DEFENSIVE PLAYBOOK: Base 3-4 Defense
Disclaimer: This isn't a scheme WSU is running, nor would I want to give away the schemes they're working on. Instead, this is a general look at what it takes to run a 3-4 and whether it's feasible for WSU to do so.
The depth of the defensive line at WSU has been a concern over the past few years, causing some to wonder if it's a viable strategy to move to a 3 down lineman scheme. With the talent the Cougs have at linebacker, it lends to the theory that it may benefit WSU to run a 3-4 defense. The question has been floating around multiple places, so we thought we'd take a look at it to see whether the defense would suit the Cougs.
A 3-4 defense isn't a simple switch from a 4-3. On the surface it seems like we'd just be replacing a lineman with a linebacker and running with it. In reality, it's not that simple. The personnel required to play the defense is different and the assignments are counter-intuitive to a player brought up in a 4-3.
What follows is an in-depth look at what a base 3-4 defense entails and whether WSU could pull it off with success.
Scheme and alignment
A 3-4 defense, in it's simplest form, looks like this:
The alignment consists of a nose tackle lined up directly over center, with two defensive ends lined up over the offensive tackles. Behind them, two middle linebackers line up between the nose tackle and defensive ends, a few yards back. The outside linebackers line up outside the offensive tackles.
The secondary consists of four defensive backs in a similar alignment to a 4-3. Typically, the defensive backfield doesn't drastically change in any scheme, but the strong safety will line up closer to the line of scrimmage than a typical cover 2 look.
The benefit of the 3-4 is speed and deception. The defense will typically rush four, with a linebacker being the fourth person rushing. This allows the defense to disguise where the pressure is coming from. Any of the four backers can blitz and it's possible for any of the back seven to bring pressure. It could come from the corners, linebackers, or even the safeties.
The single most important aspect of a 3-4 is the play of defensive line. They absolutely must be able to tie up the offensive line no matter the situation. Unlike a 4-3, their job is not to get into the backfield and create havoc. Instead, the NT and DEs are there to control gaps and free up the linebackers to make tackles. Without lineman for the scheme the defense is incredibly vulnerable, to the point where it becomes useless.
Almost as important is the play of the linebackers. The backers must be able to make plays. They need to be sure tacklers, recognize the gaps open in front of them, and quick enough to shoot the gaps and disrupt the run of play. While the defensive line holds up the offensive line, the linebackers are the ones called upon to get into the backfield and stop the run or pressure the quarterback. These are the guys that will have high sack and tackling numbers.
Personnel
This is where a 3-4 really differs from a 4-3. The 3-4 defense relies heavily on the play of the nose tackle. The nose tackle needs to be big -- much bigger than a typical defensive lineman -- and have the strength and technique to control two gaps while warding off double and triple teams.
The linebackers also require a different skill set. In a 3-4, they need to be bigger, stronger, and more versatile than in a base 4-3. The linebackers are called upon to create a pass rush and to clog the running lanes. Being able to shed blocks from anyone on the offensive line is a must.
In the secondary, the skill set required doesn't differ a ton. A strong safety that's bigger and able to blitz or stuff the run is an added bonus in a 3-4. The strong safety should be versatile enough to line up in the box in rushing situations, or cover the pass when needed.
Could WSU pull it off?
The short answer is no. The WSU defense would be consistently torched if they tried out a 3-4. The biggest player on the depth chart is 330 pound Tyson Pencer. Nobody on the depth chart could adequately handle the nose tackle position that is so vital to a 3-4 defense. They must be big, space-eating lineman that are strong enough to occupy both 'A' gaps.
While the concern about depth on the defensive line is real, playing a 3-4 is far from a cakewalk for linemen. In fact, it's a more physically demanding scheme than a 4-3. With the still undersized linemen the Cougs do have, changing to a 3-4 is a recipe for injuries, further hurting the depth we do have.
The linebacker corps is deep, but again they aren't suited for this type of defense. With Louis Bland likely out and Andre Barrington done for the year due to academics, the depth doesn't look as great as we originally thought. With only six backers on the depth chart, playing four at the same time doesn't seem like a great idea. Even adding in Sekope Kaufusi -- a typical tweener that could be an OLB in a 3-4 -- still doesn't give us what we need.
