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

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:26 PM ^

If you think nothing about the player's size behing prohibitive of its usage in today's game.

 

Here's my background.

 

I was a D-III defensive tackle.  I played the 3 technique in a 4 man front (at 235-240 pounds, which isn't as uncommon in D-III as it is even in D-II) and towards the end of my career our new DC started to introduce some 3 man defensive fronts, I found myself on the sidelines, becuase in the early 2000s, D-III schools were running I and offset I formations.

 

I was WAY too small to play in a 3 man front against a power run.

 

Now, in today's spread offenses, a team like Arizona is able to run a 3 man base with undersized DEs and take down Oregon.  Wisconsin is able to run that defense against Illinois and Indiana's spreads.  I thought Nebraska would do better than they did against Wisconsin, but they were taken out of their element a bit by Gordon's all world day and their ILBs played out of their minds knowing Tommy Armstrong didn't pose much of a threat in the passing game.

 

I'm telling you, unequivically, that the size of the DEs in a 3 man base front is incredibly important when matching up with UM's opponents next year, in BYU, OSU, MSU, and PSU.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:26 PM ^

If you think nothing about the player's size behing prohibitive of its usage in today's game.

 

Here's my background.

 

I was a D-III defensive tackle.  I played the 3 technique in a 4 man front (at 235-240 pounds, which isn't as uncommon in D-III as it is even in D-II) and towards the end of my career our new DC started to introduce some 3 man defensive fronts, I found myself on the sidelines, becuase in the early 2000s, D-III schools were running I and offset I formations.

 

I was WAY too small to play in a 3 man front against a power run.

 

Now, in today's spread offenses, a team like Arizona is able to run a 3 man base with undersized DEs and take down Oregon.  Wisconsin is able to run that defense against Illinois and Indiana's spreads.  I thought Nebraska would do better than they did against Wisconsin, but they were taken out of their element a bit by Gordon's all world day and their ILBs played out of their minds knowing Tommy Armstrong didn't pose much of a threat in the passing game.

 

I'm telling you, unequivically, that the size of the DEs in a 3 man base front is incredibly important when matching up with UM's opponents next year, in BYU, OSU, MSU, and PSU.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

Magnus

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^

It's not about "understanding the argument." You're talking out of your butt. I don't care whether you were a D-III tackle or a D-II defensive end. Real life doesn't bear out your argument...unless you're saying that Charlton, Poggi, etc. are too small to play 3-4 defensive end in the NFL, maybe. But this isn't the NFL.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:38 PM ^

You agree with me that those guys aren't undersized for the SEC or Pac 12.  I agree with you that they are undersized for the NFL.  Our disagreement is over whether they are undersized in the B1G against Michigan's competition next year.  I think they are, you not so much, I'm cool with leaving it at that.  It's really not worth any more of our time.  I'm not changing what I know, and you probably aren't either, so it's all good.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:44 PM ^

Either of those guys can put on 10-15 lbs in the offseason. I'd prefer Taco stay at ROLB because I think he'd struggle with his height inside and he'd be a pain on the edge. But Poggi could fit really well at DE. And Michigan is solid two deep for a three man line right now (when a guy can play either DE and possibly NT, 6 DL isn't a huge scare) even without them. But regardless, putting the needed size on him wouldn't be an issue, especially for those two guys. And it doesn't need to be a Steelers 2-gap 3-4. You can easily one-gap like an old 52 defense, utilize OLBs like DEs a bit more, slant, angle, stunt, etc, and focus on penetration on the interior and chaos at the point of attack. 300 lb DEs aren't a requirement just because the phrase three man front is used.

Joined: 06/18/2009

MGoPoints: 38962

CoachZ

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^

Taco could be 284 by next season and Poggi could be 280 by next season.  You combine that with the other guys and that is a damn good two deep, which you have to have. 

So if your theory is that you need huge guys to beat OSU, would you care to explain to me why Bama just got run over for 280+ yards?    

