Well, we couldn't be any worse if we switched to a 4-3.

Our defense is ranked 116th in the country! We have the worst defense in the ACC for the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW.

It defies credulity!

Ranked 116th in what?