ADVERTISEMENT

4-3 defense

firm_bizzle

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Jul 24, 2008
41,784
42,623
113
Well it looks like RS is committed to the 4-3 defense because now we are recruiting more DTs. Many of them aren't very big or rated high. Why not get a higher rated LB and play 3-4 instead of a lower rated DT and play a 4-3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFhonors
I hope he does both.

What we've learned in this league is that there is a lot of passing and
the more people on their feet ready to defend the pass the better.

#18 was a blitzing LB more than anything. No matter what you call the
alignment, we need another one of these :)
 
I hope he does both.

What we've learned in this league is that there is a lot of passing and
the more people on their feet ready to defend the pass the better.

#18 was a blitzing LB more than anything. No matter what you call the
alignment, we need another one of these :)
Enter SBB
 
Maybe they'll convert. Otherwise fitting a square into a perfect circle can mean a horrible season.
 
Maybe they'll convert. Otherwise fitting a square into a perfect circle can mean a horrible season.
which I hope they don't do. just play to the players strengths.

an example of this is USF's OC Gilbert and what he did to Flowers. He regressed in that system all season till he ignored him & went rogue in the UCF game
 
Well it looks like RS is committed to the 4-3 defense because now we are recruiting more DTs. Many of them aren't very big or rated high. Why not get a higher rated LB and play 3-4 instead of a lower rated DT and play a 4-3?
Well, if we can't recruit big DTs, then we don't want to run a 3-4. We've had only a few guys come through here that are big enough to be over center or even a 1T. Even NFL teams are getting smaller on defense. I have no problem with a 4-3.

So to answer your question. You need a massive DT to be able to take up a center and a guard in a 3-4. If you just get better linebackers in a 3-4 but have a small tackle, the middle of the field is free for 4-7 yard runs.
 
Well, if we can't recruit big DTs, then we don't want to run a 3-4. We've had only a few guys come through here that are big enough to be over center or even a 1T. Even NFL teams are getting smaller on defense. I have no problem with a 4-3.

So to answer your question. You need a massive DT to be able to take up a center and a guard in a 3-4. If you just get better linebackers in a 3-4 but have a small tackle, the middle of the field is free for 4-7 yard runs.

Agree. However, we've been fine with getting a massive DT in each recruiting cycle the past few years. Now we have to get 2. We've had trouble recruiting quality DLs. I would rather depend on 3 DLs rather than 4. Plus nobody runs in this conference.
 
Agree. However, we've been fine with getting a massive DT in each recruiting cycle the past few years. Now we have to get 2. We've had trouble recruiting quality DLs. I would rather depend on 3 DLs rather than 4. Plus nobody runs in this conference.
Hill seems to be the only tackle we have that could play well in a 3-4 and I'm guessing we have one more year with him. I don't think we have the depth to run it for more than a few snaps a game. A 2 tackle set allows for more rotation and let's Jasinski do his thing a little better.
 
A 4-3 is a good defense against a pro-style offense, which is what most of the SEC is. I'm not sure there is a pro-style offense left in the AAC, UCF and Cincy were probably the last. Everything is spread or triple option with almost everyone having dual threat QBs. 3-4 just seems like a much better scheme to defend that.
 
A 4-3 is a good defense against a pro-style offense, which is what most of the SEC is. I'm not sure there is a pro-style offense left in the AAC, UCF and Cincy were probably the last. Everything is spread or triple option with almost everyone having dual threat QBs. 3-4 just seems like a much better scheme to defend that.
I get what you're saying, but a lot of those offenses are still run first and you need to fill those gaps.

Also, a dual threat QB needs to be kept in check up the middle by tackles filling those lanes. Look what happened to Auburn when their tackles got lazy and pushed out of the running lanes. Milton scorched them by foot.
 