 

 

Joined: 01/24/2011

MGoPoints: 208

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:29 PM ^

Let me see what I can find from the actual game and see who played how many snaps, when, etc.

 

Was this a DT who was moved to DE specifically for the OSU game, playing a position he hadn't played because Saban thought the matchup dictated it?

 

Now I'm intrigued.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

Michigan has 8 DL over 280. 7 over 285. 6 over 290. They have an off season to add weight if needed and could likely have 3 more over 280 by fall. You're moving the goalposts then being snarky about it. You mean teams adjust personnel to the opponent? You mean Michigan could trot out one of 8 guys that could be 290+ next year rather than an "undersized" (though not really undersized) 280 lb DE? I'm intrigued.

Joined: 06/18/2009

MGoPoints: 38962

Magnus

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:29 PM ^

LOL. You mean you'll take Michigan's best defensive lineman (Henry), a part-time starter (Wormley), and a borderline top 100 recruit (Mone)...

...and allow me to have the riff-raff left over...

...and you think you'll be better off?

Wow, you've proven yourself to be a genius.

Anyway, the point is that the SIZE of those guys is not the issue.

The most well known/best 3-4 defense in the country is Alabama's. The defensive ends at Alabama are 6'3", 272 lbs. and 6'3", 265 lbs.

No further discussion is required, I don't think.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:34 PM ^

Alabama's undersized (by my definition) defensive ends held up well against Michigan's top competition.

 

Look at the types of offenses that Alabama defense faced off against vs. the types of offenses Michigan plays next year (again, BYU, OSU, MSU, PSU).

 

I brought up my bio in another post about my experience here when it comes to defensive lines.  I played the position.  I coached the position.  I know the position.  You can give me all the comparisons you think work all you want.

 

I'm not necessarily telling you you're wrong by any means.  Your point is valid, but I think in different circumstances.  If Michigan were playing in the SEC against teams like Missouri, Tennessee, Ole Miss, A & M, etc. then yeah, Charlton and Poggi could play DE and probably not give UM many problems with their deficiency in size.

 

Against the teams they play next year, this isn't the case.

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

Magnus

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^

That's neat that the teams you chose from the SEC are Missouri, Tennessee, etc.

You know who else Alabama has to worry about in the SEC?

Georgia, Mississippi State, Arkansas, and LSU. Those are all teams that play smash-mouth football. But hey, there's no way that 275 lb. defensive ends can handle a James Franklin-led Penn State team...

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

nowicki2005

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:02 PM ^

I would assume next year, Taco is actually the ideal sized DE in a 3-4. Guy is athletic and big. He is 6-6 and played at 275 this year. Could damn near be 290 next year.

 

I would also think that Ross would be kind of useless in a 3-4 as a linebacker.

Joined: 06/28/2011

MGoPoints: 3060

jbibiza

January 3rd, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^

I'm no expert, but looks somewhat like a 4-3 under with a stand up rush LB who almost always plays like a WDE. Not much different than a 3-4. FWIW I Ilke the 4-2-5 as it gives you heft up front and in the middle with SPEED behind.

Joined: 10/08/2009

MGoPoints: 7385

bamf16

January 3rd, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^

I also really like the flexibility of the 4-2-5.  In a lot of ways, it is just as versatile as a 3-3-5 but if you have pass rushing DEs, they can get to the QB without having to scheme blitzes.  A good pash rushing DE who can consistently rush the QB is more desirable than blitzes.

 

The key to the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defenses is the 5th DB, "Spur" position.

 

Stevie Brown filled it well.

 

Peppers strikes me as a guy who could play it.  Against a team like Florida who can't really pass, you could put another LB in that spot, and against a team like Baylor, you could go with another corner.

