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

[FishDuck]

My friends….THIS is a fun read by a former English Teacher and Football Coach who gives us his feedback about moving to a 4-3 Defense. His thoughts made feel a lot better about the transition, and in particular he liked how Buckner would be “turned loose.” Fun stuff.

http://fishduck.com/2015/02/should-oreg ... rspective/

[GrandpaDuck]

I won't have a strong opinion until I actually see it as I don't fully believe it. Your writer outlined a traditional 4-3 and certainly Oregon has the personnel to do it as he listed. The problem with that is the PAC-12 is a conference full of offenses that chew 4-3s up and spit them out. How many HUHN spreads and Air Raids do we have now in the league 9 or 10? I still remember how the master of the 4-3 Tampa 2, Monte Kiffin' defense even with a huge talent advantage got regularly destroyed in this conference. The last team to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in the conference the Cal Bears had one of the biggest defensive declines from one year to the next I have ever seen. The most consistent defenses in the conference the last few years have been 3-4s. Stanford, Oregon, Pendergast's USC have all been 3-4s.

I just am not certain how much of a traditional 4-3 we'll see though. It would seem more likely that we would see a 4-2-5 except our secondary only has 3 rotation players returning and they were the weakest of the 6 rotation players from last year.

Also of note Oregon's defense last year (after an initial hick-up) improved greatly when they went to playing mostly a 3-2 box against the spread teams. I am wondering if this 4-3 talk is more in regards to a package to be used against a few teams and in certain situations rather than a new base defense.

[Duck07]

I don't think its automatic that we'd see either Buckner or Canton move full-time to DT but rather play there in spots because they both have the athleticism to play DE and be freaks at it. It also would allow us to use a "big" front with them outside and a "speed" front because on the latter you could move Canton and Buckner inside and bring on Talia and French.

I'm a fan of the switch if we make it but I'm apprehensive that we'll make the move and be aggressive as a result. I still see us being far too timid on Defense and being all reactionary. Sometimes you've just got to force the issue, destroy blocking assignments and simply impose your will on your opponent.

[squintsdd]

I won't have a strong opinion until I actually see it as I don't fully believe it. Your writer outlined a traditional 4-3 and certainly Oregon has the personnel to do it as he listed. The problem with that is the PAC-12 is a conference full of offenses that chew 4-3s up and spit them out. How many HUHN spreads and Air Raids do we have now in the league 9 or 10? I still remember how the master of the 4-3 Tampa 2, Monte Kiffin' defense even with a huge talent advantage got regularly destroyed in this conference. The last team to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in the conference the Cal Bears had one of the biggest defensive declines from one year to the next I have ever seen. The most consistent defenses in the conference the last few years have been 3-4s. Stanford, Oregon, Pendergast's USC have all been 3-4s.

I just am not certain how much of a traditional 4-3 we'll see though. It would seem more likely that we would see a 4-2-5 except our secondary only has 3 rotation players returning and they were the weakest of the 6 rotation players from last year.

Also of note Oregon's defense last year (after an initial hick-up) improved greatly when they went to playing mostly a 3-2 box against the spread teams. I am wondering if this 4-3 talk is more in regards to a package to be used against a few teams and in certain situations rather than a new base defense.

The 3-4 is designed for teams with a strong linebacking core, which Oregon doesn't have. Stanford and USC can get away with it because they have consistently had success at recruiting linebackers; again, Oregon has not. Oregon got eaten alive in the NCG because their linebackers were not big enough, strong enough, and smart enough to get past the blocking scheme of a simple trap play.

Oregon will benefit from a 4-3. With the strengths in our defensive backs they can cover in a nickel formation easy enough on obvious passing downs, while still getting more pressure on the quarterback with 4 down linemen than they did before.

[Duck07]

I won't have a strong opinion until I actually see it as I don't fully believe it. Your writer outlined a traditional 4-3 and certainly Oregon has the personnel to do it as he listed. The problem with that is the PAC-12 is a conference full of offenses that chew 4-3s up and spit them out. How many HUHN spreads and Air Raids do we have now in the league 9 or 10? I still remember how the master of the 4-3 Tampa 2, Monte Kiffin' defense even with a huge talent advantage got regularly destroyed in this conference. The last team to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in the conference the Cal Bears had one of the biggest defensive declines from one year to the next I have ever seen. The most consistent defenses in the conference the last few years have been 3-4s. Stanford, Oregon, Pendergast's USC have all been 3-4s.

