I'm just wondering why Stoops and Eliot would make the switch. Stoops has always been a 4-3 guy. Why the change in philosophy?
Is the 3-4 easier to recruit for?
- Thread starter DaBossIsBack
- Start date
supposedly yes. the theory is that there are more of those olb'er types than there are de types and its easier to recruit 1 nose than 2 dt's. most teams run a 4-3 so the prototypical players for that are very sought after.
i dont know if i agree with that anymore though because everyone is forced to be multiple and play in space with all the spread offenses out there. i think the reason we switched is to force more to's. i think they realized you can't win a land war in asia so drag them to the coast and have a navel battle. (sorry, weird analogy. lol)
you're not gonna stop bama, uga, lsu, or aub consistently enough to win on a regular basis. but if you can run an offense that is hard to gameplan for and can put up points in the +40's... then on D you have to get some stops but if you can put pressure on their O to score TDs instead of fg's... maybe you force them into doing things they aren't used to and you show them some looks they haven't seen and you get a few picks and set your O up for short fields. i think it is more of an overall gameplan than just being the "best D they can think of"
i dont know if i agree with that anymore though because everyone is forced to be multiple and play in space with all the spread offenses out there. i think the reason we switched is to force more to's. i think they realized you can't win a land war in asia so drag them to the coast and have a navel battle. (sorry, weird analogy. lol)
you're not gonna stop bama, uga, lsu, or aub consistently enough to win on a regular basis. but if you can run an offense that is hard to gameplan for and can put up points in the +40's... then on D you have to get some stops but if you can put pressure on their O to score TDs instead of fg's... maybe you force them into doing things they aren't used to and you show them some looks they haven't seen and you get a few picks and set your O up for short fields. i think it is more of an overall gameplan than just being the "best D they can think of"
Well stated and I think it's easier to disguise coverages and blitzes in a 3-4 than a 4-3 as well. You can be more multiple with a hybrid Jack LB than you can be with a prototypical DE. I don't think we're only doing it because it's easier to recruit to and use against the big boys I think it's a trend that we'll start seeing across college football. LBs are getting leaner and faster than they once were and a premium is put on the ability to cover receivers and backs in space
A few years ago nearly every NFL team was going to a 3-4 too, but that seems to be changing somewhat. I personally think either the 3-4 or 4-3 is fine with the right personnel, my fear is of the transition. Teams, both coaches and players, generally seem to have a ton of problems transitioning from a 4-3 to a 3-4.
1) Today's spread offenses require more speed on the field. More and more teams run the spread.
2) Suits UK's personnel (the one's recruited prior to the switch and obviously after)
3) Stoops says, "it has more balance, and gives more flexibility in movements and change-ups"
The coaches still think of themselves as balanced though, and I'm sure we'll still see 4 man fronts at times. Sweeping categorizations don't tell the whole story. Look at Alabama for example, they are considered a 3-4 team, but play a ton of 4 man fronts.
Last edited:
We switched over several years ago, I don't think is easier to recruit for necessarily or that had anything to do with why we switched over. As someone said the number of spread and HUNH offenses today dictate getting more athletism on the field. Bama likes to have a monster at NG and huge DT type guys at DE to shut down the running game and depends on their DBs just being better than your guys for pass coverage. They appear to have real issues with running qbs, they don't get much pressure on the qb but they are tough to line up and run against. Our 3-4 concept has smaller quicker guys, one of our DE this year at times will be around 250, and our MLB have more pass responsibility, we look for smaller faster guys who can run with the TE and make plays sideline to sideline but we are not as strong inside.
I think it is just more versatile and you can adapt it to your players easier, of course it could just be the flavor of the day by college DCs too, but I think the spread and HUNH dictates getting more guys on the field who can run and cover, little to do with recruiting.
