🏈 Will Saban's 3-4 work against the spread (merged topics)

[TerryP]

An ironic stat in regard to Davis and Spiller. Last year, even with our lack of a strong running game, we had more yards gained on the ground than Clemson did.

Harper only averaged about 10 yards a game more than JP.

Those numbers happened with their offense scoring 38, 49, 42, 70, and 44 on teams last season.

 

[musso]

All that said, by the time LSU rolls around there is a good chance we'll be looking at their RB corps and thinking it's as good as Clemson, if not better. LSU has a power back in their arsenal and doesn't have the OL question marks Clemson does.

true, i forgot about Clemson's OL. they'll have something like four new starters, right? maybe all five?

while i wouldn't go so far as to call Davis a "power back" in the traditional sense, i will say that i've seen him take it between the tackles rather effectively. then again, with Clemson's shotgun-spread attack, they have no dire need for a physical running attack. if you spread the defense out, quickness and elusiveness becomes more important than physicality. in the end it really doesn't matter how physical your back is so long as he gets the necessary yards and doesn't stay injured, right?

for what it's worth, here's rivals' position rankings for running back.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/viewCFSE.asp

 

[TerryP]

Jeremy Clark came in at right at 300 pounds. Dominic Lee was around the 280-285 mark and Rudy Griffine was a little heavier than Lee.

terry, i seriously doubt clark EVER played at 300 lbs. here'swhat he came in at. lee was probably the closest to 300 lbs. he was a hoss with a wide frame but seldom played due to chronic injuries. griffin was barely 6' tall and therefore couldn't have been heavier than lee. granted, the closest i've ever been to these players is in the stands of Bryant-Denny, but being a personal trainer and having trained div 1-a and professional athletes i'm very proficient at judging one's height and weight.

Our DE's (Gilberry and Harris) were in the 250-260 range. Saunders maybe 5-10 lbs lighter...around 245.

Now, with the exception of Cody who has a report goal of 360 we are looking at Washington and Chapman at 285 and 300 respectfully.

Our DE's are looking at Deadrick coming in at 285 and Greenwood around 267. But, you also have to take into account Gilberry was around 6'2" and Greenwood and Deadrick are both 6'4-5". Basically, the larger frame which carries the weight just as well as the others did in '05. Mark Anderson was just about the same (H and W) as Greenwood.

There is a little difference in the LB's. Not much again. Roach was around the 240 mark versus our best LB'er in '07 playing at 250-55. But, again, Ro is a good 2-3" taller than Roach. Our LB's now range from that high mark of 250-255 down to the 220's.

The '05 group was smaller in terms of height, but not weight.

One HUGE difference between these two teams. Now, they are in far better shape than they were then in terms of endurance, speed and strength.

a couple of things to keep in mind. some of Saban's current players that you are using as examples were not his recruits. looking at the prototypical players of a 3-4, Saban's players at LSU, and Saban's recruits so far at Bama provides a clearer difference in the sizes of "his" players and Shula's players, particularly in the front seven since that is the area of the defense that is most pertinent to this discussion. secondly, over the course of a game and especially a season, 10 or 15 pounds here and there do make a difference, particularly when facing spread offenses. furthermore, you don't have to be an athletic trainer to understand that heavier and taller bodies fatigue quicker than shorter and lighter bodies. simply put, the greater the mass the greater the energy needed to move the mass.

oh and one more thing, the '05 LB corps WAS lighter. yes, roach was a stud. however ryans played at only 215-220 while and garth/simpson was probably only 215 wet.

regardless, i think individual comparisons are less significant than the overall size of the defense. a front seven that averages only 10 pounds less per man is actually 70 pounds lighter as a group. and with all things being equal, endurance increases exponentially when a player loses weight.

I know Clark weighed in at that weight because I had players on the team that worked side by side with him that said that. In fact, he weighed a bit more in the off-season. Check the roster for '05 and see where they have him listed. For a kid to gain 30lbs is nothing.

As to Saban's recruits, the only one I mentioned that wasn't a Saban recruit is McCullough. He's in at around 300 which is less than Miami's big guy you mentioned at the DT spot. But, then you have Square and Dareus that are smaller in weight than AM.

You keep insinuating 10-15 pounds make a difference. But, you keep ignoring that the frames (as in height) that these guys have can carry that many more pounds without a loss of a step.

That isn't even mentioning the fact that these players under Kines were poorly, poorly conditioned. (not blaming Kines or Rocky on that one..came from the top)

We are going to look at this differently. Only time will tell. I will say this. I've seen both players, from Shula's era (error?) and from Saban's (only after one season) and there is no comparison when it comes to the strength, endurance, and speed.

