Post-gruden fantasy coaching thread

[Scott Barker]

'Where you went to school' is a proxy for 'do you conform to the physical ideals.' Anyone who can run a 4.25 forty and does not have a criminal record is going to get looks from the top programs. They don't overlook the guys with the easily measured physical parameters. They do miss guys who have special psychological attributes. Certainly there are guys who jump from lower division schools to the NFL because their body matured late or they got serious about conditioning, but often it's got more to do with intangibles that weren't apparent or appreciated in the recruiting process.

And, really, the NFL cares about a lot more than whether you can play the game. A guy like Nick Reviez, who has all the instincts and focus you could hope for, never played in the NFL because he is simply too small. His body was adequate for the SEC, but the NFL pushes even further out into the tails of the bell curve of physical traits. The charm of college football, for me, is not that guys like Saban can assemble rosters of NFL-caliber specimens, but that a team can be assembled at Boise St that can beat Oklahoma. That's psychology eclipsing physical skills.

I agree with you that the Boise States of the world make college football more interesting. But college recruiters miss capable kids all the time. And some of those kids wind up in the NFL. But the NFL is about physical attributes AND psychological ones. Only those who have both are in the NFL.

And it's why you can't call a few of them "clutch performers." They all are clutch performers or they wouldn't be in the NFL.

Though some of them choke. That's why they play the games.

[Scott Barker]

I did. You didn't understand.



Son.

Son, just because you're condescending doesn't mean you're correct.

I think the 3-4 allows for more flexibility and is more disruptive. The 3-4 features four linebackers, who are the best combination of size, speed and athleticism on the team. They can line up in various locations to confuse the opposing quarterback while still being in sound defensive positions. The featured pass-rusher is the weakside outside LB, who is quicker that a DE and much quicker than the offensive tackle assigned to block him. And often the weakside outside LB lines up on the line in a lineman's stance, so it presents itself as a four-man front but is more flexible than a 4-3. For example, when you run a zone blitz, the "lineman" who drops into coverage can be a quicker LB rather than a slower DE. When you go into nickel situations, a DB replaces an LB, but you still have three LBs on the field as opposed to only two as in a 4-3.

From a recruiting standpoint, it's a matter of numbers. I'm going to base my formulation on personnel needed for a two-man depth chart.

DBs are the same in both schemes, so that's irrelevant. Both the 4-3 and the 3-4 need four quick, speedy cover corners, two strong safeties who can play the run as well as cover wide areas of the field and two free safeties who can play center field and break on the long ball.

LBs, as noted, should possess the best blend of size and speed. Obviously, you need to recruit six LBs for the 4-3 and eight for the 3-4. In the 4-3, the middle LB has to be a big, fast, terrifying monster. In a 3-4, you have two inside LBs who can be slightly less terrifying and cover more ground. You don't need to have a Butkus or a Ray Lewis in a 3-4. More on LBs in a moment.

The defensive line is where the key difference is, and it's probably harder to recruit great linemen than it is great linebackers, primarily because 6-4, 250-lb guys who can run are easier to find than 6-7, 300-lb guys who can run. A 4-3 essentially needs eight of those 6-7 guys, at least one of whom has to be a DE who can fly to be the featured pass-rusher. A 3-4 requires two nose tackles who must be huge but don't necessarily have to be the greatest athletes because their job is to occupy two offensive linemen. You need only four of those 6-7 guys, and none of them have to be the monster pass rusher because that job belongs to the weakside outside LB.

So, in sum a 4-3 demands twice as many 6-7 guys who can run. It's a lot easier to find two huge but not-necessarily athletic guys to play nose tackle and a couple more LBs than it is to find four additional 6-7 linemen.

That's why I think it's easier to recruit for a 3-4 than it is for a 4-3. Of course, it doesn't matter what scheme you use if you have inferior talent. That was, and is, UT's issue moving forward.

[Hank IV]

Andre Reed is an example. Or, even Frank Reich as the QB.

Or Terry Bradshaw (Louisiana Tech). BTW he lost the small college Nat'l championship (Div. III, NAIA?) to ETSU.