Reasons to Switch to the 3-4 over the 4-3:
1) Speed: As other posters have noted, replacing a 4-3 DE with a 3-4 Jack / OLB get's more speed on the field, essential in the era of spread offenses. Moreover, traditional, "hand in the dirt" DE's are not used to playing in space. This makes them a liability against spread offensives, who want nothing more than to get a jitterbug WR / HB in space. Think about it. In a tight game, when the offense throws throws a bubble screen against your defense, who do you want trying to make that tackle, Bud Dupree or Dennis Johnson?
2) Versatility: When you're in a 4-3, you pretty much "know" which four men are coming every down. They may drop a DE into coverage on a zone blitz, and/or they may send a OLB, or rarely a MLB, on the blitz, but the base package offers little in the way of creative pressure options compared to the 3-4. In the 3-4, you can walk up your two OLB's, creating a 5-2 look, or have one OLB put his hand in the dirt for a 4-3 look. Even in the nickle there are advantages, with hybrid 2-4-5 looks (DE's move inside, OLB's line up over tackles) and even the more exotic 1-5-5 look that the N.E. Patriots sometimes employ. I like it when UK shows a 3-3-5 nickle, except that the NB is McClain, who plays like a LB / SS / CB. If I'm a QB and he walks up to the line of scrimmage in that package, I have to wonder, "What the hell am I looking at?". Every down, the defense is bringing four to five rushers, but which four or five? That's the beauty of the scheme. Multiple looks with nearly infinite blitz possibilities for a creative coordinator.
3) Recruiting: It is very, very tough to find +250 lbs athletes coming out of HS. By and large, the elite programs gobble them up. However, athletic 220 lbs players are much more readily available. When you play a 3-4, you can recruit the best athlete available and then transition him at the college level (SS to LB, LB to SS, etc). But when you have to have prototype 4-3 defensive ends, then there is no room for error. And when a "sure thing" at 4-3 DE comes out of HS, everybody wants him. UK has chosen to go after hybrid, "we'll figure out when you get here" types that offer versatility with less competition in recruiting.
4) Special Teams: An often lost benefit of the 3-4 is that your entire roster get's faster. Imagine replacing 2/5 of the down linemen on your roster with with fast, athletic, solid open field tacklers. How much better did your kick coverage teams just get? In the era of limited roster spots, getting more athletic people on special team units without using starters is very difficult. Shedding down linemen in favor of linebackers is one way to do that.
1) Speed: As other posters have noted, replacing a 4-3 DE with a 3-4 Jack / OLB get's more speed on the field, essential in the era of spread offenses. Moreover, traditional, "hand in the dirt" DE's are not used to playing in space. This makes them a liability against spread offensives, who want nothing more than to get a jitterbug WR / HB in space. Think about it. In a tight game, when the offense throws throws a bubble screen against your defense, who do you want trying to make that tackle, Bud Dupree or Dennis Johnson?
2) Versatility: When you're in a 4-3, you pretty much "know" which four men are coming every down. They may drop a DE into coverage on a zone blitz, and/or they may send a OLB, or rarely a MLB, on the blitz, but the base package offers little in the way of creative pressure options compared to the 3-4. In the 3-4, you can walk up your two OLB's, creating a 5-2 look, or have one OLB put his hand in the dirt for a 4-3 look. Even in the nickle there are advantages, with hybrid 2-4-5 looks (DE's move inside, OLB's line up over tackles) and even the more exotic 1-5-5 look that the N.E. Patriots sometimes employ. I like it when UK shows a 3-3-5 nickle, except that the NB is McClain, who plays like a LB / SS / CB. If I'm a QB and he walks up to the line of scrimmage in that package, I have to wonder, "What the hell am I looking at?". Every down, the defense is bringing four to five rushers, but which four or five? That's the beauty of the scheme. Multiple looks with nearly infinite blitz possibilities for a creative coordinator.
3) Recruiting: It is very, very tough to find +250 lbs athletes coming out of HS. By and large, the elite programs gobble them up. However, athletic 220 lbs players are much more readily available. When you play a 3-4, you can recruit the best athlete available and then transition him at the college level (SS to LB, LB to SS, etc). But when you have to have prototype 4-3 defensive ends, then there is no room for error. And when a "sure thing" at 4-3 DE comes out of HS, everybody wants him. UK has chosen to go after hybrid, "we'll figure out when you get here" types that offer versatility with less competition in recruiting.
