3/4 vs Base D
- Thread starter TGHusker
- Start date
Gorillahawk
New member
Ah...there it is more of the same.
Blame and Excuses
It’s talent...It’s the offense...it’s what we inherited.
Some defensive stats improved slightly, some decreased slightly. No real significant change from year 1 to 2.
There is a lack of real improvement on areas they strongly focused on, such as rush defense and red zone defense. In the preseason I discussed the importance of stopping the run on first down, citing specifically how teams can really open their playbook on 2nd and 5 and shorter. An offense is deemed “successful” by statisticians if held to 50% of the needed yards on first down. We certainly saw with our offense how impactful it is on playcalling when you can’t reach that level consistently running on first down.
The result: A change from 5.63 rushing yards per carry to 5.22.
Red zone defense is another area of emphasis, and largely related to run defense. T121st in the country at 91% conversion rate allowed. Even worse in conference play where teams converted 32 of 34 attempts. Only 7 of those were field goals. This was not a good area last year, and actually got worse.
madrat
New member
From the article it really speaks circular and says almost nothing. It reminds me of reading the student rag on campus, sometimes almost sounds like something. However, if you look at the pictures, the author cannot even be bothered to choose pictures with 11 players on the field most of the time. It makes the pictures have no context in this regard.
I googled 'quarters high match-up zone' and didn't find anything academic. Most football writing on the internet is not technical in nature. I certainly hope you were not advocating a 4-deep alignment on every play. That would be good at stopping very little except long throws at the safeties. I don't think it is ever wise to leave soft corners with backed off linebackers to give an offense plenty of room. On second thought, that is kind of what Chinander likes to run...
Ocean
New member
The article is just decent. It's an opinion piece from a student or somebody trying to get into sports writing I'd imagine.
The defense, itself, is what Pat Narduzzi ran at Mich State and what he runs now at Pitt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3tT6wS1eC4&list=PLN6nh81grVQT3MUJY2aHMYy4Dzt57VNKF&index=3
A good playlist here. The video above is a short breakdown of a passing scenario. There are also run defense and alignments videos and core concept videos.
Last edited by a moderator:
r06ue1
New member
Seen great 4 - 3 defenses and great 3 - 4 defenses throughout my time watching college and pro football (since '82) so I don't think either is really better than the other. What makes either great is having great players and a great coordinator, right now, we know we don't have the former and the later is still to be determined (need the great players).
TGHusker
New member
The bold is so important. Who was our last very good, consistent pass rusher? Gregory? The lack of pressure on the QB has allowed so many of those 3rd and 8 or 4th and 8 becoming 1st and 10.
The great NU Ds of the past have always had an outstanding pass rusher. Sometimes it wasn't a DE but an OLB.
Bo as Frank's DC, had D Williams coming from the OLB spot and he was a terror. Or we had SUH or Crick rushing from the middle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danimal
New member
The O was certainly disappointing but to be fair we played against WAY more quality defenses than offenses. Against the four offenses we faced that were in the top50 we averaged over 40pts given-up.
BIG ERN
New member
If it were me outside of a few exceptions I am only recruiting LBs who were LBs in high school. Davis, Nelson and Tannor were DEs and now are stand up LBs - not a major issue, just pointing it out. Miller mostly played DE as well and is ILB. JoJo was a safety. Now if we can get another Randy Gregory (Jimari Butler) I am okay with that to get a pass rush.
Wisconsin on the other hand only recruits LBs to play all 4 spots in their 3-4 defense.
Wisconsin on the other hand only recruits LBs to play all 4 spots in their 3-4 defense.
Husker in WI
New member
It's pretty common to recruit 4-3 ends as 3-4 outside backers if they're athletic enough. Not their fault their high school team runs a 4-3, and a big part of recruiting is projecting how they fit your scheme, not finding guys who happen to play in a similar one in high school. Wisconsin has actually had pretty good luck with high school QB/athletes who also play LB. Baun was recruited as an LB all the way, but he was a great high school QB. TJ Edwards and TJ Watt both played QB in high school too.
BIG ERN
New member
You can be a 4-3 LB and still play LB in a 3-4....I think we try and get too cute getting weakside DEs to convert into 3-4 OLB
......with the help of some talent left to him such as Maliek Collins, Nathan Gerry and Vincent Valentine.
madrat
New member
Basically the quarters high match-up zone is 2-man look with zone rules. The truth is no defense is infallible, so you have to have multiple options to change it up. Pelimi ran the Tampa 2 which was the same base look with a minor variation in inside rules in the unders, Mike runs with streak and denies an inside release by 2 receiver crossing his face, and corners on snap rotate to the unders. Unfortunately any minor tweak runs risk if you do it too much, which we did in some games.