Burnt Orange Nation

Jarvis Humphrey

will play a lot

He's a true freshman

The concern is as much for next year, so even the young ones need to be thrown into the fray early to speed their development.

whills - July 19, 2008 reply

That's a good point about planning for the future,

but typically I much prefer redshirting freshmen lineman, just as a matter of physical maturity. The physical gap between an 18-19 year old just coming out of high school and a 22-23 year old who has had 4 years of high level weight training can make for some one sided contests.

I suspect that Eddie Jones, if he doesn’t win the starting end spot, could be asked to spell Houston a bit and keep the quickness threat alive at the tackle spot. That said, having him split the two positions doesn’t provide the type of rest our guys need to avoid injury. I also have the strange, irrational suspicion that Tray Allen will play on 3rd and short situations next to Miller since he has high school experience at Nose (assuming PB’s right and he’s not our starting LT).

learned hand - July 20, 2008 reply

Hopefully they can afford to redshirt.

I agree with you on the need for a year of strength training and bulking up.

Well, I asked about OL guys they might double train (and maybe even outright transfer) if depth should become a serious concern. Early in the season they must rotate those guys or they’ll be worn out (if not injured) by the time conference starts. I suspect that was part of the problem last year but have no hard data to support it.

I also remember a tall, huge TE at practice last year. He looked like he was still growing. I have it narrowed down to Ian Harris (#16, 6-4, 250, a red-shirt freshman this year) or Josh Marshall (#18, 6-4, 240, sophomore ,squad) .

(I don’t think it was William Ruefle, a walk on transfer, or Mac McWhorter, another walk-on from Westlake.)

I suspect it’s Harris but I haven’t found my player list from last year where I made notes. The Horns will start with Irby and Ullman, so there may be a candidate there. The kid was a little awkward and obviously still growing, but I like his moves, he was powerful; there was a gracefulness to his motion, like a big pup that hadn’t grown up yet.

I’m of the opinion that the DL must perform for Muschamp’s defense to be effective. The DL can make life so much easier for the DBs. They may not announce their moves early but the groupings will be obvious at the first practice.

whills - July 20, 2008 reply

keep us updated Whills

I wish I knew more about the walk-on/non-scholarship crew, but unfortunately I won’t be able to make one of the open practice sessions and I’ll have to rely on others to disabuse me of my ignorance.

As a journalist you might be able to help me out with something else, in the fairly impressive (to me at least) Auburn media guides, they only list a 7 person deep defensive line rotation. Ex. here, page 12, it may help to download it before trying to read. The way the information is presented leads me to think that those were the only primary players in the Auburn rotation; prior years are also 7 man rotations. Do you know if it’s customary to have a cut off before players are eligible to be listed in the guide?

learned hand - July 20, 2008 reply

I know of no such convention.

Could be as simple as their template and publishing software.

Notice they have a catch-all list for players who made tackles but were not listed in the prior groups (this was at the last). One, #99, might be a DL and his tackles are significantly less than the first seven. You’d think normally there would be at least two deep for four positions.

I’m intent on going and I’m sure there will be others. Like last year, there will be reports and sharing of info. I’ll look at the DL and see what I can find. There probably won’t be a two-deep posted immediately by the coaches, but the listing of players and positions and eyeballing the drills should give some clues.

whills - July 20, 2008 reply

re: TE

I know Ruefle…he’s an older walk-on, and he’s race is Caucasian, so I don’t think you could confuse that w/ Harris or Marshall…I think McWhorter is the son of the same named o-line coach.

My guess is Harris, he looks like his body is still growing.

vy til i die - July 21, 2008 reply

Thanks.

Still haven’t found my notes but by every indication you’re correct.

This is the fun part of this time of year. At the HS levels they can grow fast, but in college that growth matures. Over spring and summer many of these big kids will fulfill their growth potential and lose that awkwardness. The backs and most of the receivers usually don’t have that problem, they’re ready to roll and their weight gain is muscle and seldom over 5-7% of prior body weight.

It’s a different world for the tall big guys. We’ll have some surprises and that’s part of the discovery, especially with a team with so many unknowns.

whills - July 21, 2008 reply

Interesting

When will recruiting start to involve growth analysis and genetic testing?

Wells - July 21, 2008 reply

Growth analysis has been around a while.

A lot of that is simply discovering where the kid is on his growth curve and thus his capacity for more growth, especially linemen, now that weight, strength and nutrition programs are so integrated into sports programs.

