3/4 vs Base D

[TGHusker]

I have yet to warm up to the 3/4 D. I have not been impressed by the results under SF or MR.   My understanding of the concept is that you need premium line backers to make it work - esp Outside LB who can be both great pass rushers and be able to cover RBs and TE on pass plays as needed.  My understanding is that the D line is to be stout enough to defend against the run but basic responsibility is to plug the holes so the LB can mop up either with pass rushing or stopping running plays.  It seems to me, that it takes more elite athletes to make it work.  We haven't had those elite guys on D as linebackers or great rush ends either.  So, maybe it is a good D if / when we have better athletes.  Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

I would like us to discuss the merits of the 3/4 vs the base 4 DL defense.   

I believe only 3 teams in the Big 10 run the 3/4 D.  Is this the right D for the Big 10 - which is heavy on great runners and great OLs??

How is it better or worse for NU in our current situation vs a base D in your opinion. 

Vote in the poll and then elaborate why yes or no.

 

[TheSker]

One of the advantages of the 3-4 is the ability to disguise what you're doing more often.

Adam Carriker did a podcast about the differences this week and one of my takeaways was the opponents' OL can have more communication issues dealing with a 3-4.

 

[Head Coach Scott Frost]

I hit no, not because I like prefer 4/3 but because I don't prefer either. Really just want to see quality defense

 

[teachercd]

If you really watch...most downs end up with 5 guys on the LOS...3 or 4...it is almost always 5 guys up there.

 

[Undone]

I'd like Option C to be "It probably doesn't actually matter" and then I'd vote for that one.

I was vocal against the 3-4 initially but after seeing definitive results from the way Wisconsin runs theirs (with average to sort-of-good talent), I'm pretty convinced it doesn't really matter that much. The 3-4 should be the best scheme at limiting big chunk running plays if you align your guys correctly.

So in theory it's actually a decent scheme in the B1G.

 

[Igetbored216]

4-3 or 3-4 doesn't matter. Both can work, if you have the players. Both can fail, if you don't have the players.

Last year didn't work because we were missing some players. Bo's defense also wasn't very good towards the end of his tenure, because he was missing some players. 

 

[Hilltop]

IMO the 3-4 can handle the speed of the spread offenses a little bit better than a base 4 can.  In the end, any of the variations discussed can work with the right players on the field.  

 

[TGHusker]

I'd like Option C to be "It probably doesn't actually matter" and then I'd vote for that one.

I was vocal against the 3-4 initially but after seeing definitive results from the way Wisconsin runs theirs (with average to sort-of-good talent), I'm pretty convinced it doesn't really matter that much. The 3-4 should be the best scheme at limiting big chunk running plays if you align your guys correctly.

So in theory it's actually a decent scheme in the B1G.

C is added plus a D

 

[SFW]

I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line.  Stop the run first D!

If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable.

The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been.  

 

[TheSker]

I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line.  Stop the run first D!

If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable.

The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been.  

Chinander's actually is mostly predictable right now.  

That has mostly to do with not having better talent yet to run it and lack a familiarity caused by having 3 defensive coordinators in 4 years.

 

[Undone]

This comment:

I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line.

and this comment:

If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable.

are kind of in contradiction to each other. That's because Wisconsin doesn't exactly have massive size on their D-line and they definitely don't have big size for their linebackers.

I do agree about creating more disguised packages, though. Strongly agree actually.

Chinander's actually is mostly predictable right now.  

That has mostly to do with not having better talent yet to run it and lack a familiarity caused by having 3 defensive coordinators in 4 years.

This is the hopium that we pack into our pipe and smoke...but it isn't a for sure thing. It might just be that Chinander insists on keeping things overly simplistic, scheme-wise. Time and only time will tell there.

 

[Nebfanatic]

This comment:

and this comment:

are kind of in contradiction to each other. That's because Wisconsin doesn't exactly have massive size on their D-line and they definitely don't have big size for their linebackers.

I do agree about creating more disguised packages, though. Strongly agree actually.

This is the hopium that we pack into our pipe and smoke...but it isn't a for sure thing. It might just be that Chinander insists on keeping things overly simplistic, scheme-wise. Time and only time will tell there.

Hopium... that is great!  :laughpound

 

[suh_fan93]

I prefer a 4-3 in the Big Ten where you need more big bodies on the line.  Stop the run first D!

If we had the LSU or Wisconsin’s DC I’d be ok with 3-4, they are very unpredictable.

The problem with Chinander’s 3-4 it’s very predictable and always has been.  

Summed up my thoughts entirely.

 

[BIG ERN]

If you wanna run a 3-4 you better have good LBs. If you wanna run a 4-3 you better have a good D line. Our LBs were absolute garbage and I still feel that the Daniels and Davis Bros along with Stille were pretty solid for what we wanted to do and we still looked like crap. Therefore, our LBs have to improve a ton to be successful. 

That or find a new DC.