Kansas Football Making The Move To The 3-4 On Defense
For the most part media day is pretty vanilla stuff. Coaches step up to the mic and talk about how hard they've worked in the offseason, how excited they are to kickoff fall camp and there tends to be a good deal of cliche's and optimism floated around. When you weed through those items there is occasionally a nugget here and a nugget there worth noting. For Kansas yesterday that tidbit of information came from the defensive representative at media day Steven Johnson.
If you followed the KUSports live blog from media day you may have noticed the mention by Johnson that Kansas is making the move to a 3-4 base defense.
It's official: KU will be switching to a base 3-4 defense this fall. KU linebacker Steven Johnson said new defensive coordinator Vic Shealy had informed the team of the change about two weeks ago.
"We have a lot of good linebackers," Johnson said, "so we're trying to make our defense built to our favor."
The talk has been floating out there since the end of last season but most of it revolved around the thought that Kansas might add a wrinkle and show some 3-4 at times. This latest comment by Johnson would indicate that this shift in scheme will be much more full time than part time.
And really it makes sense. Without question Kansas is going to be thinnest at defensive tackle. Kevin Young, Pat Dorsey, Richard Johnson Jr. and John Williams are it. The Jayhawks attempted to move Pat Lewandowski and Julius Green to the middle during Spring ball but neither is at the point weight wise where that can really be relied upon for a consistent lift at the position.
When you think about it even Kevin Young is probably better built as a 3-4 defensive end lining up over the tackle instead of buried on the interior. Throw in Keba Agostinho who hasn't really been able to put on the weight they would have liked to see and you have four players that fit in nicely with a 3-4 scheme and a few of them can drop down to the middle in a passing down as we saw Kevin Young do a year ago.
The 3-4 also means that Kansas is able to get more talent on the field. One of the groups that has made the biggest improvements on paper is the linebacker corps. Darius Willis is eligible and expected to make an impact. Huldon Tharp is healthy. Tunde Bakare is turning heads during workouts and Malcolm Walker had a strong spring. Add in the known commodity in Steven Johnson and Toben Opurum as a 3-4 outside linebacker and you've got a strong athletic corps of linebackers and that doesn't even touch on some of the development that has hopefully occurred with the younger crop and players like Prinz Kande moving into the position.
One big concern has always been the lack of a MONSTER nose tackle to suck up space, and while that is the norm in a professional 3-4 defense it doesn't have to be the case on the college level. Does it help? Sure it does. But Pat Dorsey, John Williams and Richard Johnson all showed the ability late last season to effectively play the scheme and tie up gaps and blockers. The Jayhawks absolutely need to make the position a priority in recruiting in order to improve the look but it doesn't mean the switch to the 3-4 can't be effective this year for Kansas.
At the end of the day it gives Kansas options, it puts the best players on the field and it gives Vic Shealy the ability to attack in different ways. At this level and in the position Kansas is in, that's the most important thing. Gill has often said he wants to have an attacking defense and the move to the 3-4 looks to be the best opportunity to produce that at the moment.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well
It makes sense on a lot of levels. We have a ton of speed at LB, so it makes sense to try and get as many linebackers on the field as we can. I always thought Johnson was better suited to be an inside LB in a 3-4 scheme, so he should fit in well there. Opurum seems to be a perfect fit for an outside rusher in the 3-4, a la a Clay Matthews or Tamba Hali type. So I like it from that standpoint.
BUT
The lack of a big NT scares me. You got to tie up blockers or the offensive lineman are going to get to the next level and pick up the linebackers. End result is you give up a ton of rushing yards. Even the Packers, who have a pro-bowl caliber NT in Raji, were one of the poorer run-defense teams in the league last year (while the best against the pass).
Seems like the 3-4 helps you defend the pass better but you sacrifice giving up more rushing yards. Just my personal experience playing in it in high school and watching my NFL team use it the past two seasons. However, this could be a big benefit, as most Big 12 teams are moving towards the spread and having more speed on the field is a plus.