 

 

Joined: 01/05/2014

MGoPoints: -100000

bronxblue

January 3rd, 2015 at 2:49 PM ^

I think the issue should be less on the front and more on how we expect the team to compensate for the different style of teams they'll see.  I hear the argument that the 3-4 is better for spread formations and that is true in general terms, but the sread a team like OSU runs (which is heavy on power running inside) is different than the spread offense Indiana and NW runs, to say nothing of the other falvors and elements sprinkled into more conventional offenses we've seen.  There is no one defense that is best suited for all the different variants, and I'd rather Michigan run the defense they feel most comfortable with from a fundamentals standpoint and then add the necessary wrinkles where necessary.

What bothered me watching the defense the past couple of years wasn't that it lacked a gameplan or wasn't the optimal solution for every offense, but that it (a) didn't seem to adapt well to changes by the offense (withness the numerous tipped blitzes that the defense never checked out of) and (b) couldn't seem to handle tempo of any type.  If Michigan is trailing ass behind the play and struggles to get lined up, it won't much matter the formation or the number of LBs on the field.  This is a bit simplistic, but worrying about the formation at this point is way down the line of concerns, at least in my opinion, for the defensive coordinator going forward.  Run what you know so at least you can adapt quickly.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171609

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^

UM did some 2-gap things at DT at times last year, but I don't think they are where they'd need to be to 2-gap the whole DL. Maybe at NT and one-gap elsewhere but that's about it. I wrote a bit about Wisconsin's one-gap 3-4 for those interested. I generally prefer 4 DL at the college level outside a 3-3-5 package for pass downs, but either can work (as can a base 3-3-5 like Rich Rod's) and despite what I saw as weak DL play from Wisconsin last year, they had very good ILB play and good OLB play to make up for it outside the OSU game. http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2014/10/football-fundamentals-one-g…

Joined: 06/18/2009

MGoPoints: 38962

wolverinebutt

January 3rd, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^

I no doubt see the 4 - 3 again this year and in the future.   

Pipkins and Mone fit the bill at the nose, but where is the Clay Matthews-Jake Ryan type LB on the outside?  I don't think we have a LB that gifted or am I missing someone?   

Joined: 06/05/2011

MGoPoints: 3461

Jimmyisgod

January 3rd, 2015 at 4:37 PM ^

We do not need 300 lb DEs to run a 3-4 or 4-3.  Taco is ideal for a 3-4 DE at the college level IMO.  If we're running a 4-3 I think our DEs might actually be a little too big, you need speed and athleticism on the edge in a 4-3.  MSU's DEs were both under 260 lns the last two years and they had one of the best run defenses in the nation both year. 

Speed, speed, speed!!!  That's what we need from our DEs and LBs IMO.

Joined: 01/24/2012

MGoPoints: 10342

HANCOCK

January 3rd, 2015 at 5:25 PM ^

honestly doesnt matter. nickel packages are the same anyway. just play a multiple defense. some 34, some 43, nickel is nickel when comparing the 245 and 425 (basically the same thing)...i guess you can do a little more 335 with the 34

Joined: 10/16/2012

MGoPoints: 1665

The Dude

January 3rd, 2015 at 8:42 PM ^

I think an aggressive 3-4 defense is the way to go. When Mattison got here I was disappointed they didn't go to a 3-4 as their base. The few times they went into this fomation they looked good. They have great depth on the DL and at LB to use a rotation and mix and match based on down, distance, and opponent style. 

 

Joined: 09/13/2014

MGoPoints: 405

uncleFred

January 5th, 2015 at 8:46 AM ^

I don't have the link handy but IIRC it was in 2011. He explained that to run a 3-4 you were betting that you could recruit a nose guard with a very select set of skills and that you needed to recruit that player on a regular basis. He indicated that he felt that those players were always going to be rare in any graduating high school class and it was a bad idea to plan your defense around getting one of two or three guys. He felt that the 4-3 was a better fit for the college and that you could build a top defense without relying on getting such a specificly taleented player.

Joined: 10/14/2011

MGoPoints: 2399