Name that Defense

[LuCane]

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

Jenkins MAYBE...Norton I don't see it...Gerald Willis yes.

What about Norton's game makes you think he wouldn't be effective in a 0-shade? He's got a great first step. Great leverage. Excellent feet. He could and would probably even chip in at 3.

Gerald Willis is a 3-tech if I've ever seen one. I don't see him as a 0-shade. He may be able to even move a little outside and play the 5 when Chad Thomas needs to rotate out.

 

[fincane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator and a 4-time pro bowler? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

 

[BWCD]

296 is small for a NT. Are you aware of that???? 296 is a 4-3 DT size. Read more, porst less.

I'm fully aware. But why are his backups both 332 and 335, you know, the FR and the RS FR? Looks like to me they've been recruiting to make that NT spot play BIGGER. And follow your own advice, porster.

Second of all Ray Lewis played in the 4-3 when Goose was there. Again, clueless you are.

Not clueless. Dude played at 340 in front of Ray--that's well-oversized for a 4-3 DT. AND he played in a 3-4 in certain formations not only in Baltimore (though their base was 4-3 at that point in time), but also during his time in Indy.

Also...you're just gonna ignore Ngata's effect when Baltimore went to a 3-4, and Ray balooned up? If bulk didn't matter from 4-3 to 3-4, why did Ray gain all the weight and bulk he did?

Third, Arandas LBs are all under 250, and one of his OLBs is 220, which you conveniently dont mention.

I won't freak out on you like you did on me over a 296 lb DT...but you realize that 230+ is big for a college LB, right? Especially for what would be available to us in recruiting SFL?

And 1 OLB being 220'ish out of 4 somehow proves your made-up point that smaller OLB's play in 3-4 systems predominantly??? WOW. That's just nuts.

 

[FullyERicht]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

So you point to a college defense like Aranda's and say its a system that doesn't work with talented players.

Then you say NFL defenses don't count bc they are too talented and you can't compare to college.

Do you have autism or Downs?

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

Jenkins MAYBE...Norton I don't see it...Gerald Willis yes.

What about Norton's game makes you think he wouldn't be effective in a 0-shade? He's got a great first step. Great length. Excellent feet. He could and would probably even chip in at 3.

Honestly I wasn't very impressed with Norton this year...no get-off, OLmen get into His body too easy, poor hand technique. I'll give em' the BOTD as a freshman, otherwise, He might be better served moving to OG.

 

[FullyERicht]

296 is small for a NT. Are you aware of that???? 296 is a 4-3 DT size. Read more, porst less.

I'm fully aware. But why are his backups both 332 and 335, you know, the FR and the RS FR? Looks like to me they've been recruiting to make that NT spot play BIGGER. And follow your own advice, porster.

Second of all Ray Lewis played in the 4-3 when Goose was there. Again, clueless you are.

Not clueless. Dude played at 340 in front of Ray--that's well-oversized for a 4-3 DT. AND he played in a 3-4 in certain formations not only in Baltimore (though their base was 4-3 at that point in time), but also during his time in Indy.

Also...you're just gonna ignore Ngata's effect when Baltimore went to a 3-4, and Ray balooned up? If bulk didn't matter from 4-3 to 3-4, why did Ray gain all the weight and bulk he did?

Third, Arandas LBs are all under 250, and one of his OLBs is 220, which you conveniently dont mention.

I won't freak out on you like you did on me over a 296 lb DT...but you realize that 230+ is big for a college LB, right? Especially for what would be available to us in recruiting SFL?

And 1 OLB being 220'ish out of 4 somehow proves your made-up point that smaller OLB's play in 3-4 systems predominantly??? WOW. That's just nuts.

God so much fail in here.

#1 , Ray Lewis played in Indy? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL we seriously have a fan that doesn't know the career of our greatest LB ever.

#2 When they played a 3-4 under Mike Nolan, it was a 2 gap 3-4. Thus, he was asked to balloon, bc as has been discussed a million times, the thing that matters is not 4-3 or 3-4, but single gap versus 2 gap.

