Defensive philosophy - why not the 3-4?

Submitted by littlebrownjug on

Dear MGoBloggers:

I was wondering if you think it might be a good idea for Michigan to adopt a 3-4 defense at some point in the next couple of years. As a former college quarterback I can tell you that this was the toughest defense to scheme and play against, and I think that it would make sense given our trouble recruiting top-flight DEs. This would be advantageous especially considering our recent haul of well respected LBs, and I think that this would allow us to get better athletes on the field. We are going to be smaller and faster with Mike Barwis running the S&C show, and this defense would allow us to echo that. This also would allow us to put more DT types on the outside, which is what this defense calls for. We have a stud 3-4 NT coming in in 2009 (Will Campbell), and this would also allow us to get much more creative with our CB and S blitzes. I grew up watching the Steelers run this defense, and I would love to see it at Michigan.

What do you think?

MGoBoard
Defensive philosophy

BarwisMMA4Life

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 PM ^

I think that Shafer will follow a similar pattern that has established success in D1 football like Tenuta at Miami and Amato at FSU: Recruit a stable full of LBers and drop the ones that get huge down as DEnds. 4 fronts wreak a lot more havoc for Olines/Offenses than 3/5 fronts, and that is clearly the philosophy Shafer ascribes to.

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 19

WolvinLA

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 PM ^

I have been thinking the same thing as LBJ. With fewer teams employing the power running style we used to always see and with our new "small and fast" style we have adopted, it makes a lot more sense. I don't disagree with barwis' comment above, but I think that can still be used with a 3-4, and maybe switch to a 4-3 against a team like Wisco that still likes to power run. I just think this paradigm shirt will make it easier for us to recruit badass LB's than the hosses up front.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

littlebrownjug

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 PM ^

WolvinLA:

I sat down last night and thought about all of the truly dominating DEs and LBs in both the pros and in college, and I found that it was much easier to name outstanding LBs at both levels. In a perfect world we could find Julius Peppers types every year to play DE, but it just seems like there is a better chance at success in going with more LBs.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 694

dex

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 PM ^

Because a DE is far less likely to rack up stats like tackles and sacks when compared to a LB? If you are a good D-line player, you will get doubled, and that's going to cut down on your chances to make the glory play. Coincidentally, this allows LB more room to make their plays. To me, that's kind of like saying there aren't many outstanding offensive guards, but a lot of outstanding RBs.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

chitownblue (not verified)

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 PM ^

I also wouldn't take the last few months as indication that we have "trouble recruiting top-flight DEs". We recently graduated 5-star Lamarr Woodley, and currently have a five-star and a 4-star starting for us. We've recruited a number of other highly rated DE's, but they haven't panned out.

Joined: 12/12/2017

MGoPoints: 0

wigeon

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 PM ^

I love the 3-4. Besides NT, you have to have absolute animals at OLB to shine. Weakside OLB in the 3-4 might be the funnest defensive position to play ever created.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 7081