I just am not certain how much of a traditional 4-3 we'll see though. It would seem more likely that we would see a 4-2-5 except our secondary only has 3 rotation players returning and they were the weakest of the 6 rotation players from last year.

Also of note Oregon's defense last year (after an initial hick-up) improved greatly when they went to playing mostly a 3-2 box against the spread teams. I am wondering if this 4-3 talk is more in regards to a package to be used against a few teams and in certain situations rather than a new base defense.

Well, Chip's biggest game this season in his eyes (or the one he really saw as a gauge) was against Seattle who does employ Tampa 2 principles and they absolutely destroyed them by staying in base and nickel most the entire game. Obviously they've got a Top 5 MLB in Bobby Wagner who can cover the middle of the field to make it work, but there are a lot of other reasons why a 43 can be effective against a spread team.

The Box 3-2 is a bit of a misnomer because we simply slid Washington and Coleman outside so the personnel on the field was still a 34. We never really used a sub-defense unless it was goal-line or the stupid amoeba front that never works. Like you I'm still apprehensive about what the on-field product will look like, but as long as it keeps 4 DL on 3rd down and more aggressive play out of CBs, I'm a fan.

[FishDuck]

I thought I would share what Coach Morris said in our discussion that led up to his article, as he agreed with three of you, but it would have been too much to put into one article.

First--GrandpaDuck: He agrees that we very may work an extra safety on the field for our own variation of the 4-2-5. While it is too soon to say--Helfrich said he liked the human missile (Fotu Leiato) at safety. GOC (Grizzled Ol' Coach) likes him as a 4-3 OLB.

Duck07: Both GOC and a coach in Hawaii felt that Buckner and Canton could play DE, and do it well--agreed with you.

Squintsdd: GOC very much agreed with you that we are recruiting Defensive linemen easier than LBs, and thus makes sense to make this change. If we go to a 4-2-5, then the recruiting pinch is felt that much less.

Great stuff and you can see how it could have been another 1,000 words--but this was a great place to start.

Thanks,

FD

[UOducksTK1]

I won't have a strong opinion until I actually see it as I don't fully believe it. Your writer outlined a traditional 4-3 and certainly Oregon has the personnel to do it as he listed. The problem with that is the PAC-12 is a conference full of offenses that chew 4-3s up and spit them out. How many HUHN spreads and Air Raids do we have now in the league 9 or 10? I still remember how the master of the 4-3 Tampa 2, Monte Kiffin' defense even with a huge talent advantage got regularly destroyed in this conference. The last team to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in the conference the Cal Bears had one of the biggest defensive declines from one year to the next I have ever seen. The most consistent defenses in the conference the last few years have been 3-4s. Stanford, Oregon, Pendergast's USC have all been 3-4s.

I just am not certain how much of a traditional 4-3 we'll see though. It would seem more likely that we would see a 4-2-5 except our secondary only has 3 rotation players returning and they were the weakest of the 6 rotation players from last year.

Also of note Oregon's defense last year (after an initial hick-up) improved greatly when they went to playing mostly a 3-2 box against the spread teams. I am wondering if this 4-3 talk is more in regards to a package to be used against a few teams and in certain situations rather than a new base defense.

The 3-4 is designed for teams with a strong linebacking core, which Oregon doesn't have. Stanford and USC can get away with it because they have consistently had success at recruiting linebackers; again, Oregon has not. Oregon got eaten alive in the NCG because their linebackers were not big enough, strong enough, and smart enough to get past the blocking scheme of a simple trap play.

Oregon will benefit from a 4-3. With the strengths in our defensive backs they can cover in a nickel formation easy enough on obvious passing downs, while still getting more pressure on the quarterback with 4 down linemen than they did before.

But we've had some decent LB cores before the last couple of down years. To me if you don't have the personnel, get the personnel. We are a good enough team where we should be able to recruit the players we need to fit our scheme.

[GrantDuck]

I think part of the reason we switched initially is because we were recruiting great at LB but couldn't get a DL to save our lives. Now it's been the opposite.