#3 the 220 lb OLB shows that you don't need big guys to play OLB in his system, AND that Sean Spence would have been just fine there.

#4 230 in no way shape or form is large for college LBs, even ones running a 4-3 Over front.

 

[Artist Formerly Known As]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

I hate comparing college to pros, but most if not all of the best 3-4 defenses of the past 15 years have had beef up front. Wade Phillips system is more the outlier than the majority.

Steelers and Patriots won five superbowls using the 3-4 combined in that stretch. Both had a massive nose tackle and big DEs.

 

[Artist Formerly Known As]

296 is small for a NT. Are you aware of that???? 296 is a 4-3 DT size. Read more, porst less.

I'm fully aware. But why are his backups both 332 and 335, you know, the FR and the RS FR? Looks like to me they've been recruiting to make that NT spot play BIGGER. And follow your own advice, porster.

Second of all Ray Lewis played in the 4-3 when Goose was there. Again, clueless you are.

Not clueless. Dude played at 340 in front of Ray--that's well-oversized for a 4-3 DT. AND he played in a 3-4 in certain formations not only in Baltimore (though their base was 4-3 at that point in time), but also during his time in Indy.

Also...you're just gonna ignore Ngata's effect when Baltimore went to a 3-4, and Ray balooned up? If bulk didn't matter from 4-3 to 3-4, why did Ray gain all the weight and bulk he did?

Third, Arandas LBs are all under 250, and one of his OLBs is 220, which you conveniently dont mention.

I won't freak out on you like you did on me over a 296 lb DT...but you realize that 230+ is big for a college LB, right? Especially for what would be available to us in recruiting SFL?

And 1 OLB being 220'ish out of 4 somehow proves your made-up point that smaller OLB's play in 3-4 systems predominantly??? WOW. That's just nuts.

God so much fail in here.

#1 , Ray Lewis played in Indy? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL we seriously have a fan that doesn't know the career of our greatest LB ever.

#2 When they played a 3-4 under Mike Nolan, it was a 2 gap 3-4. Thus, he was asked to balloon, bc as has been discussed a million times, the thing that matters is not 4-3 or 3-4, but single gap versus 2 gap.

#3 the 220 lb OLB shows that you don't need big guys to play OLB in his system, AND that Sean Spence would have been just fine there.

He was talkin about Goose's weight in Indy.

 

[sstcane]

Sean Spence is 230 playing WILB in the NFL with the Steelers.

 

[FullyERicht]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

I hate comparing college to pros, but most if not all of the best 3-4 defenses of the past 15 years have had beef up front. Wade Phillips system is more the outlier than the majority.

Steelers and Patriots won five superbowls using the 3-4 combined in that stretch. Both had a massive nose tackle and big DEs.

So what? All this proves is my exact point: you can play highly effective versions of the 3-4 with smaller fast players.

 

[LuCane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator and a 4-time pro bowler? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

A 3-4 one gap system is totally sustainable year to year and I was probably the biggest skeptic, from jump, of the 3-4 version D'Ono and Al ran. I called it unlikely to ever be sustainable from the beginning because of its need for guys with 3-4 year strength. Stanford has a lot of those guys and they STILL one gap.

Whatever the **** Aranda does is only tangentially relevant to what I'm talking about:

It is possible, if not totally feasible, to run a sustainable 3-4 defense if you're talking about a one-gap, upfield system.

0-shades need to be quick and play with leverage. We'd need at least one of these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
3-techs need length and explosiveness. We'd need these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
5-techs need length and versatility. If anything, I think SoFla is now growing many of these types. We have at least 2 committed to us right now.
6+ need speed, length, flexibility. Should not be a problem.

At LB, FSU ran an effective 3-4 with Telvin Smith tipping the scales at just over 210 and wirey. We can get these types.

All the style of DBs we need grow here and would/should want to play in an aggressive, up-field scheme that makes them look better.

I'm not even a strict 3-4 guy, but I don't see the problem.

