3-4 def nxt yr, reasons for or agnst.
- Thread starter sogocat
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Nah, I think he's more valuable as a DE at this time, but he does offer flexibility in that sense. Not any sort of formation you'd go for a lot, because in the 3-4 he'd have to start picking up pass responsibilities more, which I'm not comfortable with at least.
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 agree with you but I think we could see him drop every once in awhile as a confusion technique. It's not something we want him doing regularly though because obviously he is our only proven asset as a pass rusher.
Reasons for:
It's trendy
Reasons against:
We don't have the personnel
We're recruiting guys for our current defensive scheme
The defense is improving under Burnham without a scheme change
Seneca Wallace
Changing to a 3-4 defense now would be akin to replacing the transmission in your old car, then buying a used car without a working transmission a month later.
I'm all for it.
It's trendy
Reasons against:
We don't have the personnel
We're recruiting guys for our current defensive scheme
The defense is improving under Burnham without a scheme change
Seneca Wallace
Changing to a 3-4 defense now would be akin to replacing the transmission in your old car, then buying a used car without a working transmission a month later.
I'm all for it.
You have to have 3 very strong defensive linemen (AND BACKUPS) who are pretty dominant. In order for your LB's to be effective, the D line has to occupy the opponents O-line. Harder to do that with 3 than 4. The guy in the middle of the 3-4 line needs to be un-blockable - a tree. The 4-3 is more versatile, IMO and better suited to the personnel of 98% of Div 1.
We have been remarkably effective with what we have had to work with using a basic 4-3. System seems to be quite good. Keep working on the personnel, and we will get better.