[toby]

Son, just because you're condescending doesn't mean you're correct.

I think the 3-4 allows for more flexibility and is more disruptive. The 3-4 features four linebackers, who are the best combination of size, speed and athleticism on the team. They can line up in various locations to confuse the opposing quarterback while still being in sound defensive positions. The featured pass-rusher is the weakside outside LB, who is quicker that a DE and much quicker than the offensive tackle assigned to block him. And often the weakside outside LB lines up on the line in a lineman's stance, so it presents itself as a four-man front but is more flexible than a 4-3. For example, when you run a zone blitz, the "lineman" who drops into coverage can be a quicker LB rather than a slower DE. When you go into nickel situations, a DB replaces an LB, but you still have three LBs on the field as opposed to only two as in a 4-3.

From a recruiting standpoint, it's a matter of numbers. I'm going to base my formulation on personnel needed for a two-man depth chart.

DBs are the same in both schemes, so that's irrelevant. Both the 4-3 and the 3-4 need four quick, speedy cover corners, two strong safeties who can play the run as well as cover wide areas of the field and two free safeties who can play center field and break on the long ball.

LBs, as noted, should possess the best blend of size and speed. Obviously, you need to recruit six LBs for the 4-3 and eight for the 3-4. In the 4-3, the middle LB has to be a big, fast, terrifying monster. In a 3-4, you have two inside LBs who can be slightly less terrifying and cover more ground. You don't need to have a Butkus or a Ray Lewis in a 3-4. More on LBs in a moment.

The defensive line is where the key difference is, and it's probably harder to recruit great linemen than it is great linebackers, primarily because 6-4, 250-lb guys who can run are easier to find than 6-7, 300-lb guys who can run. A 4-3 essentially needs eight of those 6-7 guys, at least one of whom has to be a DE who can fly to be the featured pass-rusher. A 3-4 requires two nose tackles who must be huge but don't necessarily have to be the greatest athletes because their job is to occupy two offensive linemen. You need only four of those 6-7 guys, and none of them have to be the monster pass rusher because that job belongs to the weakside outside LB.

So, in sum a 4-3 demands twice as many 6-7 guys who can run. It's a lot easier to find two huge but not-necessarily athletic guys to play nose tackle and a couple more LBs than it is to find four additional 6-7 linemen.

That's why I think it's easier to recruit for a 3-4 than it is for a 4-3. Of course, it doesn't matter what scheme you use if you have inferior talent. That was, and is, UT's issue moving forward.

A 4-3 features 5 linebackers.

Here's something more realistic:

[Scott Barker]

[QUOTE=toby;502871]A 4-3 features 5 linebackers.
[QUOTE]

This is really your response? God, I had more fun toying with #9 on climate change.

A 4-3 doesn't feature 5 linebackers. That would be a 2-5, which nobody runs. It would be nice if you joined the real world.

[toby]

[QUOTE=Scott Barker;502877][QUOTE=toby;502871]A 4-3 features 5 linebackers.

This is really your response? God, I had more fun toying with #9 on climate change.

A 4-3 doesn't feature 5 linebackers. That would be a 2-5, which nobody runs. It would be nice if you joined the real world.

So Lawrence Taylor was not a linebacker? Fascinating.

[Scott Barker]

[QUOTE=toby;502893][QUOTE=Scott Barker;502877]

A 4-3 features 5 linebackers.


So Lawrence Taylor was not a linebacker? Fascinating.

Taylor was a fantastic linebacker. In a 3-4 defense, which is what the Giants ran during the 1980s. You are proving my choke theory.

[Scott Barker]

[QUOTE=Scott Barker;502895][QUOTE=toby;502893]

Taylor was a fantastic linebacker. In a 3-4 defense, which is what the Giants ran during the 1980s. You are proving my choke theory.

Crickets?

Dude, it doesn't matter what defense UT runs (which was the catalyst for this part of the thread) if they don't recruit great defensive players. UT can win with a 4-3 and UT can win with a 3-4. It can also lose with either formation. What matters is the talent they recruit. Again -- it boils down to the talent. I think it's easier to recruit for a 3-4. You might disagree.