What kind of defense did we play back in the day? I'll be the first one to say I know next to nothing about defense other than positional terminology. Is the kind of defense we played back in the day still being used in today's college football world?
Question for this young buck (uninformed)
- Thread starter Jhollenbeck41
- Start date
McBride switched to the 4-3 in the 90s when we were most dominant defensively. I felt it fit us the best and we shouldnt deviate from it. The 3-4 has been an abject failure here and the sooner we abandon it the better imo.
50 up until the early 90s, which was run due mainly to the option of Oklahoma, and mostly run based offenses. 5 man front, 2 linebackers. We got killed by good pro style offenses in the late 80s and early 90s in this defense (Miami, FSU, Washington).
4-3 Went to this exclusively after the 1992 season, when TO asked Bowden for his D coaches to come up to Lincoln and have a pow wow with our D staff. How ironic we almost got them at the end of the 1993 season.
The last I checked the NFL was about 50/50 between the 4-3 and the 3-4.
Pics are a general diagram of the formations.
You need distinctly different guys at both the Line and Linebacker levels between a 4-3 and a 3-4 IMO.
4-3 Went to this exclusively after the 1992 season, when TO asked Bowden for his D coaches to come up to Lincoln and have a pow wow with our D staff. How ironic we almost got them at the end of the 1993 season.
The last I checked the NFL was about 50/50 between the 4-3 and the 3-4.
Pics are a general diagram of the formations.
You need distinctly different guys at both the Line and Linebacker levels between a 4-3 and a 3-4 IMO.
I can't agree more with this. I'm pretty darn high on Frost, but I think this type of 3-4 defense, not caring if you kicked in the junk defensively, is asking for not winning anything great.
This is a for real conference.
The 4-3 we ran was built to destroy pro-style offenses, or any offense where the QB was basically a statue. The biggest challenges we faced were from mobile QBs during that era. That's how Missouri was able to take us to OT in 1997. They had a dynamic QB in Colby(?) Jones that gave our D fits. Even when Bo came on later, the mobile QBs continued to haunt us.
Our personnel is not good for the 3-4. A lot of the players we have grew up playing in the 4-3 and are more suited for it.
Our personnel is not good for the 3-4. A lot of the players we have grew up playing in the 4-3 and are more suited for it.
So in knowing that, with today's game being mostly dual threat QBs, wouldn't the 3-4 serve better? Again literally not trying to be sarcastic or cause fights, I really don't know much about defense. To give you an idea, I'm basically Johnny Manziel without the drug/alcohol problems. That's how I played.
I still love the idea of running a 3-4. Personally I think you can be so much more unpredictable in the 3-4, and Wisconsin has shown you can still be stout against the run in it. Bellichick has done pretty well with it for awhile. But...........your guys at the first two levels have to be really special, and we have a bunch of square pegs, especially at LB. We struck out big time under Pelini post Suh/Crick at DT until we got Valentine and Collins. I'm not smart enough to know what the answer is.
Depends what the context is. Given our personnel this year, would the 4-3 be better? Maybe. With the right personnel, is the 3-4 more attractive? Sure. Can our coaches recruit the right personnel for the 3-4? Many things to consider here.
Follow up questions:
1. Knowing what Frost knows about 90s Nebraska, why wouldn't he want to bring the 4-3 back?
2 Do we have the "talent" and "personnel" to run a 4-3?
1. Knowing what Frost knows about 90s Nebraska, why wouldn't he want to bring the 4-3 back?
2 Do we have the "talent" and "personnel" to run a 4-3?
That's the thing... We've been at this experiment for some time now and have been recruiting guys to run a 3-4... can they adapt to a 4-3 or are we going to struggle with that while we bring in new guys to fit that system... At some point there has to be a line drawn in the sand with commitment and resolve to make things work. Flipping around all the time is problematic regardless of the position imho...
My problem with the 3-4, and you touched on it a little bit, is that unless you are recruiting elite front 7 talent youre going to have a very difficult time getting after the quarterback, defending short passes and stopping the run with the same front 7. Wisconsin develops guys for 3 to 4 years to be good 3-4 backers and lineman. We havent done that. NFL teams struggle to find elite 3-4 backers and Ends. Thats why every April you see 3 pass rushers go in the top 5. We arent located in area where we can recruit that talent and we've been terrible at developing talent for this scheme. In 3 years running this defense. We've recruited 1 guy (Tannor) that can be a 3-4 Pass rusher in the B1G. I just think its time to cut our losses and get back to the 4-3.
#1 I assume Frost is letting Chin run what he wants.
#2 This defense has some 4-3 aspects to it depending on the situation. I think they could run it, and in my opinion it is easier to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 than vice versa. I hate to be negative, but I don't think we have the talent or personnel to be anything other than an average defense at best no matter what formation we played this year.
If we changed over halfway thought the season, I don't see that going well. Look what happened to Nebraska in 2017. Banker's defense was bad in the first year, got better in the second, then Beaker made Riley cut him lose, and look how bad the D was in 2017. It was a disaster.
Can't argue. If we continue to miss on players at the first two levels in recruiting, we are going to struggle.
Yeah I mean I agree with you. As frustrated as I am right now I'm that one thinks Chinander needs atleast another year, I would say even 2 years. I don't think we can properly judge until guys that will R/S Freshman next year are sophomores, maybe even R/S Juniors.
