I've been waiting for this announcement. Great news. Boiler up.
https://purdue.rivals.com/news/western-kentucky-linebacker-headed-to-purdue
https://purdue.rivals.com/news/western-kentucky-linebacker-headed-to-purdue
we need an edge rusher, gotta get to the qb.I'm thinking this probably means we are looking at a 3-4 defense this year. At least it makes sense with our personnel.
I'm thinking this probably means we are looking at a 3-4 defense this year. At least it makes sense with our personnel.
I think with this move, you could see Bentley being moved to DE. He just isn't fast enough to cover in space but he is a playmaker with good size. I think he could shore up the weakest part of the DL being moved to DE.More likely Eze moves to DL.
I think with this move, you could see Bentley being moved to DE. He just isn't fast enough to cover in space but he is a playmaker with good size. I think he could shore up the weakest part of the DL being moved to DE.
Doubt it. He is your second best LB on the roster. He did not fit last year's scheme, but should fit Holt's
Bentley admitted publically last year during the season, that he was still trying to learn the defensive system being put in place by our new def coordinator. And on many crucial downs, he was out of position to make the play. I will admit , I don't know anything about our defensive schemes, systems or play calling implemented last year, or how complex it was to learn. I do know it totally failed on many occasions. I did find it puzzling and sad that our best defensive player would admit to the fans in mid season that he was still learning the system. Is this a reflection on the complexity of the system? The inability of our coaches in teaching the system? Or the lack of ability of our players to grasp and learn a new system. I do know the obvious: our players were not prepared to play defense at the beginning of the year, and failed many times throughout the season.
Will Bentley improve with a different system? Will Robinson improve? We shall see.
We were playing a Nickel with a LB better suited to a 4-3. He can cover the middle of the box and the middle of the field in a zone. Giving him flat responsibility was pure stupidity.
Cornhusker fans warned us about the guy and they were right. He ran their D when we scored 50 some points on them, nuff said.There has been more than enough stupidity to go around for a while.
Hopefully with Bobinski and the new coaching staff the pendulum has shifted.
He wasnt their DC. He was the LB coach.Cornhusker fans warned us about the guy and they were right. He ran their D when we scored 50 some points on them, nuff said.
We were playing a Nickel with a LB better suited to a 4-3. He can cover the middle of the box and the middle of the field in a zone. Giving him flat responsibility was pure stupidity.
Moving a LB to DE is a de facto 3-4 but I get concede your point. It will really coming down to how the handle rushing and coverage with the front 7.More likely Eze moves to DL.
Moving a LB to DE is a de facto 3-4 but I get concede your point. It will really coming down to how the handle rushing and coverage with the front 7.
With the arrival of McColllum, and our recent juco signees can you post a 2 deep depth chart of what our front 7 would like in our best possible 3-4 defense and a 4-3 defense?
Agreed. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion that's the plan. I'm actually looking forward to Spring!If he puts his fist in the dirt and we use him as the 4th DL, it is a 4-3. Same thing we did with Avril.
Me either, but Bentley isn't moving. Eze could at least be a situational pass rusherAgreed. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion that's the plan. I'm actually looking forward to Spring!
Agreed.Me either, but Bentley isn't moving. Eze could at least be a situational pass rusher
Thanks for posting this. I think I prefer the 3-4 based on talent on the field. But I'm fine with what the staff thinks is best.Projected depth
3-4
E Robinson, SR; Larkin, SR
N Neal, SO; Criddle, SO
T Wilson, JR; Brown, SO
SOLB Bailey, SO; Dawson, SO
WOLB Ezechekwu, SR; Miles, SR
ILB Bentley, SR; Hudson, SR
ILB McCollum, SR; Hudson, SR
CB Jallow, JR; Cason, JR
CB Hunte, SR; Shuman, SO
S Mosley, SO; J. Thieneman, JR
S Parker, SR;
4-3
E Robinson, SR; Larkin, SR
N Neal, SO; Criddle, SO
T Wilson, JR; Brown, SO
E Miles, SR; Simmons, JR
Sam Bailey, SO; Dawson, SO
Mike Bentley, SR; Hudson, SR
Will McCollum, SR; Ezechkwu, SR
CB Jallow, JR; Cason, JR
CB Hunte, SR; Shuman, SO
S Mosley, SO; J. Thieneman, JR
S Parker, SR;
This only includes people currently on campus. It is possible some freshmen can crack the depth, though I don't think it's likely except for maybe Jones or Barnes at ILB. Mackey may be the best shot in the secondary but that's it. Jallow is listed at a CB on the official roster which is why I put him there. We are paper thin at safety, though, so I could see him ending up there. We do have a lot of scholarship guys in the secondary so we could see more moving parts there. Side note - this is a just for fun projection. It will change a lot I am sure.
Larkin will play over Miles.
I would flop Jallow and Mosley. Brohm indicated he brought Jallow in to play safety. Or at the least, replace Parker with Jallow and elevate Cason to starter.
Watts? Given how thin we were last year, the fact that neither he nor brown played is tellingAny depth chart with Fred Brown is tough to take seriously.
I figured you, Nat, would catch this before me. A little disappointed.
Watts? Given how thin we were last year, the fact that neither he nor brown played is telling
Any depth chart with Fred Brown is tough to take seriously.