 

[Dynasty]

Since we have so many fans on here muddying the waters about 3-4 versus 4-3, and still somehow don't understand that the philosophy is what matters, not the number of DL vs LBs. So I'm going to attach several pictures and explain them.

This is a 3-4, single gap under front:

From L to R you have an OLB for the edge, a DL for the C gap, a DL for the A gap, a DL for the B gap, and an edge rusher standing up

This is a 4-3, single gap front:

From L to R you have an OLB for the edge, a DL for the C gap, a DL for the A, a DL for the B gap, and an edge rusher hand in the dirt.

B/C both are single gap system, the only difference between them is that the right side edge rusher is putting his hand in the dirt for the Seahawks. THAT IS IT. Zero else is different.

Now, if it is exactly the same, why does that one special guy standup in the 3-4? The reason is b/c when you are blitzing, particularly zone blitzing, it is much easier for that guy drop into coverage from a standup position than it is with his hand down. It also serves to provide uncertainty for the OL as to who exactly the fourth and 5th rushers will be. THAT IS IT.

The key is the shaded (DTs) front. The 3-4 under is basically an inverse 4-3 under. That said, in the second vid, the WDT isn't playing a 3tech, so I don't think both systems are the same. Just based on alignment, the Bears appear to be running a true 3-4 under front. Where as the 'hawks most likely are running some form of combo 4-3 under front.

WTF are you taking about. First of all it's the Texans, second of all it is the exact same front. You have a 5, 1, and 3.

Texans, Bears whatever. In the first still clip, the WDT is aligned in a 3 tech, correct? In the second vid, the weakside DT is aligned in what technique? It doesn't look like a 3 to me.

Bc he is 2 gapping. Like in the first pic where it clearly says "can 2 gap". A 4-3 team 2 gapping while the 3-4 doesnt.

Understand the point of "can 2 gap." However, as stated the key is the shaded DTs. If that "two gap" DT does indeed stack, then it becomes a combo front. It isn't a pure penetrating front. The thing is you can play this game in either a 3-4 or 4-3 front. Personally, I don't want any part of a 3-4 or 4-3 system that uses combo fronts.

 

[FullyERicht]

I mean the thing is I'm a 4-3 guy. I revere Sonny Lubick. I even liked Randy's defense a ton. But I also am not a stone aged troglodyte who refuses to appreciate other, highly effective, speed based systems.

I also am not going to sit here like an idiot and say I don't want one of the best DCs in football at Miami, nor will I ever prefer some mediocre DC just bc he runs a 4-3.

 

[LuCane]

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

Jenkins MAYBE...Norton I don't see it...Gerald Willis yes.

What about Norton's game makes you think he wouldn't be effective in a 0-shade? He's got a great first step. Great leverage. Excellent feet. He could and would probably even chip in at 3.

Honestly I wasn't very impressed with Norton this year...no get-off, OLmen get into His body too easy, poor hand technique. I'll give em' the BOTD as a freshman, otherwise, He might be better served moving to OG.

I meant leverage instead of length, so I edited. I think you were watching what Norton looked like in his assignments (via D'Ono 2-gap) as opposed to the times he slanted and went upfield. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[fincane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

So you point to a college defense like Aranda's and say its a system that doesn't work with talented players.

Then you say NFL defenses don't count bc they are too talented and you can't compare to college.

Do you have autism or Downs?

I can see you're getting frustrated because you've devolved into name calling and misinformation. I never said it didn't work with talented players. The NFL doesn't count. It isn't the same game. You have grown men ready to play it. Wisconsin redshirts every DL they get their hands on if they can. I'm still waiting on you to tell me why south Florida front 7 players aren't being gobbled up by the best 3-4 defenses in the country.

You can talk about all the positives of it and I haven't disagreed but why would I install a system that the players I focus on recruiting aren't interested in playing in? Or at least don't appear to be recruited to play in. They can be misinformed as **** but you start talking about the 3-4 to south Florida kids and taking up blockers and watch the reactions.