 

[TerryP]

All that said, by the time LSU rolls around there is a good chance we'll be looking at their RB corps and thinking it's as good as Clemson, if not better. LSU has a power back in their arsenal and doesn't have the OL question marks Clemson does.

true, i forgot about Clemson's OL. they'll have something like four new starters, right? maybe all five?

while i wouldn't go so far as to call Davis a "power back" in the traditional sense, i will say that i've seen him take it between the tackles rather effectively. then again, with Clemson's shotgun-spread attack, they have no dire need for a physical running attack. if you spread the defense out, quickness and elusiveness becomes more important than physicality. in the end it really doesn't matter how physical your back is so long as he gets the necessary yards and doesn't stay injured, right?

for what it's worth, here's rivals' position rankings for running back.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/viewCFSE.asp

I agree to that in a sense, but when we come back to how it is defended (with nickel packages) I see it as a wash.

Remember, we are talking about a front 6 now instead of 7 with three of those guys being LB'ers. That, falls back to an earlier point made here. These RB's and WR's may be quicker in a 40, but with LB.ers is about pursuit angles.

If it is a race down the sidelines, then that speed question comes into play but more so with our secondary.

 

[Guest]

Dogpiling on with another Sunday-morning Quarterback's opinion...

The Spread aims to put athletes in space with the ball. The counter to that is to defend with athletes, obviously. Where the spread really excels is when you inject a blocker into that space...blockers = force multiplier.

As I see it, the advantage of the 3-4 is that you can take three beasts and suck up blockers. If they do nothing more than suck up double teams, those three have changed the game to the Defense's advantage. If the defense surrenders three beasts, and the offense surrenders six OL, what is left in the rest of the space is 8 vs. 5 in the defense's favor. If those 8 defenders are athletes on the same order as those on offense, the 3-4 begins to look good. IMHO.

 

[Perdido Tide]

Stopping the spread in any defense is pretty much the same. The Jack or DE have pre snap reads that tell him where to line up. On top of that it comes down to tackling in space. One second after the snap thhey are all reading the same keys for the most part.

 

[TerryP]

Dogpiling on with another Sunday-morning Quarterback's opinion...

The Spread aims to put athletes in space with the ball. The counter to that is to defend with athletes, obviously. Where the spread really excels is when you inject a blocker into that space...blockers = force multiplier.

As I see it, the advantage of the 3-4 is that you can take three beasts and suck up blockers. If they do nothing more than suck up double teams, those three have changed the game to the Defense's advantage. If the defense surrenders three beasts, and the offense surrenders six OL, what is left in the rest of the space is 8 vs. 5 in the defense's favor. If those 8 defenders are athletes on the same order as those on offense, the 3-4 begins to look good. IMHO.

You have the picture of how our 3-4 handles the spread. The only thing that is different is last year RM rolled the JACK LB up to the LOS. That gave us a 7 vs 5 look on the defense. The position that tends to be a bit frozen on pass protection is Rashad's...he's looking for at run defense as well. So, that puts us with 2 guys (RM and RJ) focusing on the single back until the QB makes the move.

 

[TerryP]

Stopping the spread in any defense is pretty much the same. The Jack or DE have pre snap reads that tell him where to line up. On top of that it comes down to tackling in space. One second after the snap thhey are all reading the same keys for the most part.

True. Only thing I can add is the read (pre-snap) is coming from our ILB's. When the play is snapped, then it falls on the JACK/DE.

 

[musso]

ok terry, yet another guy is echoing my sentiment. i just found this article that was posted yesterday.

espn

More and more, college football teams also are looking for faster, slimmer players who can defend the spread attack. Coaches want 275-pound tackles who can stop the run and rush the passer. They want 250-pound ends who can sack the quarterback and drop into pass coverage.


Ends have become tackles. Linebackers have become ends. Safeties have become linebackers.

since, as you said, it is likely that Bama will be in a 4-2 when defending the spread, the issue of scheme isn't really important to this discussion. this is why i said earlier that the size/weight of the players is more important. so for example, what would be the combined weight of Saban's front 6 verses the preferred weight of all these other coaches and writers? i'm guessing Saban's front 6 would be heavier, wouldn't you?

 

[musso]

after having already provided the sizes of Miami's LB recruits, here are UGA's: 6-2 215, 6-1 220, 6-2 204, 6-3 206. ---> these sizes look more like a Saban safety.

as for UGA's DE recruits: 6-4 244, 6-4 212, 6-4 220. ---> these sizes look more like a Saban LB.

again, it seems clear to me that Richt, Shannon, and many other coaches want a lighter and smaller defensive front than Saban.

 

[TerryP]

Size and speed and grades is also mentioned in that article. Our guys have those.