I figured you, Nat, would catch this before me. A little disappointed.
Watts? Given how thin we were last year, the fact that neither he nor brown played is telling
A 3-4 exaggerates all of our shortcomings as currently constructed. We can barely put 4 DT sized bodies in the 2 deep for a 4-3 let alone 6 of the same size we would need for a 3-4.Thanks for posting this. I think I prefer the 3-4 based on talent on the field. But I'm fine with what the staff thinks is best.
I wouldn't say Holt is a 4-3 guy. If you go back and watch some WK games he did use a 4-3, but probably less than anything else. He changes up his defense a lot. I watched a couple drives the other day from the LaTech game and of those couple drives id say about 60% of those he had two guys around the end spot with their hands on the ground and 2-4 guys standing at or near the line and McCollum was one of those standing near the line. He ran a traditional 3-4 on about 30% of those, and a 3-4 with a standing jack lb on about 10%. I know he does use a 4-3, but of the few drives I watched he didn't use it one time. I do agree with you though, we are short on bodies needed for a traditional 3-4 line.A 3-4 exaggerates all of our shortcomings as currently constructed. We can barely put 4 DT sized bodies in the 2 deep for a 4-3 let alone 6 of the same size we would need for a 3-4.
Holt is a 4-3 guy anyway. Though it wouldn't surprise me to see him use the 4-3 with 3-4 personnel like he did at USC down the road when he has the players.
I wouldn't say Holt is a 4-3 guy. If you go back and watch some WK games he did use a 4-3, but probably less than anything else. He changes up his defense a lot. I watched a couple drives the other day from the LaTech game and of those couple drives id say about 60% of those he had two guys around the end spot with their hands on the ground and 2-4 guys standing at or near the line and McCollum was one of those standing near the line. He ran a traditional 3-4 on about 30% of those, and a 3-4 with a standing jack lb on about 10%. I know he does use a 4-3, but of the few drives I watched he didn't use it one time. I do agree with you though, we are short on bodies needed for a traditional 3-4 line.
He ran similar schemes against Alabama so your theory is debunk. If anything, which he has also stated before, his base is a nickel but he varies his defense so much it's hard to know what his actual "base defense" is.I wouldn't say Holt is a 4-3 guy. If you go back and watch some WK games he did use a 4-3, but probably less than anything else. He changes up his defense a lot. I watched a couple drives the other day from the LaTech game and of those couple drives id say about 60% of those he had two guys around the end spot with their hands on the ground and 2-4 guys standing at or near the line and McCollum was one of those standing near the line. He ran a traditional 3-4 on about 30% of those, and a 3-4 with a standing jack lb on about 10%. I know he does use a 4-3, but of the few drives I watched he didn't use it one time. I do agree with you though, we are short on bodies needed for a traditional 3-4 line.
Those sound like looks he uses against 3+ receiver formations. Your base D is really defined by your front 7 configuration on run downs with 4 DBs. Against a lot of college teams....you wouldn't get to play base D ever.
He ran similar schemes against Alabama so your theory is debunk. If anything, which he has also stated before, his base is a nickel but he varies his defense so much it's hard to know what his actual "base defense" is.
Did you really just say "you really just want to argue"?He ran similar schemes against Alabama so your theory is debunk. If anything, which he has also stated before, his base is a nickel but he varies his defense so much it's hard to know what his actual "base defense" is.
There is nothing to debunk. If you want to cite prevalence of sub package usage as support for what the base D is then you really just want to argue.
Belichick is more multiple up front than anyone, and plays nickel more than half the time, but his current base is considered a 4-3.
It honestly doesn't matter. People want to classify 3-4 vs. 4-3 definitively but the functional distinction is whether you are 1-gap or 2-gap in your front.
You are evidently serious....and this over whether Nick Holt is a 4-3 guy or not. He ran a 4-3 at USC, a 4-3 at UW, and despite what you saw in limited games, ran a 4-3 at WKU (please see depth chart).Did you really just say "you really just want to argue"?
Haha. I bring fact based information from his games at WK and you try to counter these "facts" with your delusional opinions and I'm the one wanting to argue, huh?
Right on, brotha! I think I'm done with our conversation here. Go back to your video games and basing your facts off what you learn from Madden.
3-4 defense USCYou are evidently serious....and this over whether Nick Holt is a 4-3 guy or not. He ran a 4-3 at USC, a 4-3 at UW, and despite what you saw in limited games, ran a 4-3 at WKU (please see depth chart).Did you really just say "you really just want to argue"?
Haha. I bring fact based information from his games at WK and you try to counter these "facts" with your delusional opinions and I'm the one wanting to argue, huh?
Right on, brotha! I think I'm done with our conversation here. Go back to your video games and basing your facts off what you learn from Madden.
I don't know what facts you speak of. Those are the facts.
You just don't give up. What more facts do you need? Let me guess, those articles are "fake news"? Do I need to find more articles? Nick Holt was the DC, it even said he took them from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Geesh! I'm done. I'm not responding anymore. You'll have some stupid counter argument to anything I post.
I assume you have some foundation level understanding of Pete Carroll's base 4-3 under principles?
If so, then you also understand how easy it is to blend a heavy dose of 3-4 variations when you have the LBs like they did with Matthews, Cushing and Maualuga.