Should Oregon Switch to a 4-3 Defense? A Coach’s Perspective

[GrandpaDuck]

I'm all for adjusting around your players, but if we are switching to a 4-3 merely because we can't recruit right for a 3-4 defense, then that's pretty concerning for a national powerhouse.

Any chance that Pellum would prefer a 4-3, and we're just getting back to what we had before DL recruiting went haywire?

We didn't switch to a 3-4 because DL recruiting went haywire. We switched because Azz believed in it and for the same reason the majority of the conference has now switched. Run/Spread, Air raid and no huddle teams virtually ran the 4-3 out of the conference. The best defensive teams in the conference since 2009 have been predominantly 3-4s. Most of the even fronts left are mixed and don't use traditional 4-3 personnel because of the inherent disadvantages of covering the edges with traditional 4-3 personnel against the spread teams (read/option or air raid).

Also we didn't exactly go from a 4-3 to a 3-4. It was a 4-3 mostly in name only just like in the first couple of years in the 3-4 we still called it a 4-3 trying to fool someone, recruits maybe? We were largely running a Gary Patterson inspired 4-2-5. The D coaches off season work-shopped at TCU and had a a lot of communication with the TCU staff. It never worked as well for us, even though the 2008 team was freak'n loaded with 4-2-5 prototype personnel.

Pellum may have had a preference for a 4-3 when he was hired. He tried lots of blitzing, bear fronts and 1 gap stuff at the beginning of the year. Probably stuff he had always wanted to try. He ended up going the opposite direction as the year went along and the defense markedly improved. He actually went to 5 in the box and after it flubbed against Az he got it working really well. Makes it hard to believe that after all his experimenting, and what finally worked for him he would go the opposite direction this year with 7 in the box and 1 gaping, but we'll see.

[UOducksTK1]

TK, I think the biggest thing the defense is missing is an Identity. We know what that is on offense and we're able to recruit accordingly but what is it on defense? When we lose out on defensive recruits I think its largely because our defense lacks an identity that can be sold to others. As I used to say "Chip put the O in Oregon, can we finally put the D in Ducks!?"

I get that we are known more for our offense and I'm sure recruits can relate to that pretty well. Minus our DB recruiting, our defensive recruiting is never very impressive. So I get that, and I think that's why I'm not too stoked about the coaches potentially switching to a 4-3. Sure it might make a little difference... but if we don't have the players to make it work, then what scheme we run is fairly irrelevant in contributing to success.

I guess I'm expecting our defense to get over the hump and become an Ohio State, Alabama, or other comparable teams, where it's possible to have an identity on both sides of the ball. Switching to a 4-3 just tells me we don't have faith in our LB group right now. And then when we can't get the right D-linemen, we will switch back to a 3-4. I'm all for adjusting around your players, but if we are switching to a 4-3 merely because we can't recruit right for a 3-4 defense, then that's pretty concerning for a national powerhouse.

It's really not much different than Ohio state switching to the read option offense after running a traditional power offense for so long, or Alabama running more of a spread hurry up after Saban had been complaining about it. They're both more of power houses than Oregon. Schemes change. It's easier to have the scheme fit the player than force the player to fit the scheme.

Fair enough, but then color me not sold that our DL will be recruited to a level where our 4-3 defense is more advantageous than a 3-4 defense. I'm kinda play devil's advocate here, I don't really have a strong feeling committing to one scheme vs the other. I'm at least excited that the coaches are trying something new, so lets try the 4-3, but I'm somewhat pessimistic we see any significant improvements though (Hope I'm wrong).

[Duck07]

The 34 vs 43 scheme here is NOT the issue. Neither is prepared to deal with a team that runs 10 personnel packages every down (1 RB, 0 TE, 4 WR) for example. This is why I'm indifferent about any switch because what I care more about is what sub packages are the coaches creating? The package you use on 1st and 10 is not the same you use on 3rd and 1, nor is the package for 3rd and 1 the same as 3rd and 8. Sometimes they might be, but generally speaking that isn't the case because how Stanford operates in those situations is going to be different than WSU (Leach had no problems with Bevell's playcall obv). Subbing Hardrick/Balducci/Coleman for Talia/French/Seisay and moving AA/DB inside and running Man 2 or Zone 1/3 wouldn't have taken any time of significance to run or install.

Defense by and large is solely read and react. The one area where the defense can impose their will and attack the offense is directly at the LOS. You can do this by pressing a WR or showing press coverage. The biggest spot this happens however is in the trenches. Sometimes you can do it by threat of a blitz, such as showing a Double A-Gap blitz, or you just bring the pressure period. We've done a terrible job of attacking offenses because we've all been drilled into the "bend but don't break" mantra which somehow means we shouldn't really attack the QB in passing situations unless we get real cute when we do it.



Defense isn't complicated, its about hitting people. The more you get away from hitting people, the more you're going to get punched. When we shift into 3 man fronts, or bring a 4th rusher on a way too late blitz, we're getting away from hitting people and making it hard on the DL. When we try to turn every LB into a Swiss Army Knife that does everything, we make it hard for them to excel at one thing. When we don't force WRs off their routes by getting in their face, pressing, we make it hard on our DBs. When we call the same plays and stay in the same looks most downs, we make it hard on the entire defense.

I don't care whether we become a 1-gapping team or stay with the 2-gap, I just want to see us start using more sub packages that show "Hey, we actually spent time scouting you guys this past week/off-season" instead of the "Well, lets run Fire Zone 3 again." I'd get into the whole part about coaches needing to put players in a position to succeed but I don't need to lay it on any thicker.

[pezsez1]

Defense isn't complicated, its about hitting people.

Nice post, Duck07... love that line.

[buckmarkduck]

Defense isn't complicated, its about hitting people.

Nice post, Duck07... love that line.

Exactly. Pete Carrols D isn't hard, but his guys just do it very well. NA always out thought himself with a way to complicated scheme that took most guys years to master.

[dthomas=ddixon]

Yeah Duck07 nailed it. That's always been the issue with our D and why hiring Pellum, NA's disciple, was concerning. Obviously I'm rooting for the guy but if he continues to run a complicated NA style defense we will continue to hit the wall that we've been running into for the past 10-15 years.

It's ironic because for all the wizardry people associate with our offense we know it's actually a very simple scheme that emphasizes execution. I wish our defense would catch on to that.

[duckfan22]

It's not like Oregon hasnt had examples from other teams on what kind
of defense wins championships. Auburn, big physical, hit hard, tackle and fairley simple.
Ohio State this year, aggressive took our run game away for the most part and harrassed Marcus
almost every play. They had a pretty simple plan not complicated. Oregon'S bend but dont brake needs
to be tweaked. Far to many times the opposing QB has way to much time to throw the ball. And if your playing
an elite team your most likely dealing with good receivers, given time the QB will find them.