The secondary has a safety that is big and versatile enough to play the run, blitz at times, and cover the pass in LeAndre Daniels, but that's about it.
The bottom line
Transitioning to a 3-4 in the NFL is hard enough, even with the benefit of free agency and trades. It takes years to get the players in place and the scheme implemented to a level that is successful. Doing so at the college level is anything but an overnight process. It takes a fundamental change in the coaching staff's recruiting philosophy and some serious growing pains to learn the scheme and be able to run it sufficiently.
The last thing this team needs is a complete overhaul of the defensive scheme. The players in place were recruited to play a 4-3 and appear to finally be up to the task. Making a wholesale change due to fears about the defensive line would send this defense into a tailspin.
27 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What has Wulff traditionally run?
College defenses are weird. Most are 4-3, but I feel like there are more 3-3-5 than 3-4 schemes currently in use. Personally, I love the 3-4, but that’s just because that’s what I usually run on NCAA Football. I just love the extra linebacker. I mean, if you give me a choice between a 2nd DT or a 4th LB, I’ll take the LB seven days a week and twice on Sunday. But again, that’s no expert opinion or anything, that’s my Xbox bias.
As far as I know, the co-DCs have both typically run a 4-3
The common misconception is we’ve already run a 3-4 before when we were down on linemen. Instead, we’d actually been running a 3-3-5. If we ran a 3-4 at all, it was incredibly sparingly.
There’s a pretty big difference between the 3-3-5 and 3-4 in personnel and philosophy.
Our version of the 3-3-5
I don’t know what the conventional philosophy of a 3-3-5 is but it appeared ours was to limit the offence to gains of less than 10 yards. Kinda like saying let’s make them work a little longer to get this td we all know they’re going to get anyways.
I agree in the video game world
The 3-4 can work great because the lack of true nose tackle isn’t as big a deal. Generally in the video game world the DT’s aren’t that important, and the Center’s and Guards on the OL don’t move quickly downfield. So video game LB’s get to run all over the place and are disproportionately important.
That said, the reality of the 3-4 just doesn’t really work. If we have struggled to keep the Offensive line off of our linebackers with four down linemen, and we have struggled for our LB’s to get off of blocks if they do encounter linemen, that alone says that adding another LB in a trade for a down linemen will just create more problems. And as Cougfan points out, we have traded a Down Lineman for a defensive back and gone 3-3-5, but ideally I think our scheme is aimed at 4 down linemen most of the time.
Agreed.
I hope it doesn’t sound like I was lobbying for a 3-4 or even a 3-3-5. I was just stating my video game preference. When it comes to the actual Cougs, I’m in favor of whatever stops the other team from scoring the most.
by Kyle Rancourt on Aug 17, 2010 3:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
what kind of formation would you use on a vibrating table?
by BigWood on Aug 17, 2010 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
So, who's up for a CougCenter electric football tournament
Does anyone still have one?
As a side note, I read an entire article about an electric football championship. Fascinating.
love this!
Just found an old NFL set at my Mom’s this summer… yes, I am THAT old.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Aug 17, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
to be honest I am not sure
which one it is. One had legs that folded down like a card table. The other was a field you just set on the table and plugged in…
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Aug 17, 2010 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Cougs lack a 1 tech
Luapo at 331 was the lone true 1 tech on the roster. A guy w/ the size to nose up to the center an go head on w/ him and frequently a guard. Turpin was 301 at the time he fell out and never could have handled a 1 tech role. A true shame to lose Luapo; his girth would have eased the double on Rankin a lot. This 3-4 question was addressed by Chris Ball recently— there was some chatter about teams going to the 4-2-5 w/ so many hybrid size guys in the PAC 10 right now. Chris immediately snuffed out the thought of it; “We are a 4-3 team, we are committed to that and that is what we are. The trend is more toward 3-4 w/ all the spread offenses…but we are a 4-3 team.” I jotted it down and then read it elsewhere too— Grippi maybe? Anyway… in 2008 they went 3-4 because all the linemen were hurt. Poor Hineline, a walk on 260 pounder got pushed up field by NFL bound centers all year. It was brutal. Anyway… no 3-4 for the Cougs.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
3-3-5 in 2008
But yes, we are a 4-3 team.
