Pondering a 3-4 defensive look

by 071903 on Aug 5, 2009 10:11 PM PDT Comment 19 comments

I just finished reading Rob Moseley's blog entry previewing the Duck's linebackers and had a thought: Could we see the Ducks Defense line up in a 3-4 for some situations?

I can't say that I remember a time in the not too distant past that we have ever seen that defensive formation, but I could be wrong. While I HIGHLY doubt that we will use the 3-4 exclusively this season, I think that it might be worth a shot at some point. This year's group is the most talented we have seen in a while and it seems that there is more than enough depth to make an impact. I think that speed would be the dominant force with the LB's and it might just be the thing that helps the defense succeed.

It almost seems like without getting all of the LB on the field it would be a gigantic waste of talent. I would love to see Casey Matthews, Spencer Paysinger, Bryson Littlejohn and Eddie Pleasant on the field at the same time. I can't imagine the amount of speed and run stopping available there with Will Tukuafu, Brandon Bair / Blake Ferras and Kenny Rowe up front and those LBs behind them. And, with the DBs the Ducks have, I love the way that the defense looks on paper. I LOVE the way that looks on paper. That looks like a great defense to me.

I am not a defensive guru by any means, but I know that Cal has had success with it in the past and had a lot of talent at LB to pull it off. I am not sure what the Ducks would gain by using this formation other than getting your best players in the game as much as possible. While I am not attempting to bash the D-Line and say that there is not any talent there, I was just thinking about much faster the defense would be if the Ducks used a 3-4. Good luck running on that squad.

I hope that someone can comment and maybe shed some light on why a 3-4 is good and if I am barking up the wrong tree with this notion. Does anyone else think this might be a good idea for the future?

Poll

Is the 3-4 Defense a good idea for the Ducks?

Yes

35 votes

No

7 votes

Maybe in the future

13 votes

55 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We toss this around every so often

By biggest gripe is it totally negates our best defender. For me right now that is Will Tufuaku(I can hardly spell my name). He would be wasted as a DE in the 3-4. He would be used to eat up blocks and not rush the passer. However, Brandon Blair would be great in the 3-4 I would think, but I would rather have Will in a position of strength.

I saw we just have a steady rotation of guys and keep the 2 or 3 on the field fresh.

Sleeping under an avalanche with Cartman, wake me Sept 3.

by trumpetduck on Aug 6, 2009 1:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Didn’t that used to be our bread and butter 3rd down defense?

Yes we will

by echris on Aug 6, 2009 7:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We need more big guys on the DLine for a 3-4.

"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"

by JShufelt on Aug 6, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I really wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some 4-4 sets during many times throughout the year. We have athletic linebackers that can cover a lot of TE’s, etc. If they can play some good zone, that would be a great set up.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Aug 6, 2009 9:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

4-4

I swear I thought I saw some 4-4 during the spring game, but I’d have to see the film and ID the players/positions to verify it.

My concern about the 3-4 is that I’d rather have five opposing offensive lineman having to block four defensive lineman (requires a stud or two on the d-line, obviously), allowing the linebackers to mostly run free, or at worst, deal with smaller tight ends, H-backs, full backs, etc. I think the depth at linebacker and on the d-line – and resulting rotations – will allow the defense to play fast and effectively for a complete four quarters. We should also be beastly in some special teams situations. Watch for some knockouts on kick-off cover…a unit we should be seeing often.

I'm really tired of it not being football season.

by JConant on Aug 6, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

speaking of TEs

your thought got me thinking (uh oh). Is there anybody, besides Taylor Mays, in the Pac 10 better equipped to cover Gradkowski than our OLBs? They have the speed and decent size. I dont think anyone will actually stop him. But maybe he only has a decent game against us?
And I like the 4 4. I think we will see the CK philosophy of getting your best players in a position to succeed of defense too. and come on his name is LittleJohn

Sleeping under an avalanche with Cartman, wake me Sept 3.

by trumpetduck on Aug 6, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Taylor Mays won’t really stop Gradkowski in the middle.

"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"

by JShufelt on Aug 6, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing....

Right now we’re really about 7 deep on the line, and 6 deep at the linebackers, and that’s great. I was reading over Ted Miller’s Q&A with Aliotti, and it’s clear with our offense that we need to have a very deep defense, and that we need to have a lot of players that can come in at the drop of a hat. Having a fresh group of linebackers will be a huge benefit.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Aug 6, 2009 10:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey… that Q&A is the exact same thing I’ve been saying.

People need to quit making snap judgements from overall yards.

If you do something more, numbers will tend to inflate proportionally (Ref: Colt Brennan, Jacquizz Rodgers, Oregon Defense)

"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"

by JShufelt on Aug 6, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It took me a couple lessons, but I’m buying it, Shu.

Seeing last year’s Arizona game first hand was all I needed to understand just how Oregon’s execution on offense impacts Oregon’s defense physically and statistically. I’m still looking for a small improvement in points allowed per game – I think the defense is improved to the point they’ll give up a few more field goals and a few less touchdowns. The highest caliber offenses we face in conference are on our field. Quite a few of the QBs Oregon faces are on the green side (not saying untalented, just somewhat inexperienced).

I'm really tired of it not being football season.

by JConant on Aug 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I drank the Shul-Ade last season and it changed everything

I think Third Down and red zone are the numbers we should be looking at for this defense. You have to think about it with some BBall perspective and account for tempo with every stat. And if all else fails lets just outscore everybody.

Sleeping under an avalanche with Cartman, wake me Sept 3.

by trumpetduck on Aug 6, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last season on a down by down basis we outperformed 2007, yet our 3rd down and red zone were much lower, which is really what led to the point disparity.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Aug 6, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our red zone performance in 2007 was pretty ridiculous.

"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"

by JShufelt on Aug 6, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shifting the subject..

How does one attack the 4-5 defense of BS u?

by DONALDUCK on Aug 12, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since we have four good linebackers, a 3-4 seams like a good idea, but in reality few of our players actually fit the scheme. Tukuafu is the only one that would be a good match. Bair is too small for nose and rowe is to small for 3-4 end. Not to mention that our OLBs aren’t perfect fits. If we wanted to get our best players on the field, i would say that a 4-4 would be a better option.

by BayDuck on Aug 6, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I support a 0-11-0 look.

Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.

by qrsouther on Aug 7, 2009 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You’ve got it wrong. It’s the 0-12-0. Otherwise known as the Husky Alignment…when you’re so bad on defense you actually are allowed one extra player even though your opponents are keenly aware that won’t matter.

I'm really tired of it not being football season.

by JConant on Aug 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs