3-4 defense?

Submitted by Bob The Wonder Dog on
This has been brought up on the blog before, but I don't recall there being a forum topic. It seems as though Coach Harbaugh is a fan of the 3-4, and Stanford has certainly put it to good use in beating teams like Oregon with it in the past. It would also seem to be a good fit to our current personnel, due to our shortage of DE's. However, it appears that Durkin is more of a 4-3 guy. Thoughts?
MGoBoard
Football
Jim Harbaugh
D.J. Durkin
3-4 Defense

Magnus

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^

I don't know... Everyone has a lot of spread elements in their game right now. I mean, Wisconsin isn't a spread team, but they're not on the schedule. Michigan State has some spread elements. That's not to say we'll go one way or the other, but a 3-4 defense would be a viable option, regardless.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

WolvinLA2

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

Certainly - but I'm looking at our roster in 2016.  We lose a lot of guys who would fall into that LB/WDE who would all be LBs in a 3-2 system, and we currently don't have a single LB or DE committed in the 2015 recruiting class.  I'm sure we'll get one or two, but that's not a sure thing yet and even if we do it won't bolster the number a whole lot.  

In 2016, we'd have Marshall - Gedeon - Winovich - McCray as our starters, which isn't bad.  But then what?  Gant, Furbush, Wangler and youth.  This is before injuries and who knows if some of those guys are even any good. 

I'm not saying it's doomed from the get go necessarily, and if we can sign a good WDE and LB yet in this class I'll change my tune.  3-4 or 4-3, we're still in need of some DE help.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

WolvinLA2

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^

I agree with that 100%.  I was only addressing the point a poster made above that we should run the 3-4 because we have so much LB depth.

This sort of things happens all the time here.  Someone will say " we should do A because B" and then when someone refutes B, it seems like he's saying we shouldn't do A.  

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

LSAClassOf2000

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^

I believe that Durkin, when he took the job under Muschamp, didn't really change too much - Florida still ran essentially what it had been running. It's a 4-3 with some 3-4 looks for different situations, from what I can see, as well as a lot of nickel and dime variations too. I would think we have the personnel to accommodate that if that is what he would bring to Ann Arbor. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130610

go16blue

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

I think they're both just as good and I'd be happy with either. I'd guess that it will be up to Durkin and not Harbaugh, but who knows what that will mean. If you think he's a 4-3 guy because that's what Florida is running, keep in mind that Muschamp likely had the final say on what that defense ran.

I personally would like a switch to a 3-4. With more and more speed on the field in a typical CFB offense, it wouldn't hurt to switch out a lineman for a linebacker. It's not a big transition from the 4-3 under we run either. 

Joined: 04/28/2010

MGoPoints: 6755

WMUKirk

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:08 PM ^

Switching a DL for a LB doesn't do much to increase speed. Because you're still likely to rush 4. 3-3-5 vs 4-2-5 is the argument for 3-4/4-3 defense at this point because that'll be your base defense. And 4-2-5 allows more speed because substituting a LB for a DB is a bigger speed gain than DL to a LB.

Joined: 09/25/2014

MGoPoints: 1105

SAMgO

January 3rd, 2015 at 5:48 PM ^

Based on what exactly? A desire for slowly continuing the slide into obsolescence? I hope we go 3-4, let the athletes with the best size/speed combinations make plays all over the field. It's not like we were bringing even a small amount of pressure consistently with four down lineman this season anyways. It can't get worse. I'd love seeing Morgan and Bolden consistently in the middle of the box at the same time.

Joined: 07/15/2013

MGoPoints: 18745

Keel

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^

I like the 3-4, think we have the right personnel to do it.  I dont think it really matters what the B1G is running offensively, and I'm pretty sure theres a true spread team in the NCG representing the B1G.  Urban Meyer didn't adjust his schemes to fit the B1G, and I dont expect Harbaugh and his assistants to do so either.  It aint the 90s no more folks.

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 554

mgobaran

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:27 PM ^

but you have to have two things. Personnel. and a DC who completely understands and embraces the system. I feel in college the personnel issues can be fixed within a year or 2. You won't change a DC into something they are not. We learned that during the RR years. So if Durkin is a 4-3 guy, I gotta feel that's what we will run

Joined: 09/12/2012

MGoPoints: 22811

1974

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^

Even this year, I just *love* reading posts with statements like "You need at least four down linemen in the Big Ten."

You'd think the 3-4 (and, yes, the 3-3-5) never worked anywhere.

Joined: 04/17/2011

MGoPoints: 7799

Jack Harbaugh

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^

The sentiment is that a 4-3 matches up better with power teams than spread teams. As the B1G, especially the east, transitions more and more you're going to see the 3-4 more in the B1G. This isn't to say you can't win with certain defenses or offenses, it's just that A matches up better with C and B with D. D can still beat A and vice versa.