If it warrants it or is something you guys want to see at some point, I’ll run down the basics of a 30 stack. To me, that defense is more interesting and suited to our personnel.
by Brian Floyd on Aug 17, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
3-3-5
if you count Beck as a safety lined up off the TE. I sorta felt that was his shift to LB. But – aples and oranges…
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Aug 17, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
It may look similar when they line up, but the philosophy and assignments are way different
If this team ever wants/needs to go to a 3 down linemen setup, a 3-3-5 would be the direction to go.
I was an LB
I know whereof I speak. In that situation, Beck was the ‘feint’- he could be considered a 2nd strong safety but he was assigned the run slot those sets. Often bluffed blitz, never came. Rarely stayed with the TE on release- thus I sorta of feel like he was a run stuff LB - as his ‘home’ was the deep 4/6 hole. But you are right the assignments are worlds different. And frankly as it was out of necessity due to DT injuries, rather than a welcome personnel overload, it isn’t worth debating.
In the Apple Cup win over the Dawgs; I hugely enjoyed the view as the Cougs actually ran a lot of 2-5-4. Bland had a field day as the bewildered pup blockers couldn’t figure out who to block. Trent and Mattingly would fake rush and Bland strolled thru… a thing of beauty. Wish that little bugger was healthy.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Aug 17, 2010 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I think I'm going to write about the 3-3-5 when I get the chance
More because it’s interesting to me and it may be interesting to everyone else.
I also get the feeling we’re going to see some different looks depending on the opponents offense (SMU and Oregon come to mind).
a great example of why big DL are needed - Haloti Ngata
As many know, the Baltimore Ravens run a 3-4 and have been very successful with that over the past decade or so. But a few years back there was an off-year that everybody was speculating that Ray Lewis had lost a step, or at least lost his edge. The reason for that was Baltimore didn’t have a quality nose tackle in front of Lewis to tie up the OL and let him make plays. Insert 6’4", 345 lb – Haloti Ngata and all of a sudden Baltimore’s defense is back at the top of the league, and Ray Lewis is back to running around like a mad man for another 5+ seasons and counting! The thing that makes Baltimore even more scary the past few years is they slid Ngata over to DE, so he’s not even their NT now!
We may not need a 340-pound beast like Ngata (or an even bigger beast like a Pat Williams!), but we definitely need somebody well north of 300 lbs. We would be eaten alive running a 3-4 with our current setup!
by LeaveItToWeaver on Aug 17, 2010 8:25 PM PDT reply actions
Paging BigWood to the white courtesy phone, BigWood please report to the white courtesy phone
Like in basketball, talented big men nose tackles don’t grow on trees. Recruiting one would be a tall task.
and Alabama had Mt. Cody.
all 978 pounds of him.
by Kyle Rancourt on Aug 18, 2010 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe WSU should find some success in the 43
before trying the 34?
I see posts all the time talking about WSU going to the 3-4. Cougfan did a nice job of showing why that simply doesn’t make sense. If you don’t have a true 1-tech don’t even start the conversation not to mention a pair of d-ends also willing to do most of the dirty work.
I think WSU would have MLB-type players that could play the 34 if the d-line was up to the task. Ledgerwood, Markle, Higgns, and Bland would probably fit. Only MIzell and maybe Barrington might fit that strongside OLB spot where you pretty much need a freak of nature out there. I also believe WSU has a bunch of “tweener” d-lineman that would make pretty good 3-4 “d-ends”. Rankin, Wolfgramm, Spitz, Clayton, and probably Hoffart would fit.
Lets just figure out the 4-3 and let Alabama, Cal, and Stanford have the 3-4.
That's my main argument against the 3-4
The sort of talent you need to make it successful is just not common in the college ranks. You really need physically mature linemen to make it work, and those guys (as referenced above) don’t just grow on trees. It’s exponentially easier to find recruits who can plug into a 4-3, which I think is why you don’t see a lot of college programs running a 3-4.
A big example is Cal — their much ballyhooed move to the 3-4 resulted in one of the worst defenses in the conference last year. Their scheme will still technically be a 3-4 this year, but there are rumblings it’s going to perhaps not be as true to 3-4 principles as the previous version.
by Jeff Nusser on Aug 17, 2010 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions

by 




