Is it a commitment to the 4-3 or just a reflection of us desperately needing DTs? I was looking at the scholarship commitments page on 247 the other day and was surprised at how light we are showing at that position and at OLB (not sure how accurate it is though and it's definitely not up to date).

https://247sports.com/college/central-florida/Season/2018-Football/ScholarshipDistribution
That's not accurate at all. There are players on there that graduated years ago.
 
I get what you're saying, but a lot of those offenses are still run first and you need to fill those gaps.

Also, a dual threat QB needs to be kept in check up the middle by tackles filling those lanes. Look what happened to Auburn when their tackles got lazy and pushed out of the running lanes. Milton scorched them by foot.
I can see that, we did give up a lot of yards to mobile QBs this year.
 
I hope with the new SEC staff we don't get trapped into an SEC strategy mentality.

That is one thing that even though SF maybe couldn't outcoach others, but I felt he would out strategize them. He would go against the status quo and keep teams off guard; like the colonists shooting from behind trees against the strong British war machine.
 
The adjustments SF made were awesome considering we were used to the GOL mentality of one plan or bust. I'm sure Coach Heup has experienced enough to lean more towards SF's style than GOLs. Everyone must adapt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfversusbcs
Id be more afraid if offense took a 180. Then we'd be flirting with disaster at Southern Miss levels during the Fedora to Elloss transition.
with 4/3 the worry appears to be which of our athletes during the Frost era will be left behind.
Speaking of which, someone should start a which player will not benefit under the Heupel era. I have an idea of who may feel left out due to size issues but hopefully im wrong.
 
Even in the 3-4, we honestly need six (6) starting DT/DEs because we really do need to rotate them in for stamina. The EC/DC really put that to good use the past two (2) years.

I've always liked the 3-4 for college.
 
I think Chinander's plan was to use 3 regular or undersized DTs and no DEs.
 
That's fixed with a spy.
Then you've lost a guy in coverage and still might have gap problems.

3-4 Or 4-3 Or 5-2, it doesn't really matter. It depends on how you scheme and what type of athletes you have on the field. Small lineman can drop into coverage and large linebackers can fill gaps in the run game. LSU had a 3-2-6 with 6 DBs. That would cover the field well.

Shaquem could rush the QB, play the run and was decent in coverage. If we had 5 of him, then we run a 3-5-3 or whatever gets them on the field.

I trust that Shannon is smart enough to get his best players on the field doing what they do best in whatever defense works.
 
Then you've lost a guy in coverage and still might have gap problems.

3-4 Or 4-3 Or 5-2, it doesn't really matter. It depends on how you scheme and what type of athletes you have on the field. Small lineman can drop into coverage and large linebackers can fill gaps in the run game. LSU had a 3-2-6 with 6 DBs. That would cover the field well.

Shaquem could rush the QB, play the run and was decent in coverage. If we had 5 of him, then we run a 3-5-3 or whatever gets them on the field.

I trust that Shannon is smart enough to get his best players on the field doing what they do best in whatever defense works.
You spy an OLB. Leave everyone else in coverage.
 
You spy an OLB. Leave everyone else in coverage.
Yeah, I was just being a contrarian there. I actually have no problem with what you wrote. It's probably one of the dumbest things I said all day and I constantly say stupid shit.
 
Again, hopefully they try to replace the role of #18 with our current talent. We have some younger players that aren't your typical DLine size but might make good rovers who bounce around to get into the backfield to break up both running and passing plays.

This is what we saw on display at the Peach Bowl by Griffin :)

A candidate for example: Dedrion Bacote-Sweat - Hybrid Linebacker at The University of Central Florida
 
Last edited:
Nose tackles are difficult to find for college ball, so sometimes a coach prefers a 4-3 just because of recruiting tackles. It puts a premium on finding good rush ends though so it's kind of a toss up. The nice thing about the 4-3 is that moving into and out of nickel coverage is much easier than doing so out of the 3-4. The advantage of the 3-4 is that runs fits aren't as important because the linebackers have a chance to read the blocking scheme and adjust as opposed to going into the play immediately trying to find the proper fit.
 
ADVERTISEMENT