Genetic testing sounds invasive but look around. Your data are ours.

whills - July 23, 2008 reply

I wonder if they try to get x-rays

Wells - July 24, 2008 reply

Stupid wrong button

what I was saying is get their X rays to look at their growth plates.

Wells - July 24, 2008 reply

Testing for monkey arms?

learned hand - July 24, 2008 reply

bobino

I’m willing to look at bobino in a new light. of the three stooges killebrew, bobino, derry, I’ve always groaned at bobino the least. Ugh Killebrew, the late hits geez. Derry, well he tried, but just couldnt. At least bobino has come through on some fake punts, even had an interception last year.

owenh - July 18, 2008 reply

Derry

I hated watching Goodson make Derry look silly the past two years (made me sick).

Longhorns84 - July 18, 2008 reply

Aaron Lewis

fell pretty far on your depth chart. I think Bobino will start at MLB.

Longhorns84 - July 18, 2008 reply

looks good

but Bobino will probably star but end up losing his starting position by the end of the year.. i really think Aaron Williams should be our second string behind Earl hes big and athletic, and Ishie is just plain garbage…

Schwab - July 18, 2008 reply

The deal at safety

From what I’ve been reading on sites, Earl, Ben, and Christian are pretty much interchangeable because they are all three VERY TALENTED. I think we are set at safety for at least 3 goooooooood years. Ishie is pretty much done as long as no one gets hurt.

And yeah, Aaron Lewis has dropped alot. Not because he was bad., but our guys are just that good.

texasfan05 - July 18, 2008 reply

Bobino

I agree with others and believe that Bobino has the starting job. I’m actually expecting big things from him. He’s not a bad athlete by any means and if he gets his head on straight and Muschamp doesn’t constantly send him on suicide blitzes, I think he can be fine.

TheElusiveShadow - July 18, 2008 reply

Thoughts

Bobino and Melton start at least the first few games.

Thomas is a definite at one safety spot, but I think Wells beats out Scott for the other starting spot. Will be interesting to see where Gideon fits here as he got alot of snaps in the spring game.

Nickel back is most likely either Wells/Scott or Chykie Brown.

E. Acho has been getting some buzz at OLB.

Horncasting - July 18, 2008 reply

So why is everyone loving on Melton?

How does a bowling ball running back that avoids contact supplant Eddie freakin’ Jones for starting position? If it weren’t for Muschamp, I’d agree, but I have a feeling that Eddie Jones will earn a few more hard hats over fall practices than Melton will.

I fear that Bobino will start in the middle again, as the story is he won the first hard hat given out. I don’t think that says anything bad about Muschamp’s personnel decisions, but it may say a thing or two about Norton, who’s got way more potential but can’t get past him.

Horn Brain - July 18, 2008 reply

Melton may win that on footwork

the guys has RB feet, agile and quick.

However, he could never learn to gets his pads down to really employ his upper body strength and the leverage of his legs. So, with no forward drive, he just became a big target.

At DE, the pads are not a big issue – he seldom would be that low unless we encounter a serious running team and he has to operate as a real down lineman. Otherwise, his speed and agility become great pass rushing assets and enhance his size.

Again, if he doesn’t fit at DE, he goes to DT and eats dirt forever in the land of double teams and opponents much heftier than him.

Melton

H did make a few plays at DE last year and his name has come up quite a bit in the spring and offseason reports. Also consider that he is a senior with an outside shot to make it to the NFL with a big season and I don’t see Mack not starting him.

Horncasting - July 18, 2008 reply

3 defensive coor.

liked Bobino, so he must be doing something right.

speed, speed, and more speed

When we have DE’s playing DT and RB’s playing DE, we’ve got the lungs and legs to run with the spread offenses on the schedule. For once, we have a team to handle the Missouri and Texas Tech. My worry is a team like Oklahoma, who, mark my words, will come with a power running game and the best OL in college football to attack our smallish linemen. Everyone else on the schedule will be wondering who videotaped their practice.

We’ll give up some big plays from inexperience but I think we’ll make more on D as well.

I’m much more concerned with the offense than the defense.

burnt in ny - July 18, 2008 reply

If OU does that

the Horns will have the benefit of facing CU’s running game the week before. So the run D will have some experience and hopefully some of the personnel match-ups worked out.

Agree about more concern for offense than defense.

In Muschamp we trust?

Throw away the depth chart. Many of us believe the single biggest improvement on the team should come from the addition of Muschamp.

