New DC and 4-3/3-4 situation

[cr8zyncalif]

Personally, I don't think that Leach has a preference for either a 3 or 4 man front…I suspect that he just wants a DC who knows how to run which ever defense is on the field at that moment. And who is capable of teaching the kids how to do the same. But this board in particular has had a number of "discussions" about the relative merits of each, so with the Leach/Moos DC short list now into its fermenting stage (or perhaps a bit past fermentation; perhaps closer to the clarifying point), this seems like the right conversation for us.

Ground Rules: this is not another Wulff/Doba/etc. debate. Nor is it a "Leach threw them under the bus" debate. Other than that, have at it.

I'll start by giving a nod to the Biggs position on the issue, which I interpret as: "I don't care which you pick, but pick one and stick with it". Personally, I am not sold that you have to stick with one or the other, if by chance you have the personnel to run either. Of course, over time you would expect a DC to recruit to his preferred system, but that doesn't mean that you won't end up with a DE kid or two in a primarily 3-4 group, or a Buck or two in a primarily 4-3.

Various people have commented on what is easiest to recruit. I am prepared to lean toward being able to identify and find more DE's. That probably means that they are easier to recruit, but on the other hand, that is also a position for which you will be facing more competition on the recruiting trail, because more teams run a 4-3. Part of my reasoning is also because I understand the DE position and don't consider it difficult to identify potential candidates. On the other hand, I can't claim to be able to define, let alone identify, Buck candidates. I'll bet we could have a productive thread centered around what a Buck is supposed to do and how you would identify that kid at the HS level. Maybe that is the direction that this thread will head.

Regardless of who Leach hires, that guy will also have a group of existing kids that he'll need to use for several years. I think we have enough wide bodies on the D side to run either system. What we don't have is a whole bunch of DE's or even a whole bunch of Bucks…at least if you define either as being able to both rush the passer and contain the sweep. I also tend to think that we are little short of good LB's, which either system will need. I'm frankly not sure which system has the greater need for LB's…though if you had at least two good DE's, it certainly takes a lot of pressure off the LB group as a whole.

Thoughts?

 

[ttowncoug]

Teams have put 4 linebackers so they can protect the space that the Oregon style read-option offense presents.

The Huskies have had success with the 3-4.

It comes down to personnel and talent. IMO, the talent in the linebacker core, is thin to run with 3 LBs. We don't have a ton of speed. You need that to cover the ground.

 

[BiggsCoug]

They don't have any pass rushers on the DL. No ends, no 3 tech, nothing. So to switch from a 34 to 43 up front right now puts the build of the defense back 3 more years. At least.

The LBs, who knows what they can or can't do in the 34. I've yet to see a blitz package display all the things that the 34 can do. They could be bringing heat from anywhere with anyone, zone blitzes, etc. Not only do they not have a blitz package worth a chit installed, where is their pass rushing LB????

DBs are a mess. Enough said.

Look at the Steelers 34 defense. Big time safety, big time pass rushing linebacker, always have a nose guard. WSU has none of those things. The problem is to move to the 43, well, they don't have any of the personnel needed for that defense either.

Which is why I say pick one and go with it.

You want me to be critical of Leach? Here it is.

The Idiot coach made a change at the DC position after a couple years too. What happened? Nothing good. You bring in all your defensive personnel from your first two classes and once you are about to see them mature in one scheme, you change it up. So now all the new players you bring in are able to compete with the older players because you've just neutered any savvy or advanced reps in your defense. Hence, just when you think you should be getting older, you're getting younger. Leach just did the same thing.

You can't f*ck your hires from the start of your tenure. Leach just f*cked his defense. Now it's on him to unf*ck it by hiring someone that can overcome the mess he is inheriting.

 

[95coug]

Originally posted by BiggsCoug:
They don't have any pass rushers on the DL. No ends, no 3 tech, nothing. So to switch from a 34 to 43 up front right now puts the build of the defense back 3 more years. At least.

The LBs, who knows what they can or can't do in the 34. I've yet to see a blitz package display all the things that the 34 can do. They could be bringing heat from anywhere with anyone, zone blitzes, etc. Not only do they not have a blitz package worth a chit installed, where is their pass rushing LB????

DBs are a mess. Enough said.

Look at the Steelers 34 defense. Big time safety, big time pass rushing linebacker, always have a nose guard. WSU has none of those things. The problem is to move to the 43, well, they don't have any of the personnel needed for that defense either.

Which is why I say pick one and go with it.

You want me to be critical of Leach? Here it is.

The Idiot coach made a change at the DC position after a couple years too. What happened? Nothing good. You bring in all your defensive personnel from your first two classes and once you are about to see them mature in one scheme, you change it up. So now all the new players you bring in are able to compete with the older players because you've just neutered any savvy or advanced reps in your defense. Hence, just when you think you should be getting older, you're getting younger. Leach just did the same thing.

You can't f*ck your hires from the start of your tenure. Leach just f*cked his defense. Now it's on him to unf*ck it by hiring someone that can overcome the mess he is inheriting.

I agree with your basic point - that the D is a mess and doesn't have the personnel for either system - but don't really agree with your bottom line. Since we don't have the right people for either a 3-4 or a 4-3, I don't think a switch really sets us back much.

I'd slightly prefer to stick with a 3-4, but the big problem I see with that is right up front: solid nose guards are pretty rare, and we have had zero luck landing one. We'd probably have an easier time finding personnel for a 4-3, using some of the "tweener" OLB/DEs, and sticking 2 big bodies on the interior DL.

Regardless of our preferences and thoughts though, there's a simple fact we need to remember: defense is a distant second in Leach's system. All he wants is a D that can give the O a rest, and make enough stops to prove that "the best defense is a good offense". A major difference between Leach and Price is that Price tended to put the best athletes on defense, and keep the other team from scoring. Leach is going to put the best athletes on offense, and try to score more than the other team.

Whatever he does - and whoever he hires - my guess is it's going to be someone that isn't really even on our radar at this point, but that he's been watching. I don't have any objection to his dumping Breske - I think it was pretty clear in early October that he needed to be working on his resume - based on performance of the D. The dropoff from last year was too great, and in most weeks they looked lost, confused, and unprepared - often as bad as they did in 2008-2009. Argue youth and talent all you want, but combine the drop from last season (which didn't really set the bar that high) with the lack of improvement through the season, and it's no surprise that he's on the breadline.