 

[FullyERicht]

The key is the shaded (DTs) front. The 3-4 under is basically an inverse 4-3 under. That said, in the second vid, the WDT isn't playing a 3tech, so I don't think both systems are the same. Just based on alignment, the Bears appear to be running a true 3-4 under front. Where as the 'hawks most likely are running some form of combo 4-3 under front.

WTF are you taking about. First of all it's the Texans, second of all it is the exact same front. You have a 5, 1, and 3.

Texans, Bears whatever. In the first still clip, the WDT is aligned in a 3 tech, correct? In the second vid, the weakside DT is aligned in what technique? It doesn't look like a 3 to me.

Bc he is 2 gapping. Like in the first pic where it clearly says "can 2 gap". A 4-3 team 2 gapping while the 3-4 doesnt.

Understand the point of "can 2 gap." However, as stated the key is the shaded DTs. If that "two gap" DT does indeed stack, then it becomes a combo front. It isn't a pure penetrating front. The thing is you can play this game in either a 3-4 or 4-3 front. Personally, I don't want any part of a 3-4 or 4-3 system that uses combo fronts.

You made a point that is made up. The entire premise is that the only difference between a single gap 3-4 and a single gap 4-3 is the alignment. Anything else you do can be done in either scheme. You can play over, under, bear, etc etc FROM EITHER SYSTEM. You can play 1 side 2 gap, one side single gap in EITHER SYSTEM. You can play strictly 2 gap IN EITHER SYSTEM, or strictly one gap IN EITHER SYSTEM.

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER.

The only thing that matters is the gap assignments.

 

[fincane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator and a 4-time pro bowler? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

A 3-4 one gap system is totally sustainable year to year and I was probably the biggest skeptic, from jump, of the 3-4 version D'Ono and Al ran. I called it unlikely to ever be sustainable from the beginning because of its need for guys with 3-4 year strength. Stanford has a lot of those guys and they STILL one gap.

Whatever the **** Aranda does is only tangentially relevant to what I'm talking about:

It is possible, if not totally feasible, to run a sustainable 3-4 defense if you're talking about a one-gap, upfield system.

0-shades need to be quick and play with leverage. We'd need at least one of these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
3-techs need length and explosiveness. We'd need these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
5-techs need length and versatility. If anything, I think SoFla is now growing many of these types. We have at least 2 committed to us right now.
6+ need speed, length, flexibility. Should not be a problem.

At LB, FSU ran an effective 3-4 with Telvin Smith tipping the scales at just over 210 and wirey. We can get these types.

All the style of DBs we need grow here and would/should want to play in an aggressive, up-field scheme that makes them look better.

I'm not even a strict 3-4 guy, but I don't see the problem.

FSU didn't run an effective pure 3-4 specifically against the run if I remember. They were awful at it first and went more hybrid as the season went along.

 

[LuCane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator and a 4-time pro bowler? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

A 3-4 one gap system is totally sustainable year to year and I was probably the biggest skeptic, from jump, of the 3-4 version D'Ono and Al ran. I called it unlikely to ever be sustainable from the beginning because of its need for guys with 3-4 year strength. Stanford has a lot of those guys and they STILL one gap.

Whatever the **** Aranda does is only tangentially relevant to what I'm talking about:

It is possible, if not totally feasible, to run a sustainable 3-4 defense if you're talking about a one-gap, upfield system.

0-shades need to be quick and play with leverage. We'd need at least one of these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
3-techs need length and explosiveness. We'd need these types to run an effective 4-3, anyway.
5-techs need length and versatility. If anything, I think SoFla is now growing many of these types. We have at least 2 committed to us right now.
6+ need speed, length, flexibility. Should not be a problem.

At LB, FSU ran an effective 3-4 with Telvin Smith tipping the scales at just over 210 and wirey. We can get these types.

All the style of DBs we need grow here and would/should want to play in an aggressive, up-field scheme that makes them look better.

I'm not even a strict 3-4 guy, but I don't see the problem.

FSU didn't run an effective pure 3-4 specifically against the run if I remember. They were awful at it first and went more hybrid as the season went along.