Joined: 10/31/2014

MGoPoints: 2216

Reader71

January 3rd, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^

I dont know much about defense except broad principles, but as an OL, I always preferred playing against 3-4 teams. The guards are uncovered more often and can sometimes have their way with the LBs, if the nose isn't very good. I dont know how our noses would be, and I know that our ILB are a little smallish. I think the B1G schedule probably favors a 4-3, as we still see a lot of power teams. It might depend on what Harbaugh thinks will best match up with Ohio. We'll see.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Sideline

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

I believe we'll be going back to the base 3-4, we're definitely built for either or, but definitely think the 3-4 will be a better change for us... I think it gets a little more 'speed' on the field as LB's tend to be a bit quicker that DT/DE's

Joined: 12/09/2009

MGoPoints: 2378

gobluefromutah

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

Doesn't Wisconsin run a 3-4? Seems like they do alright, BTCG aside. Also, seems like typically the nose in a 3-4 scheme needs to be one of those dump truck squatting guys, at least for gap plugging. A guy Pip/Mone's size, maybe?

Joined: 06/04/2012

MGoPoints: 130

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:16 PM ^

UM used to run was just a friggin' disaster.  Martin and RVB did the best they could, but were undersized.  A 250 pound Craig Roh at the other DE position was a disgrace to football.

 

In the B1G, you'd want 3 guys at 300+ with as big a guy in the middle as you can find to take up two blockers.  I think Glasgow, Pipkins, or Mone could handle that, Mone being my top choice.  On the edges, you'd want someone who can move a little better.  Aaron Smith of the Steelers was the best 3-4 DE I think I've seen (Haloti Ngata has played some there too) and Chris Wormley fits that bill perfectly.  On the other side, maybe Henry.  So 3 man front, I'd go Henry-Mone-Wormley.

 

Ojemudia and Marshall become OLBs in a 3-4.  Guys like Poggi, Strobel, and Charlton are left out of a 3 man front, as both are too small to be 3-4 DEs and probably not fast enough to be OLB's.

 

So depending on how those guys make the transition, your OLBs are from the group of Ojemudia, McCray, Winovich, Marshall and the ILBs picked from Ross, Morgan, Gedeon, and Jenkins-Stone.

 

What Michigan could do is run the 3-4, then in obvious pass situations go with a 4 man front of with Charlton and Ojemedia as pass rushing DEs with some combo of Pipkins, Henry or Mone at DT and Wormley as the 3 technique guy trying to get penetration.

 

Or if they stick with a 4 man front, go with a 4-2-5 in passing situations or against spreads, (Charlton-Henry-Mone-Ojemudia/Poggi), Ross-Morgan/Gedeon, and a secondary of Lewis, Countess, Peppers (playing the Stevie Brown "Spur" position from the old RichRod days), Wilson, Hill/Thomas.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^

You think Charlton at 6-6, 275 and Poggi at 6-4, 270 can be run stopping defensive ends in a 3-4 base defense?  Against BYU's run game, Ohio State's, Penn State's, and Michigan State's?!  Sorry man, not seeing it.  They will give UM the same problems they saw the last time Wisconsin came to town and they ran the ball something like 33 out of 35 plays and UM had no answer for it.  

 

In 2013 more than 14 we saw UM's undersized DL get smacked around by OSU up front.  Brennen Beyer at 256 pounds at DE was just not getting it done, and Charlton got more snaps in the second half at WDE because he brings a little more bulk.

 

Georgia's two DEs in their 3-4 set are 284 and 280.  Indiana had a 300+ pound DE.  Wisconsin's 269 pound DEs got their asses handed to them by OSU in the B1G Championship game.  Notre Dame's best defensive years came with Nix in the middle and Tuitt (300+) on the outside.

 

Charlton and Poggi could play a 3-4 DE against Indiana, Bowling Green, and those caliber teams.  I have serious reservations about them against OSU, MSU, PSU, BYU, etc.

 

If I'm going into a game with a 3 man defensive front, I'll take my lineup of Henry-Mone-Wormley and give you Charlton, Poggi and whomever you want in the middle.  

 

And I'll win.

 

 

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

bronxblue

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^

I don't understand this argument.  OSU kicked everyone's ass this year running the ball; the size of your defensive ends/tackles against them doesn't really matter.  Wiscy had one of the best defenses in the country, and Alabama featured two similarly-sized DEs (272, 265) and had one of the better overall defenses.  Yet, they were all run over by OSU to various extents because, well, OSU is really good.  

Michigan probably won't run a 3-4 because that isn't what the defensive coaches are used to running, but I see nothing about the player's size being prohibitive of its usage in today's game. 

 

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171436

WolvinLA2

January 3rd, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^

Looking at Alabama's Depth Chart on Rivals, their starting DEs are 265 (DJ Pettway) and 272 (Johnathan Allen).  Their NT is 320, which duh.  And if we ran a 3-4, one DE would be the guys who play 3-tech for us right now - Wormley, Henry or Godin (295, 293 and 286).  So if we had a hypothetical starting 3-man front of Taco - Pipkins - Wormley, they would be 275 - 306 - 295.  That's not huge, but that's about as big as any 3-man front being played in college football right now. 

For fun, their backups would look something like Poggi - Glasgow - Henry which would be 270 - 296 - 293.  Not much drop off outside of Glasgow, but Glasgow was a solid NT last year and he could put on 10lbs if the coaches asked him to.  And is Glasgow can't cut it (unlikely) you have Mone at 312.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191