A closer look at the numbers from last year begs the question of whether or not our confidence is well founded. For instance, the ‘horns need to improve in the sack and TFL department. We had 28 sacks last year, which ranked 47th nationally last year. Additionally, only 11 of those came against conference opponents. That was worse than OU, A&M, Tech among others in our conference. Nationally, we actually ranked 97th last year in sacks vs. conference opponents.

In the TFL department, the defense ranked 35th in the nation in 2007 and 68th vs conference opponents.

Takeaways is also a category that many of us hope to see improvement. However, last year the ‘horns took the ball away 27 times while Auburn collected 24. Texas’ ‘07 defense actually compares more favorably versus Auburns’ when you compare games versus ranked opponents.

Interestingly enough, Auburn ranked below Texas in every single one of these categories in addition to rushing defense. On the surface, the only major category Auburn ranked ahead of Texas in was passing defense both overall and vs conference opponents,.Auburn was second nationally while Texas was #113.

You really have to dig deep statistically to find why almost every college football fan would have told you that Auburn’s defense was much better than Texas’s. Auburn’s defense was focused on the QB. They made their mark vs. the pass. Over the last 2 to 3 years, Texas has really emphasized defending the run – but what we failed to realize is that we could only do that because we had the luxury of guys like Huff, Ross and the Griffin boys. On the other hand, Auburn gave up less than 1 yard per attempt more than Texas on the ground in return for averaging a yard and a half better vs the pass. Compounded with allowing 10% fewer pass completions and you start to get the picture. Auburn also spent significantly less time on the field, and performed extremely better in the redzone. This stemmed from disrupting the passing game and employing a rushing defense that did not give up big plays. Add that to seeing the aggressive way this defense played in person and you start to get an appreciation for the fact that Auburn spent less time on the field and gave up fewer points.

Muschamp’s approach is exactly what the horn’s need. The Big12 has gone from being RB heavy to QB laden and each of the major teams has a young QB or has a highly touted recruit in waiting. We have the athletes to defend against the run for several years, but it takes more than athletes to defend the pass. What has been missing is the coaching scheme and the disciplined approach which is what we expect Muschamp will bring.

BMG - July 18, 2008 reply

Nice analysis, BMG. Thanks for the insight on the D. nt

well said

Great analysis on the emphasis against the run Texas has employed. Seems like I heard that Gene Chizik (2005-06 def. coord.) threw everybody but Duane Akina into to the task of stopping the run, which was good strategy with three No. 1 picks in the secondary. Obviously, that needed to change in ‘07, and did not, and certainly will now . . . Comparing UT and Auburn defenses is apples and orange—different personnel, different head coaches, different opponents . . . as to PB’s depth chart, I applaud the willingness to project some non-starters (Jones, Muckelroy, Thomas) onto the first team. I’m in the minority on DT depth; I think it’ll be OK if the starters stay in there. It’s not like (the departed) Okam and Lokey and Marshall were all-world talents. They stopped the run effectively but didn’t apply much pass rush. That will change . . . I can’t envision Mackand Akina lining up two freshmen safeties for Florida Atlantic; one of the corners has to be moved. Mack is too scared of playing unproven DBs to deviate from his veterans-are-good philosophy.

edsp - July 18, 2008 reply

Sometimes a man's gotta know...

Thankfully, we’re not talking true freshman. Thomas, Scott and Wells are all red-shirt freshmen. Aaron Williams is the only true freshman.

Ishie is a junior. The Browns are sophomores and a little light to be safeties (Curtis, 178; Chykie 185) but at 6-1 each, have the height. If they should gain some weight, maybe so.

It shouldn’t be daring to develop good talent.

Texas

has better players than Auburn.

From the....

2004 Draft through the ‘08 Draft, Auburn had 11 players taken in the first 2 rounds, while Texas had 12. Hardly a meaningful difference. While their recruiting classes might not have as many “stars*”, their coaching staff consistently develops their players far better than most programs.

HornChamps - July 19, 2008 reply

thanks for making my argument for me

While Texas has had better recruits than Auburn, the fact that both teams have had fairly similar good track records as far as the draft is concerned shows that Auburn’s staff has done an excellent job developing talent.

Playing against several nationally ranked SEC teams with NFL prospects at QB, Auburn managed to be in the top 10 nationally each of the past 2 years on defense thanks to their pass defense.

I doubt anyone would make the argument that Texas, with its “superior players”, played a tougher schedule than Auburn (thereby offsetting). Therefore, Texas’ “superior” players combined with Muschamp’s stellar coaching should produce a dramatic defensive turnaround.