Weight has been mentioned in this thread as well. Guys from other teams have been heavier than our guys. Our guys have been heavier than others as well.

Look at the first round of the NFL draft. You see heights and weights that are on par with Saban's style players. Do these guys have problems dealing with the speed of the NFL which is greater than what we'll see in a few spread offenses?

The first two LB'ers. 238 and 235.

We can go around the around on the musso. The one thing that can't be ignored is speed. Given a choice between a guy that has the same speed but weighs 10 lbs heavier I'll take the heavier guy everyday.

 

[Guest]

Size and speed and grades is also mentioned in that article. Our guys have those.

Weight has been mentioned in this thread as well. Guys from other teams have been heavier than our guys. Our guys have been heavier than others as well.

Look at the first round of the NFL draft. You see heights and weights that are on par with Saban's style players. Do these guys have problems dealing with the speed of the NFL which is greater than what we'll see in a few spread offenses?

The first two LB'ers. 238 and 235.

We can go around the around on the musso. The one thing that can't be ignored is speed. Given a choice between a guy that has the same speed but weighs 10 lbs heavier I'll take the heavier guy everyday.

I think it was Bud Wilkerson back in the day when OU, NU, and UA ruled the roost in college football. He was asked this question (very paraphrased) "NU likes those big strong guys, UA likes those small fast guys. What's your preference?"
Wilkerson replied "I kinda like those guys that are big, strong, and fast."

 

[TerryP]

Size and speed and grades is also mentioned in that article. Our guys have those.

Weight has been mentioned in this thread as well. Guys from other teams have been heavier than our guys. Our guys have been heavier than others as well.

Look at the first round of the NFL draft. You see heights and weights that are on par with Saban's style players. Do these guys have problems dealing with the speed of the NFL which is greater than what we'll see in a few spread offenses?

The first two LB'ers. 238 and 235.

We can go around the around on the musso. The one thing that can't be ignored is speed. Given a choice between a guy that has the same speed but weighs 10 lbs heavier I'll take the heavier guy everyday.

I think it was Bud Wilkerson back in the day when OU, NU, and UA ruled the roost in college football. He was asked this question (very paraphrased) "NU likes those big strong guys, UA likes those small fast guys. What's your preference?"
Wilkerson replied "I kinda like those guys that are big, strong, and fast."

Good quote! That interesting to me because it was an era where Wilkerson was going against two teams that ran the wishbone. Which, like the spread, had 3-4 options on the field (IE: playmakers) and spread the defense out along the LOS.

 

[Guest]

I was thinking about that also Terry. And add to the fact it was also a period Wilkerson's Sooners had won like 30 games straight.

 

[musso]

Weight has been mentioned in this thread as well. Guys from other teams have been heavier than our guys. Our guys have been heavier than others as well.

you're sidestepping the issue of the current trend in college. yes of course, there are examples of heavier players on other teams. but as i've said already, what is most important is the aggregate size/weight of the defensive front. of course you might have an exceptional player here or there who is able to carry additional weight due to unusual agility or speed. also, maybe you weren't able to sign your ideal prospect and you took who you could get, that being, a heavier option. that doesn't change what coaches ideally want these days to defend the spread.

Look at the first round of the NFL draft. You see heights and weights that are on par with Saban's style players. Do these guys have problems dealing with the speed of the NFL which is greater than what we'll see in a few spread offenses?

this point is irrelevant. of course the cream of each NFL draft will be exceptional, full of players who possess all sorts of desirable attributes. however, don't make the mistake of equating the NFL game with the college game. there are many reasons why NFL defensive fronts are heavier and bigger than NCAA defensive fronts generally speaking. one reason that relates with this dicussion is the fact that the spread formation employing a running QB is simply not compatible with professional football. another reason is that added bulk serves the end of injury prevention which is even more important on reduced NFL rosters full of older, adult players trying to make a living for themselves and their families.

The one thing that can't be ignored is speed.

... and endurance! why are centers usually the last to reach the other end of the basketball court? why don't you see any big soccer players? as i said earlier, the more mass you have, the more energy required to move the mass. as we know, the spread requires defenses to run more during the course of a game and therefore expend more energy. furthermore a 240 pound LB who runs a 4.5 is still going to get schooled if he's isolated with a 200 lb back who also runs a 4.5. after one juke by the lighter back it's all physics from there. as you know, this is the intent of the spread offense: to reduce the game from 11 on 11 to 1 on 1.

i mean, think about it, why did the spread develop at smaller schools first? there are many reasons of course, but one of the most obvious reasons is that the bigger and stronger players were going to the big schools. so when the smaller schools realized they couldn't compete against the bigger schools for the same players, they simply gave up. instead they tried to changed the game from a game that gives the advantage to big and strong players to a game that gives the advantage to their kind of players. certainly this is a simplification and the situation has evolved with more and more schools, traditional and nontraditional alike, adopting the spread and some of its concepts.