System doesn't matter...the coaches have to decide if we can recruit dlineman or linebackers easier to nebraska. The consensus is it is easier to get linebackers, big tall linebackers who can cover a bit, play the RPO, and stop the run a bit. In theory they are going to have better stamina, and play faster. This is important in an RPO world, especially when our offense if going to mindlessly force the defense to stay on the field. If Chin goes, Scott needs to go. He has put Chin in impossible situations with the horrible kicking game, the horrible return game, the horrible amount of turnovers, and then the uptempo that leads to the defense being on the field too much. It isn't a great defense but it is completely unprotected. The fact that fans are so stupid and blind to our special teams and offensive inefficiency means they need to stfu and gtfo and do some research.
Oregon ranks 22nd nationally in total defense and 15th in yards allowed per play this year, just one spot behind Alabama.
And they've faced the 4th most offensive plays in the country.
Cute post, though. It's obvious you follow college football very closely.
Full of hypotheticals today....say we ran the Osborne offense....does this Chins 3-4 stand a better chance?
Again, can’t argue. We are going to have to have our LB recruits pan out at a high percentage, while the 3 linemen are going to have to be at least serviceable. If you don’t have a good run stopper at the nose who demands a double team, we are going to be in trouble.
Might be. Our defense SUCKED in the initial years when we switched from a 5-2 to 4-3. We didn't have the personel. We needed to recruit speed, speed and speed.
We're having the same problem now. Give it time. Coach McBride knows how Chinander feels right now. A lot of people wanted McBride run out of town. Difference is that back then we had a potent offense to offset the crappy defense. Don't have that now
2. Yes we do. That's long been established. We have a proven track record of developing rural Nebraska and Midwest kids and turning them into great front 7 defenders. Jay Moore, Jared Crick, Adam Carriker, Chris Kelsay were all local kids that developed into being NFL defensive lineman in the 4-3. We've also had a stable of 4-3 linebackers that grew up in the midwest that fit perfectly in 4-3 defense. We don't have the recruiting footprint to recruit to the 3-4 the same way we do to the 4-3 imo.
Carriker grew up in Nebraska. Elkhorn at that time was more rural than it is today.
We cant switch at the moment. We do NOT have any 4-3 defensive ends on our roster.
We also dont seem to have any 3-4 OLBs on the roster, either, and our 3-4 d ends are full of bad weight right now, so I guess theres problems either way. I have to hope that the young D Linemen we are bringing in will be able to play 3-4 DEnd without the bad weight.
But I have no idea who the OLBs are gonna be.
We also dont seem to have any 3-4 OLBs on the roster, either, and our 3-4 d ends are full of bad weight right now, so I guess theres problems either way. I have to hope that the young D Linemen we are bringing in will be able to play 3-4 DEnd without the bad weight.
But I have no idea who the OLBs are gonna be.
Agreed. I will hold my nose. Been through a major change before without the personel. Difference was we definitely didn't have the horses. They were doing the right thing for the most part, just getting smoked. Kinda the same but we have too much undisciplined players. Coaches were better in the early 90s because they were the same guys the players were used to. These are new coaches trying to put square pegs in a round hole
Easiest way I can say it is this:
LB alignment/assignment/fits in a 4-3 are chess, and they are checkers in a 3-4.
These LBs are already absolutely horrible. I could not imagine how bad they’d be if their keys/reads/fits changed vs formations as much as they would in a 4-3.
LB alignment/assignment/fits in a 4-3 are chess, and they are checkers in a 3-4.
These LBs are already absolutely horrible. I could not imagine how bad they’d be if their keys/reads/fits changed vs formations as much as they would in a 4-3.
3-4 needs a monster at Nose and good backers. No comment on our backers. Didn’t Diaco run a 3-3-5?
I beg to differ; I see a potential start 4-3 DE when I look at Garrett Nelson.
Feasible could be Rodgers, Wildeman, Newsome. Maybe Tannor if he put on some more weight
Nelson is a potential monster as a 3-4 DE too. He's what you would really like size wise there. I'm not sure about his pass coverage skills there yet. He's got time though. Tannors really too light to be playing OLB it appears to me so he would really be undersized as a 4-3 DE. Don't give me listed weight. Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I also think it has more to do with style of play being emphasized than just alignment roles/responsibilities.
They are playing an aggressive, get the ball back as fast as possible type of mentality. Where taking risks to get picks, fumbles, strips, etc is of higher priority than making tackles, so we get burned on big plays and give up on avg 30pts a game.
A read & react defense, puts more emphasis on making the other team earn the yards and first downs over and over on sustained drives, to actually score. It uses up a lot of clock, but preventing points is the top priority along with tackling and fundamentals.
Most offenses in the league are not good enough to repeatedly march down the field getting first down after first down, so that style of defense keeps points down and your chances of winning go up.
Playing aggressive is good for teams in a shootout, where the last one to score, or the team with the most opportunities to score, wins the game. If your offense is bad, then you can't play this scheme or you just pile on the losses.
They are playing an aggressive, get the ball back as fast as possible type of mentality. Where taking risks to get picks, fumbles, strips, etc is of higher priority than making tackles, so we get burned on big plays and give up on avg 30pts a game.
A read & react defense, puts more emphasis on making the other team earn the yards and first downs over and over on sustained drives, to actually score. It uses up a lot of clock, but preventing points is the top priority along with tackling and fundamentals.
Most offenses in the league are not good enough to repeatedly march down the field getting first down after first down, so that style of defense keeps points down and your chances of winning go up.
Playing aggressive is good for teams in a shootout, where the last one to score, or the team with the most opportunities to score, wins the game. If your offense is bad, then you can't play this scheme or you just pile on the losses.
2 of those that were listed went on to be good in the 3-4 in their pro careers. I think the moral of the story there isn't the scheme, but more they are big bodied athletes that can move. The Davis boys are big, but they aren't quick and super athletic like a Crick or a Carriker.