My final point is I’m also weary of the whole “hey lets switch things up to get as much talent as we can on the field.” Yes, we have a lot of speed and talent at LB, but this has bitten us in the ass before. A few years ago, the thinking was “hey we got a ton of talent and depth at DB and not much at LB, so lets go with a 4-2-5 base!” That 4-2-5 was just terrible. Horrible.
Shit happens when you win championships
I don't like it.
I keep going back to this question: Name another Big 12 team that has been successful running a 3-4?
K-State? God no.
A&M? Maybe. But only a maybe.
Most Big 12 teams are going to the spread, but are also going with a balanced offense. I know the perception is that we’re a pass-happy conference, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Watch OU, MU, Texas…..they’ll run out of the spread just as often as they pass.
And that 3-4 is just going to make it that much easier for them to run it down our throats.
But maybe that’s an advantage/big draw to the 3-4? It keeps the clock running and we won’t get blown out 59-7. Instead we’ll get blown out 35-7 by giving up 5 rushing tds. I guess that’s progress!
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
the league...
definitely seems to be shifting back toward a balanced attack. I do think a few years ago we were pass pass pass, but with the departure of some of those key QB’s it’s shifted again.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Yeah
A few years ago, the conference was redicuously loaded at QB. McCoy, Reesing, Booger Eater, Freeman, Bradford, Griffin, Cody Hawkins (kidding). Kind of mind boggling when you think of the talent under center.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 27, 2011 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
eh....
other teams ran the 4-2-5 or even a 3-3-5 effectively. It’s more a product of our overall inability to generate pressure and our lack of depth on the defensive front that killed us I think, not so much the scheme itself. Hell we could face the same problems with the 3-4 but I guess I think you have to try something.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Was thinking specifically of the 4-2-5 run by KU in '09
Not the scheme in general – running the 4-2-5 cost us a third straight bowl berth, IMO.
by jayhawk1996 on Jul 27, 2011 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
That...and a lot of other things
Players pretty much quitting on the team, injuries, stale play-calling, a very hard schedule that everyone kind of chose to ignore….
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 27, 2011 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Hard schedule?
a very hard schedule that everyone kind of chose to ignore….
CU was terrible
OU was down and played a freshman QB
MU was down
KState wasn’t very good
By the end of the year only 3 teams on our schedule were ranked. It was not a very hard schedule. In fact, our strength of schedule was #55.
www.oreadboomkings.fantake.com
It was harder than we all realized
Look, Texas, TTech and OU were all better teams than we were that year. As was Nebraska. In all likely hood, our “dream season” was going to be 8-4, 9-3 at best. We never beat those big three under Mangino, and we weren’t that year no matter how “down” a team like OU was.
Now throw in a shocking upset of CU (still should have won that game and got screwed, but whatever) and its not as surprising we had a bad year.
Maybe it wasn’t a hard schedule, or has hard as 2008 (the year we went 8-5, had a top 10 schedule in difficulty). But it wasn’t nearly the cakewalk that 2007 was.
2007 Kansas was a damn, damn, damn good team. But lets not forget we didn’t have to face those big three from the south, Baylor still sucked, and CU, KSU and OSU all failed to win more than 6 games. A&M was average at best.
Schedule makes a difference. Just because of the schedule, there was no way the 2007 team wasn’t going to have a pretty good season. Before the year started I stated we would/should win at least 8 games. We just forget that in 2009, our ceiling was probably 8 to 9 wins due to the schedule. We all bought into the hype, and it made the fall even worse.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 27, 2011 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll agree that it was more difficult than 2007.
But it still wasn’t difficult and there’s no reason you should use the schedule as an excuse as to why we didn’t make a bowl.
www.oreadboomkings.fantake.com
Agreed...
The KState loss was inexcusable. CU was pathetic. And really, we should have beaten Nebraska and Missouri. The schedule was pretty tough with all three of those south teams (though again, we should have beaten Tech), but that doesn’t excuse the losses in the north.
by hiphopopotamus on Jul 28, 2011 8:23 AM CDT up reply actions
The KState one just boggles my mind
We were such a better team, but in had a lot of similarities to the CU game. Some bad turnovers, half-assed effort in the first half, etc.
