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).pezsez1 wrote:Any chance that Pellum would prefer a 4-3, and we're just getting back to what we had before DL recruiting went haywire?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.
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.