Losing three linebackers to transfer. We going 4-3?
- Thread starter 23jumpboy
- Start date
Jones, Allen,love,kash,bonner,bannerman,ware, brown,walder,davis,paschal,jones, house mentioned walk on schlegel as well.
We're not close to running out of LBs. We have plenty on the roster now. The ones that left would likely not have contributed much anyway as they left because they were passed. Also you have to remember 2 or 3 of the freshmen will play.
Even if we did move to a 4-3 one of the LB positions would just be moved up to DE. Changing to a 4-3 wouldn't do anything for us.
Even if we did move to a 4-3 one of the LB positions would just be moved up to DE. Changing to a 4-3 wouldn't do anything for us.
Losing three linebackers to transfer. We going 4-3?
No. Would folks please stop this nonsense. We've recruited for a 3-4 since mid-point of Stoops' first season and we continue to recruit for a 3-4.
No. Would folks please stop this nonsense. We've recruited for a 3-4 since mid-point of Stoops' first season and we continue to recruit for a 3-4.
it's part of the normal churn as you continue to upgrade your talent level.
Does losing the 3 transfers perhaps affect special teams or were these 3 destined not to see much/any action anywhere?
Not much Laster and Walker both missed the majority of last year. Firios played teams but I think we have better athletes at backer.
We had to lose some players to take the class we just signed. I believe we still need another transfer or two.
No, but since Badet transferred we're switching to the wishbone O.
- With the proliferation of spread offenses, not only are we not going to the 4-3, we're not even really a 3-4. Like most teams, we are--and must be--multiple. On most downs, we're playing some variation of a 4-2-5 or a 3-3-5. When we go four down linemen, Ware or Allen put their hand in the dirt and and the strongside DE moves down to DT. When we go three, Love leaves the field and we bring in an extra DB.
- About the only time we go to a "true" 3-4 is when the opposition goes two TE (rare) or when they have a true fullback (very rare). Most teams run 11 or even 10 personnel for the majority of the game. That means that we run nickle and dime most of the game.
- Alas, the great weakness of going 4-3 is you lose the roster versatility that allows you to be multiple. To go 4-3, you have to replace our "Jack" LB (i.e. Ware/Allen) with a "true" 4-3 DE and a 4-3 LB--both of whom are one-dimentional. Thus, 4-3 defenses are less efficient because they require two players for these positions, whereas the 3-4 allows you to have one player (the "Jack") that can play two positions.
- Another factor in the move toward a three man base front is that a roster with extra LB's is much faster and more athletic than a roster with extra DL's. This is a huge advantage on special teams.
I wrote on another thread that a team with 85 scholarship players, each of the 22 positions on the team, on average, will have 3.86 people to man them. And if your long-snapper, place kicker(s), and punters are on scholarship, that would likely reduce the average to about to 3.6 or 3.7 players per the 22 positions of regular offense and defense. With the loss of the three linebackers, we have an average of 3.5 per position, still. Some are freshmen, and that should always be true . . . . for every position . . . . with balanced recruiting.
Agree with your first assessment. Disagree with your second. Seems like now, we're moving away from the large, bulbous d-line. We may very well stick with a 3-4, but we're definitely going towards athletic, slender defensive linemen that fits a 4-3 (but could also fit a 3-4, I suppose, depending on scheme).
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
We recruited Bohanna. Your just not gonna find 2 or 3 legit nose guards per class. You gotta think how many snaps your nose guard will actually play as well. I don't see is going 4 3 but I would like to hear a legit reason why the staff slimmed up the lineman. Maybe they felt like they where out quicked and not outmuscled.
I think you answered your own question, our D-line seemed to be often too easily blocked IMO. I think a leaner meaner line with better technique will result in more penetration.
I'd like to know too. However, as far as I know Middleton is the only DLmen they've slimmed down so maybe they thought he was carrying too much weight.
Unfortunately UK has a long history of an undersized DL being trampled by the 6'7" 330 pounders that habitat SEC OLs.
Size will not be an issue with this line. If that was the answer just lineup Dubose Elam and Pringle. It don't work that way.
Cross has lost weight he is listed at 303 down from 313. None of the guys are small but between cross Middleton and I believe maggard saying Pringle looking slimmer there seems to be an emphasis.
Never said it did only that UK's undersized lines of bygone years struggled. Nothing so simplistic would work.
Very well said.
I will add that due to the proliferation of 4 wide sets in today's offenses, defenses are better defined by the secondary rather than front. That is to say the need for a 5th defensive back more snaps than not is making the 5 man secondary the norm. And you've got to do more than just "nickel up". You've got to build the rest of your defense around the fact that most of the time you are going to have 5 secondary type players in the game.
The 4-2-5 and 33 Stack are the only "built from scratch" 5 man secondary schemes. Coaches who have been long time 4-3 or 3-4 "nickel as required" guys are seemingly playing more and more "unusual" (i.e., "multiple") fronts to accommodate that 5th DB. And sometimes this rewrites the "classical requirements" of front 7 type players. JMO
Peace
True. I would also argue that Blake McClain (our "nickleback") was a de facto starter last year. On modern defenses, the 3rd / 4th LB or the 4th DL is actually the substitute. So when building your defense, you have to put together a roster that has loads of talented DB's. The new reality is thus: you can never have enough quality kids in the secondary.
I think that is pretty common in the SEC now. Even Bama was relatively small on the DL last season, 310-315 range, if you want to call that small. That 340 lb nose man is going away with the HUNH offense, get him on the field and can't get him off, after 3-4 plays he is in the way. We have 1 DL at 315, the rest are 280-305. Not the 2 at 280 are always outside and not on the field at the same time, all the others are right at that 305. All the guys we recruited were that size for the 17 class.
Those big guys might be great run stuffers for a couple of plays, but carrying that much weight gets them tired in a hurry and you are playing D with 10 after a first down if they are running a HUNH.
If you can't have both size and agility then I take agility to stay free to make tackles on the run and to have more quickness to get more pressure up front. Might have to use more stunts etc but I like it better than playing straight up with no penetration or ability to get leverage to make a tackle.
And same applied to LB for me. There is a reason Jordon Jones makes more plays than Courtney Love. Courtney gets stuck on blocks and is taken out of most plays. When your line is stuck on blocks and your middle LB is stuck on blocks your stuck.
Laster, Walker and Firios were all good LBer prospects who probably start for past UK teams. The fact that we could lose such talent because they desire minutes is a really good sign. While I wish they would have stuck it out and provided depth and solid ST play, I can see the glass half full on these moves.
but we had to lose some guys to make the 85 limit. If you look up and down the roster I can find much of anyone I would have rather lost instead, with the possible exception of Walker, but kid just couldn't seem to stay healthy.
Where are the new weights listed at. I checked UK athletics roster and they don't have the new weights.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
How do NBA teams afford to pay players so much?- Latest: Bluegrassking
-
-
-
-