BMG - July 22, 2008 reply

Texas

has better players than Auburn.

Where Theres a Will Theres A Way

First of all, Muschamp is genuinely a “schemer”, as evidenced by the tremendous performance agains the Gators who basically are an adolescent NFL offense. Scheming can build depth and help at defensive tackle. For example, Miller can move to the nose in a 3-4 while the edge has Rak, Kindle, and Eddie Jones. My God, athletes coming from everywhere. There may be times Kindle goes to DE and just flat out beats the handoff to the RB.

Secondly, the coaching on D has been epically bad over the past 2 years. Worst pass defense with a Thorpe winner, 2 first round draft picks, and 6 players in the secondary with NFL contracts? (ok I know I double counted some). Absolutely ridiculous.

Finally, player development and has been horrendous. No contribution from Kindle. Okam gets steadily worse from his sophmore year through his senior campaign. Wrong players playing, complete BS.

The optimism brougt on by Will is not misguided. It will be the biggest improvement on the Horns this year and everyone will be chitfaced when the Horns shock the Sooners and win the Big XII behind the defense.

realmccoy - July 19, 2008 reply

Solid D depends on DB's

Terrific talent on defense although a bit short on experience. I’m okay with that, but the DB’s will have to develop quick….It took Deon Beasley a little less than 1 1/2 seasons to really develop into a solid corner.

Kindle’s biggest problem is staying healthy. I don’t think he’s had an entire healthy season yet going all the way back to spring training during what would’ve been his high school senior year.

longhorns1 - July 20, 2008 reply

if texas runs a lot of 4-2-5 to answer spread offenses in the Big 12

expect to see a lot of trapping. I hope your linebackers excel at fighting off blockers, b/c they’ll see a lot of guards and tackles in their faces when they’re aligned in a 42 front.
OU, in particular, loves to hammer opposing LBs with their guards when faced with a 42.

If you deploy a 4-2-5, who will be your freak of nature LB/safety hybrid playing the 5th defensive back position?

Beergut - July 20, 2008 reply

Right now that's a blind hog's choice.

If it’s a db, then Curtis Brown might be the choice, or Wells or Scott if they don’t both start. Maybe even one of the fast LBs who’s larger in certain situations (say, 3rd & 4).

At this point, there’s just too many variables in the defensive personnel to pin it down.

whills - July 20, 2008 reply

3-3-5?

What are the chances that we run some 3-3-5 instead of 4-2-5? This set, as run by WV, gave OU fits and seems to be quite a bit more deceptive than the standard nickel.

honkskillet - July 21, 2008 reply

I don't think so...

... just because that’s not what Muschamp’s ever run before, to my knowledge. If the 3-3-5 is really a sound defense and not some gimmick WVU invented to cover their lack of talent, it might make sense for us as you can effectively double your depth at DT. Problem is we become thin at LB again, with only two really competent backups from what I’ve heard. I think that this defense is going to depend on a little luck in any scheme we run. An injury to Miller could end us. I would specifically mention to the referee crew that they should keep an eye on Miller before each game. Can’t have any Land Thieves crippling him out of frustration.

Horn Brain - July 21, 2008 reply

An odd front is an Okie defense.

However, it’s probably not configured like the old 5-3 or 5-4. If Bowden is correct, then I suspect Muschamp will go after anything that works, particularly on OU. I’d bet he’s already watched that WVU film many times just to see what really screwed them up.

And that’s something I suspect Texas would never show until they run onto the Cotton Bowl.

This must be the time for the pre-planing phase against all our opponents, particularly OU, Mizzou, CU, Tech and A&M. They’ll need to cover it in some form in two-a-days for later reference and refinement. You just can’t spring this on a team the week before the game; you’ll never get the recognition and intuitive physical response.

I’d love to think that in Muschamp’s office is a big sign saying KILL OU. And to do that you must aggressively predate upon them, to hamstring them and force them out of their timing (esp. the faster and improved offensive version Stoops is trying to cook up). You must do this in the first quarter when they so prone to score with their blitzkrieg. Then you must have more adjustments for their ‘standard’ offense the second half.

When Muschamp pulls down the KILL OU sign, it says KILL A&M underneath. A little hyperbole is always useful in the right places.

whills - July 21, 2008 reply

Wow. just.wow.

If the 3-3-5 is really a sound defense and not some gimmick WVU invented to cover their lack of talent, it might make sense for us as you can effectively double your depth at DT.