We had guys like Kenny Rowe and Dion Jordan who it absolutely worked well with. Now, it seems like our personell is a bit more suited to 4-3 so switching might not be a bad idea.

I'm for anything that shows improvement over this year's debacle.

[Duck07]

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!?"

[squintsdd]

I won't have a strong opinion until I actually see it as I don't fully believe it. Your writer outlined a traditional 4-3 and certainly Oregon has the personnel to do it as he listed. The problem with that is the PAC-12 is a conference full of offenses that chew 4-3s up and spit them out. How many HUHN spreads and Air Raids do we have now in the league 9 or 10? I still remember how the master of the 4-3 Tampa 2, Monte Kiffin' defense even with a huge talent advantage got regularly destroyed in this conference. The last team to go from a 3-4 to a 4-3 in the conference the Cal Bears had one of the biggest defensive declines from one year to the next I have ever seen. The most consistent defenses in the conference the last few years have been 3-4s. Stanford, Oregon, Pendergast's USC have all been 3-4s.

I just am not certain how much of a traditional 4-3 we'll see though. It would seem more likely that we would see a 4-2-5 except our secondary only has 3 rotation players returning and they were the weakest of the 6 rotation players from last year.

Also of note Oregon's defense last year (after an initial hick-up) improved greatly when they went to playing mostly a 3-2 box against the spread teams. I am wondering if this 4-3 talk is more in regards to a package to be used against a few teams and in certain situations rather than a new base defense.

The 3-4 is designed for teams with a strong linebacking core, which Oregon doesn't have. Stanford and USC can get away with it because they have consistently had success at recruiting linebackers; again, Oregon has not. Oregon got eaten alive in the NCG because their linebackers were not big enough, strong enough, and smart enough to get past the blocking scheme of a simple trap play.

Oregon will benefit from a 4-3. With the strengths in our defensive backs they can cover in a nickel formation easy enough on obvious passing downs, while still getting more pressure on the quarterback with 4 down linemen than they did before.

But we've had some decent LB cores before the last couple of down years. To me if you don't have the personnel, get the personnel! We are a good enough team where we should be able to recruit the players we need to fit our scheme.

The past 2 years our linebacking core has been average at best. Football is a game where, to some extent, you can adjust your scheme to fit the players you have, and Oregon hasn't done that the past 2 years. They've taken guys like Armstead, Buckner, and Balducci and just let them occupy blockers while the average linebackers do the work. That's completely wrong. The strength has been at the line, but Oregon is using them wrong.

And you can't just "get the personnel" other wise we would have them. This isn't the NFL, you can't just throw money at them and hope they accept your offer.

[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.

[pezsez1]

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?

[UOducksTK1]

The past 2 years our linebacking core has been average at best. Football is a game where, to some extent, you can adjust your scheme to fit the players you have, and Oregon hasn't done that the past 2 years. They've taken guys like Armstead, Buckner, and Balducci and just let them occupy blockers while the average linebackers do the work. That's completely wrong. The strength has been at the line, but Oregon is using them wrong.

And you can't just "get the personnel" other wise we would have them. This isn't the NFL, you can't just throw money at them and hope they accept your offer.

I kinda touched on most of this in my post above, but I'll add a little more.. I agree our line was pretty awesome last year, but looking at the DC now, you could argue we have more depth at LB next year. And with Kiko most likely starting, and Mattingly getting more minutes, I think you'll see the LB perform better next year.

Adjustments are great, but potentially revamping our scheme because our LB play isn't very good is rather discouraging. Look at our player development at OL, DB, and RB. Consistently, we are producing quality players. I don't get why that's so difficult to accomplish at LB (and maybe to a lesser extent at DL as well). But I guess if switching to a 4-3 helps us win games, then so be it. I wouldn't be surprised if people complain about our DL this year or next, and argue how we should be running a 3-4 because our LB depth chart is deeper.

I get that there's a problem, but I don't know if scheme-adjusting is the best solution. Maybe I'm wrong, just trying to stir up discussion on whether or not switching to a 4-3 is a positive thing.

[UOducksTK1]

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?

That's all part of the speculation. Once we know the underlying reason for switching to a 4-3, I don't have to post as much.

[squintsdd]

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.