4) Special Teams: An often lost benefit of the 3-4 is that your entire roster get's faster. Imagine replacing 2/5 of the down linemen on your roster with with fast, athletic, solid open field tacklers. How much better did your kick coverage teams just get? In the era of limited roster spots, getting more athletic people on special team units without using starters is very difficult. Shedding down linemen in favor of linebackers is one way to do that.
With so much athleticism in the game now you have a lot of tweeners. Guys that are big enough to play the line but also athletic enough to drop back in coverage. Disguising your D as best as you can and have a lot of moving parts on the field can confuse teams and maybe get them to buy into more mistakes or getting less possessions. Like hmt5000 said, you aren't going to stop the Bama's or the LSU's on a consistent basis but if you shorten their possessions and give your offense more chances, you give yourself a better chance in a shootout.
Even with recruiting as great as it has been under Stoops you are still going to lose recruiting battles with the front 4 guys who are made to play in a 4-3 for the powerhouses. You have some really athletic guys out there each year that the Big dogs may pass on bc they are Tweeners and they can become big time players for a school like UK.
Even with recruiting as great as it has been under Stoops you are still going to lose recruiting battles with the front 4 guys who are made to play in a 4-3 for the powerhouses. You have some really athletic guys out there each year that the Big dogs may pass on bc they are Tweeners and they can become big time players for a school like UK.
It's important to note that there are very few teams out there (college or NFL) that run strictly a 3-4 or 4-3. Almost everyone runs a hybrid defense that can display multiple fronts. Soooo, saying that UK runs a 3-4 is mildly misleading.
I like the way Bama does it as well. That's my main disagreement with Stoops is that I wish he would implement the 3-4 on the front line the way Bama does. I think it would work better. Extremely big up front and fast on the back line. Instead of having a NG, Quick DT and a Regulard DE they should go with 2 big DTs and move their faster DT to the end. My line up would have Elam, Lewis at the tackles and CJ Johnson/Meant at the end. Our LBs are already built for speed so the bigger front would consume more blocks and protect them from the running game a little more.
IMO, no. The 3-4 is basically a 3 DT defense and quality DTs are hard to find, maybe the hardest position to recruit due to scarcity. In a 4 man front you need 2 DTs (usually a 1 and 3 tech) and can use smaller players on the edge, especially weak side. When UK was in a 3 man front last year, Smith had rough time because he was really undersized for the position (DE, but never wider than a 5 tech) he was asked to play. Secondly, the 3-4 scheme overall is "more complicated" in the play of the front 7 than a 4-3. There are different ways to run your front but with 1 less down lineman there is always 1 more gap that is LB responsibility.
The proliferation of spread formation offenses have dictated the need to get more "in space" defenders on the field. That means more "full time" LBs or DBs are needed on the field all of the time, not just in passing situations. So to get that 5th in space defender (LB or DB type) on thee field most teams pull a big.
Like BR said, it is getting hard to characterize a defense strictly as 4-3 or a 3-4. But 4-3 coaches are being "forced" to play 3 man fronts much of a game.
Peace
The proliferation of spread formation offenses have dictated the need to get more "in space" defenders on the field. That means more "full time" LBs or DBs are needed on the field all of the time, not just in passing situations. So to get that 5th in space defender (LB or DB type) on thee field most teams pull a big.
Like BR said, it is getting hard to characterize a defense strictly as 4-3 or a 3-4. But 4-3 coaches are being "forced" to play 3 man fronts much of a game.
Peace
i think the "being easier to recruit to" was from several years back when there were not as many teams running 3-4. yes you have 3 dt's but they are mainly block eaters on most plays. they dont "have" to be as explosive and quick as your 4-3 dt's usually do. it was thought that it was easy to bring in 1 huge guy that noone else is recruiting cause he's too slow and then bring in 2 undersized dt's that noone else is recruiting because they are too small. bring in a bunch of lb'ers and safety types to come up and tackle.... and there are a lot more of those kind of guys out there.
but i agree that that is not true today because of so many teams being multiple and having to cover the whole field with the spreads.
but i agree that that is not true today because of so many teams being multiple and having to cover the whole field with the spreads.