The 3-3-5 (or 3-5-3 or 33 Stack) was invented in 1993 in Corvallis, Oregon, by the Oregon State defensive coaching staff. Among the coaches on that staff is current New Mexico head coach Rocky Long. If you watch UNM play, you’ll see a nice 3-3-5 scheme. Other teams who run it include West F’n Virginia, Tulsa, and (with the hiring of Joe Kines) Texas A&M. The 33 Stack is a sound defensive scheme that certainly doesn’t qualify as a gimmick.

You don’t need 5 linebackers to run a 33 Stack, you really just need 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 safety/LB hybrids, 2 CBs, and one badass FS/Rover. Don’t think of it as having 5 LBs on the field, think of it as having 3 extra safeties on the field, b/c that is essentially what they are.

Like any defensive scheme, the 3-3-5 does have its weaknesses. Some people claim it is weak against a power running game, but that really isn’t an issue unless they are on the field for a long time, allowing the offense to pound on them. Reality is, it takes a very skilled offensive line operating a solid track or zone scheme to defuse the shifting and stunting inherent in a 33 Stack defense. If you watched the whole 2008 Fiesta Bowl, you will notice that OU began to run the ball a little better in the second half as they adjusted to what WVU was doing.
The biggest weakness of the 33 Stack is that it is an inherently aggressive, gambling defense by nature, so it means you have to be willing to give up a big play or two sometimes. It is the nature of the beast. The upside is that this scheme is ideal for shutting down spread offenses, taking the pain to them, and matching them up, athlete for athlete, speed for speed.

Here is a look at a 3-5-3 alignment:

Generally, CBs cover #1, Dogs have #2, Bandits/Bats have #3 receivers. Usually, your two Ends and Nose will slant to cover gap assignments. Ends have either C or B gaps, Nose strong or weak A. Mike and Bandits will move to control gaps opposite the DL slant, so A gap for Mike, B or C for Bandits. Against the running game, Dogs and FS play contain, outside-in against power, inside-out against option.

I don’t know if you missed it, but Rice ran a 33 Stack against texas in 2006. They changed schemes again when Todd Graham (who learned the 33 Stack as a secondary coach at WVU) took the head coaching job at Tulsa after the season, though.

My deepest apologies, sir...

... For not knowing the history of some defense that is run by one team of relevance in all of college football, plus your new defensive coordinator who, even if he told me in a calm voice “We are going to run the 3-3 Stack at A&M,” would sound like “GIMME GIMME YAW YAW GLUGULGUGLGUBBLUBLGU!”

You just misread my comment where you blockquoted it (good job, btw). I didn’t say the defense was a gimmick, I merely said if it isn’t (meaning I don’t know anything about it except for where the guys line up and how fast/big they are) a gimmick, then one advantage would be only needing to field one DT at a time, a position of concern for us at this point. I said we’ll be thin at LB again because we are thin at LB playing three guys, and there are three real LBs in the scheme. I don’t think we have the kind of Michael Griffin/Drew Kelson players that we’d need in the Dog positions, but we could throw it in as a change-up or something. That said, I hope you’ll forgive me for not caring where the Rice players were standing while we ran right through them.

Horn Brain - July 22, 2008 reply

you can actually play it with 5 safety hybrids

The real advantage of this scheme is that it gets so many athletes on the field. It is a good way to take advantage of certain personnel groups. Some teams, especially at less talented programs like Oregon State in the 1990s, couldn’t recruit the stud DTs, DEs, and LBs needed to make a 4-3 work, but they could get plenty of athletes to come play for them.

The 33 Stack is a way to deploy those athletes all over the field.

athletes in action

For OU How about a pro-style 3-4, with Kindle and Muckelroy as the outside backers who either rush, chase down the play from behind, stuff the slot receiver or the tight end, or fake the blitz and jump the slant to the receiver they supposedly left alone. They are big enough in college, at least, to stand up enough power plays run them enough times, especially if they aren’t on the field the whole game. Bobino and Norton are on the inside. That would settle Oklahoma, and no one but Texas has enough LBs to run it, so no teams see it. It also puts all of our best defensive players on the field at the same time. Against Tech we can work the 4-2-5 since, no matter how many returning starters they have, they aren’t going to power anyone off the ball.

burnt in ny - July 21, 2008 reply

Our problem with running a 3-4 isn't the 'backers.

We’d have almost too many of them, but we’d be in a bad way for defensive ends. A 3-4 would minimize the talents of Rak and Jones/Melton (did I actually just say minimize Melton’s talents?) at end as they’re not big enough to consistently hold up at the POA against 2 O lineman. In a pinch Rak probably could, given his freakish strength, but we’d minimize his explosion and make him more suseptible to injury.

