Another thing we did in goal line situations towards the end of the year was actually play 3 defensive ends, with Parker, Neal and Lattimer, with Lattimer lined up in his old LB position.
What gives you that idea? We have two "quality LB's". Not exactly an recipe for a 3-4. Stupid thread--especially before Signing Day. Wally will run whatever he wants--which is generally a 4-3.For, more quality LB than DL
Not sure if it was a 3-4 but we rushed only 3 against Mizzou and did pretty well.
And that was a gimmick defense, especially for one game, to confuse Missopuri's Gabbart because he hadn't seen it before. It worked--but every team on the schedule will be prepared next season.3-2-6 or 3-3-5 package. Not a 3-4 defense.
Wouldn't you say that Lattimer would fit pretty good as a OLBer in a 3-4 set where he was played as a sort of hybrid player? I kind of feel like he would be alright there. Coverage may be an issue but I think he would be pretty decent when standing up on the end. Actually, now that I think of it, he did stand up some but I don't remember him dropping in that scenario at all.
Actually Lattimer wouldn't drop back a whole lot in a 3-4.. he would be a stand up pass rushing specialist.. He would be great in that scheme. But its a moot point because hes one of the few front seven players that would fit.
Yeah, I understand he wouldn't a lot.
I guess, as a standup pass rushing specialist, he'd do what he did last year towards the end of the last year. But I don't think that's a defense that we'd be comfortable with enough quite yet, and like you said, he's really the only fit, and I think with an actual offseason at DE, it'd be good for him just to focus on that. Good points though.
I think Rump and perhaps McDonough could be capable but in a 3-4 set we would need guys like Nelson and Lattimer to be OLB and we would need bigger DEs. We don't have that personnel.