I agree with Gus and others on the points they made about the necessity of having more speed and coverage skill on the field against the various spread offenses we face, as being the primary reason we are going to a 3-4 base. Also the ability to get a lot more creative with the blitz packages is another.
As for as how it effects recruiting. After watching a lot of NFL 3-4 style defenses over the years, I firmly believe that they simply do not work unless you have an exceptional wide-body nose tackle. And since you are going up against teams that run hurry-up offenses, and injuries are a factor you need at least 2 on your roster if not 3. That type player is the hardest of any to recruit. We are very fortunate that we were able to get Lewis and Elam and hopefully Hyde will be the next in line to move up into that spot. Having these players was essentially into shifting to a 3-4.
I also think the Jack position takes a multi-talented player. He needs to be big enough and long enough to take on a OT, but still be athletic enough to provide coverage on a TE or back. I would think that type players might also be a bit harder to find then a 4-3 outside backer or DE.
As for as how it effects recruiting. After watching a lot of NFL 3-4 style defenses over the years, I firmly believe that they simply do not work unless you have an exceptional wide-body nose tackle. And since you are going up against teams that run hurry-up offenses, and injuries are a factor you need at least 2 on your roster if not 3. That type player is the hardest of any to recruit. We are very fortunate that we were able to get Lewis and Elam and hopefully Hyde will be the next in line to move up into that spot. Having these players was essentially into shifting to a 3-4.
I also think the Jack position takes a multi-talented player. He needs to be big enough and long enough to take on a OT, but still be athletic enough to provide coverage on a TE or back. I would think that type players might also be a bit harder to find then a 4-3 outside backer or DE.
With the hurry up offense its easier to replace 3 big boys than it is to replace 4 if you need to if they get tired. Not a big deal, but it could come up.
As Saban noted yesterday, with hurry up offenses, recruiting specialty players for defense has become rare. Rather, you now need the athletes who can stay on the field regardless of the circumstance. I would assume that means having as much speed on the field as is possible.
No arguement from me with Bama's success. But look at the teams who give them trouble. The teams who beat them or give them trouble were all teams with QBs who could run. AU put 44 on them last year, just their defense was so bad they couldn't stop them. Bama's inside LB are also very big, their defense is designed to beat teams that run a pro style offense like we run
I don't think you have to have that huge guy in the middle, I think you need a guy who fits what you want to do. UGA has had them from 300 to 370 and the smallest guy play it the best. He could get penetration, or he could eat up 2-3 ok, which is all about technique. This year both will be 315 to 325 range, and we could be playing a couple 300 pounders at the t spots. But really not many of those 350+ guys in college.
I tend to prefer a 4-3 look over a 3-4, but either can be effective with the right personnel and I think both have their strengths and weaknesses (which is why more teams are becoming hybrids). I'm assuming that if Stoops made the decision to transition he has weighed the cost of transitioning in a year when winning is vital against the benefits from switching to a 3-4 look. There have been some excellent points made here about those benefits, though I tend to think they are overstated a bit. A 3-4 really requires exception linebackers and a nose tackle that can get into the backfield and be disruptive.
I liked the posts by Wildcard and Deeeefense. I do not think it is easier to recruit to the 3-4. If you run the defense properly you need 3 DT types playing the down linemen positions, one a monster two gap NT, and athletic hybrid DE/LB types at the OLB positions. IMO the way to beat the 3-4 is to run the ball because it is weakest against the run. This is why I wonder why UK that is already weak against the run is going to a 3-4 base defense.
I actually think teams need to be multiple on defense and able to go to different fronts against different teams or at times during any game.
I actually think teams need to be multiple on defense and able to go to different fronts against different teams or at times during any game.
Similar threads