All three would make great 3-4 rush linebackers, assuming they could hold up in coverage when called upon, but then we’d have to move Kindle and Muckelroy to the inside. To make matters less comfortable, we’d be more dependent on Roy Miller since so much of the 3-4 depends on the Nose demanding double or even triple teams. We’d also need several ends in the 270-290lb range to make it work effectively. Houston fits, but again, he’d see reliably see two blockers whereas Muschamp prefers him shooting up field against (hopefully) only one. Those same sized guys would be the ones counted on to back up Houston in the 4-3, which as has been noted, there’s a real drop off after him.

IMO, a 3-4 would minimize the D-line strengths, and maximize it’s weaknesses. But our LB’s would make some NFL teams jump for joy…

learned hand - July 22, 2008 reply

you could make the 3-4 work

you’d just have ot recruit to it.

I’m a huge fan of the 33 Stack b/c of its versatility, but the 3-4 is right next to it in being able to defend just about any offense.

Actually, I think it is easier to move from the 4-3 to the 3-4 than the other way around. People may disagree with me on this, but I think you can take 3 4-3 DT-types and put them at DE-NT-DE in a 3-4 and be okay. Your 4-3 NG is used to drawing doubleteams just like a 3-4 NT does. If you have a NT and a DE in a 3-4 who both demand a doubleteam, you can pretty much dominate. The last great A&M defense (imo, the 2001 squad) had that in Ty Warren and Rocky Bernard.

Correct me if I'm mistaken

But aren’t 3-4 defenses relatively rarer in college football? It seems the versatility required is often beyond the maturity level, physically or mentally or both, of a lot of college athletes. That’s seemingly why it’s more common at the pro level. Not that traditional 4-3 defenses are “easy” or anything, but I think it’s tougher for college teams to field a 3-4 defense that is both versatile and deep. Even recruiting for it doesn’t seem like a very easy thing to do.

You are more informed than I am about this, but that’s what I’ve noticed.

TheElusiveShadow - July 23, 2008 reply

off the top of my head

I can only think of K-State and UVA as teams that run a 3-4 defense, so yes, I would agree that they are rare.

I don’t think the rarity of usage of 3-4 schemes is b/c of a lack of maturity level, physically or mentally, of college athletes; I think it is simply a case of more teams in the NFL going to the 4-3 defense, kids in college wanting to go to the NFL, so moving to the 4-3 became a recruiting tool.

You have to remember, 5 years ago, I believe the only teams in the NFL running the 3-4 were Pittsburgh and New England. It’s making a comeback b/c the NFL is a league of copycats, and both the Steelers and Patriots have been so successful on defense with this scheme. Since it is making a comeback in the League, I expect to see more college programs eventually switch back to it.

I also think the switch to the 4-3 by many programs in the ‘90s had to do with the fact that many defensive coordinators felt a 4-3 was the way to stop WCO schemes which were becoming so common at that time.

I actually would argue that recruiting for a 3-4 right now would be easier, simply b/c so many people are running a 4-3, the personnel needed for a 3-4 should be available. This is one reason Pittsburgh has been so successful on defense; they’re able to take players no one else can fit into their scheme. That isn’t the case so much anymore with more teams going to the 3-4.

Beergut - July 24, 2008 reply

Uh, no one sees it?

That would settle Oklahoma, and no one but Texas has enough LBs to run it, so no teams see it.

You ever watch Kansas State’s defense when they’re on the field?

apt point, but...

I saw Kstate only on TV and not since Snyder retired as coach. I do recall the game in 2003 when their 4-3 wiped the field with Texas’ OL from the 6 minute mark in the first quarter until Vince Young willed the offense 88 yards with 5 minutes to go in the game. So I stand corrected that “someone” runs it, but it’s not like you put down a list of teams. I thought learned hand’s comment about the DE’s was a great argument against it and probably explains why only a few teams run it.

burnt in ny - July 22, 2008 reply

I don't think it's likely

we’ll field any defensive scheme with only four D-linemen, whether it’s a 3-5-3 or typical NFL 3-4. I’m no expert, but it doesn’t seem quite right for our personnel. Ilearned hand brings up some good points, and I’m unsure if it maximizes our advantages at the defensive end position.

But if Muschamp decides to do something like that, I’m sure he knows better than I do.

TheElusiveShadow - July 22, 2008 reply

you mean 3 DL?