FSU's version of the 3-4 they ran was still MORE dependent on gap control than I would want here, and Telvin Smith played well in it.

 

[FullyERicht]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

So you point to a college defense like Aranda's and say its a system that doesn't work with talented players.

Then you say NFL defenses don't count bc they are too talented and you can't compare to college.

Do you have autism or Downs?

I can see you're getting frustrated because you've devolved into name calling and misinformation. I never said it didn't work with talented players. The NFL doesn't count. It isn't the same game. You have grown men ready to play it. Wisconsin redshirts every DL they get their hands on if they can. I'm still waiting on you to tell me why south Florida front 7 players aren't being gobbled up by the best 3-4 defenses in the country.

You can talk about all the positives of it and I haven't disagreed but why would I install a system that the players I focus on recruiting aren't interested in playing in? Or at least don't appear to be recruited to play in. They can be misinformed as **** but you start talking about the 3-4 to south Florida kids and taking up blockers and watch the reactions.

Jesus christ.

Your issue is that you STILL equate all 3-4 defenses. Bob Diaco's at ND is different from Al Goldens, which is different from Sabans, which is different from Clancy Pendergasts, which is different from Dave Aranda and Todd Orlando's.

You are correct. Small, quick twitch Florida players don't do well in Golden or Diaco's 2-gap systems.

They also aren't as suited for Saban's combo of 2 gap and 1 gap, which require much bigger, more powerful athletes. Or Pendergasts 52 defense.

However, there exist versions of the 3-4, which are relatively new, modern and less common, that are both highly effective and based on speed over size.

That's the whole point. The entire thing people have been trying to explain to you is that being "anti-34" is not logical, b/c the systems are all vastly different. And there are some that WOULD fit South Florida personnel.

 

[jerzeycane]

Wade Phillips ran his 3-4 with a baby sized (relatively) Jay Ratliff. His biggest advantages? Leverage and speed. He weighed 285 pounds and played 0-tech (shaded).

We have guys like Norton and Jenkins who could disrupt the **** out of an offense from the same position (and are actually bigger than Ratliff was in the NFL).

I'd even go so far as to ask both of them to slim down and optimize their get off.

Why do we keep using NFL examples along with a potential hall of fame coordinator? Why do these systems work in college? Who in the college ranks can we compare our guys too and is that defense sustainable year to year? Are we going to need grown men and who have "got the system down" to run it effectively?

So you point to a college defense like Aranda's and say its a system that doesn't work with talented players.

Then you say NFL defenses don't count bc they are too talented and you can't compare to college.

Do you have autism or Downs?

I can see you're getting frustrated because you've devolved into name calling and misinformation. I never said it didn't work with talented players. The NFL doesn't count. It isn't the same game. You have grown men ready to play it. Wisconsin redshirts every DL they get their hands on if they can. I'm still waiting on you to tell me why south Florida front 7 players aren't being gobbled up by the best 3-4 defenses in the country.

You can talk about all the positives of it and I haven't disagreed but why would I install a system that the players I focus on recruiting aren't interested in playing in? Or at least don't appear to be recruited to play in. They can be misinformed as **** but you start talking about the 3-4 to south Florida kids and taking up blockers and watch the reactions.

Jesus christ.

Your issue is that you STILL equate all 3-4 defenses. Bob Diaco's at ND is different from Al Goldens, which is different from Sabans, which is different from Clancy Pendergasts, which is different from Dave Aranda and Todd Orlando's.

You are correct. Small, quick twitch Florida players don't do well in Golden or Diaco's 2-gap systems.

They also aren't as suited for Saban's combo of 2 gap and 1 gap, which require much bigger, more powerful athletes. Or Pendergasts 52 defense.

However, there exist versions of the 3-4, which are relatively new, modern and less common, that are both highly effective and based on speed over size.

That's the whole point. The entire thing people have been trying to explain to you is that being "anti-34" is not logical, b/c the systems are all vastly different. And there are some that WOULD fit South Florida personnel.

Really...what else needs to be said?