... I'll take the heavier guy everyday.

well and you may, but yours and Saban's preference is outnumbered in the current NCAA climate. hey, maybe Saban will be fortunate enough to only sign the few athletic freaks available each year who can track down ball carriers much lighter than them in open space. with his proven recruiting abilities perhaps this is precisely what he intends and expects to do. however, i see what Richt, Shannon, and other coaches across the country are doing is a safer approach: ensuring team speed with lighter personel, not with their recruiting abilities alone.

 

[Guest]

So musso. If you've got 2 guys. One is 6'2" 210lbs, the other is 6'4" 235lbs, and both run a 4.5 40, you would want the smaller guy?

You say your worried about endurance? Conditioning and depth takes care of that as good as if not better than being smaller.

 

[Guest]

I think rules had a lot to do with Coach Bryant's small, fast great teams. In the early sixties you did not have unlimited substitution and conditioning was important. many players went both ways. In the mid sixties the substitution rule became what it still is today, (unlimited) and the game changed. The 200 pound offensive lineman who could wear down his bulky counterpart over the course of a game no longer could do so when his opposite number wasn't on the field when his own team had the ball. Conditioning became less critical and players became bigger. By the early seventies Bryant's teams were as big as anyone's.

I remember when Stallings was at Alabama he varied his approach depending on his circumstances. If he didn't have much depth he generally had his defensive linemen take off weight so they would be effective longer, while if he could run them in and out he preferred the bigger guys.

It is apparent that CNS prefers the bulkier players. He was quoted as saying, before last season, that he didn't intend to recruit undersized, over achieving players. (I'll bet he's glad he had Gilberry last year though.) His approach to the smaller, better conditioned player on the other side would be to have several of the larger types on hand, in effect wearing out the smaller player over the course of a game. He did that at LSU, and over the next season or so we will have that kind of depth as well. Of course with any scheme if a great athlete gets one on one with even a very good defender, there are going to be some big plays, inevitably.

 

[imported_Porter]

It should be mentioned, and I don't think it has been, that Chris Jordan and Mark Barron will eventually be LB's at Alabama.

 

[musso]

So musso. If you've got 2 guys. One is 6'2" 210lbs, the other is 6'4" 235lbs, and both run a 4.5 40, you would want the smaller guy?

can i keep both? i'd keep the 210 pound at LB (or if he's fast and agile enough at safety) and put the 235 pound guy at DE in a 4-3 against the spread. again, the key quote i shared from the latest ESPN article is:

Ends have become tackles. Linebackers have become ends. Safeties have become linebackers.

again, your task is to argue with all coaches who are moving in this direction. i'm not exactly the salesman here although i think i've adequately provided a sound rationale in their absence. :wink:

You say your worried about endurance? Conditioning and depth takes care of that as good as if not better than being smaller.

conditioning cannot overcome the basics of physics and exercise physiology.

no, in the NFL you count on your depth. in the NCAA you count on your starters hoping that your depth can make a meaningful contribution on gameday. now, if you're Southern Cal maybe you can count on your reserves. but as i said in my previous post, such a strategy puts great pressure on recruiting. Saban may be able to succeed given his recruiting abilities, but the bulk of other coaches are diversifying their investments when it comes to defending the spread.[/i]

 

[TerryP]

I've said twice that we could go 'round and 'round about this. You've got your opinion, I have mine.

I realize you like pointing out what these coaches have said. I've refrained from saying this as bluntly as I'm about to but here goes...

I don't care what Richt and Shannon have to say about the size of players. Why? They don't run a 3-4, they run a 4-3.

However, that said, when it comes to the guys we have and are bringing in they match, literally, with the other teams when you look at DE's, OLB's, S's and CB's. The difference you can point to and be right is the DT/NG position. That, goes back to the scheme and the kind of player you have to have to run an efficient 3-4. Now, JACK is bigger as well, but that's the same as a DE. One of the MLB's are going to be bigger also...but again, it's a 3-4 scheme.

Geez, repeating already been said on both of our counts.

You consider my comparison with the NFL guys a point not related despite having 4 wides is a common thing? The spread type offense started years ago in the NFL. The spread option, no.

The spread is not dominating the college landscape now any more than it was 5 years ago...10 years ago. Quite frankly, and offense spreading the defense is over a quarter of a century old. But, it's just a common "catch word/phrase" now.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Both have been voiced. Only thing left to do is sit back and watch.