That team had a bad mix of expecting to show up to games and win them and bad turnovers. Mix the two of those together, and the CU and KSU games happen. Sad, really.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 28, 2011 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions
I pointed out the harder schedule was ONE of the reasons we didn't make a bowl
You chose one thing out of a list of five. I never stated it was the biggest reason nor do I believe that.
But my point remains that we all bought into the hype and failed to ignore the fact that there were at least four teams on our schedule that were going to be very very very tough to beat. When your ceiling is 8-9 wins and stuff starts going wrong (see the rest of my list), a 5-7 season suddenly doesn’t seem as shocking, in hindsight
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 28, 2011 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
I just think it shouldn't be used at all.
Not even a little bit.
And to me, a 5-7 season is still shocking considering we had what should have been 7 guaranteed victories, 4 tossups and 1 loss on the schedule. That’s a minimum 7 victories out of 11 very winnable games. When was the last time in history that KU had 11 winnable games? May never have it again. And yes, we played the big bad south. But TTech wasn’t nearly the same team they were the season before and once Sam Bradford got hurt, OU wasn’t the juggernaut of old. They were primed for being beat.
Not saying we should have gone 11-1, but the schedule was set up for us to go far better than 5-7.
www.oreadboomkings.fantake.com
I agree with this:
“Not saying we should have gone 11-1, but the schedule was set up for us to go far better than 5-7.”
But like I said above, it was kind of a perfect storm of things going wrong.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Jul 28, 2011 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Seems like the 3-3-5
was pretty effective in the second half against Ga-Tech, and Patmon was essentially playing OLB in that formation. I’m willing to give it a try. Johnson, Willis, Tharp, Walker, Bakare…the more minutes they see, the better I’ll feel.
with the way...
some of our OLB’s look it might resemble more of a 3-3-5. Also mentioned that Darius Willis could come off the edge like Toben.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
i love it
I’m a huge fan of the 34, I played it in hs and college. I think if we can find a suitable dt it will really help us.
by dester30 on Jul 27, 2011 11:19 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
It's too bad we don't play on natural turf
Ed Fink will be out of his element.
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
My biggest concern here
is our OLBs in pass coverage. Toben made a nice DE and at times OLB last year but I know he had some issues in pass coverage. Makes you wonder if he will be used more as a ‘Falcon’ back than a true OLB.
One thing I do like about the 3-4 is you can create a 5 man front pretty easily with your OLB and use that to disguise pass rush/coverage schemes more easily than in the 4-3.
As for our NT’s, I’m not expecting much there. My hope is that they can simply clog the middle and keep from getting blown off the ball and holding so our ILB’s can come up for support. While our NT’s may be small they are numerous and fairly athletic so hopefully the combination of fresh legs and quickness will mitigate the size issue.
I played NT at 160 lbs in High School and I was terribly undersized for the position but I’ve always been quick and had a knack for finding holes in the line. I didn’t get many TFL’s or sacks but I also didn’t get burned too often either depite giving up 100lbs on the line. We also had some studly LB’s so that helped…
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
I, too, like the idea of the 3-4: it's the ideal defense.
I agree with many of the concerns above (though I’m not sure it has to be run-D deficient), though my biggest concern is that incoming players will have to learn an entirely new defense (unless they played the 3-4 in high school). So if it takes two seasons to really get comfortable and play without having to think, you lose a lot of time for guys who graduate in 3/4/5 years, unlike in the NFL where guys can play in the 3-4 for 8+ seasons.
So for me it comes down to how quickly can they get new players acclimated, and how well can they execute to take advantage of the 3-4 and it’s ability to disguise coverage, attack from all angles, and be versatile enough to adapt to different offenses/opposing players?
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 27, 2011 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions

by 
















