Since we hired Brian Stewart as our new DC, I have been pondering this decision and wanted to get some feedback. Given our defensive issues, what reasons could Coach Bailiff have that would persuade him that a transition to the 3-4 will help our defensive woes especially with regard to the proliferation of spread offenses? In short, why will the 3-4 be better against the spread than the 4-2-5?

Versus a 4-3 defense, the 3-4 gets more speed on the field by substituting a lineman for a linebacker. However, we used to run a 4-2-5 which substituted a linebacker for a safety. A 3-4 does allow you split the field numerically with regard to the linebackers and secondary.

We have gnashed our teeth over the recent years as safeties have been matched up with slot receivers. Now we may have outside linebackers running with receivers and though we may try to protect them by assigning them via field and boundary, teams will still try to exploit that match up.

Stanford has run a 3-4 for years and they have had a dominant run defense. But the 4-2-5 at Rice has been decent in run fits. Is it a factor of altering blocking schemes for the offense and the unpredictability of pressure? Bailiff mentioned guys like Womac and Schantz being able to transition from a three point stance to a stand up OLB. Truth be told, we have seen glimpses of this for some time now on passing downs. Womac is ideally suited for this transition as I think he played OLB in high school. I am assuming that these guys will be the rush OLBs playing mostly on the boundary (short side). Which makes me wonder what happens to our big safeties. Will they transition to OLB on the other side (field side, ie, increased athleticism)? This is all very exciting, but I'm wondering how the 3-4 will look at Rice. Will we still recruit Safeties and then convert them to linebackers or will we now start offering a ton of linebackers.

Thoughts?

I have thoughts on what I would like to see and why I like it. I have no idea why Coach Bailiff decided to make the change or how it will be implemented!

I like that it is less predictable (easier to vary who rushes the QB and who is in coverage).

I like that Coach Bailiff finally recognized that his version of the 4-2-5 was not working at Rice, and it was time to try something else.

I am hopeful that this will lead to more speed on the field, with >2 CB's used as defensive backs and "big safeties" functioning as some of the LB's.

I am hopeful that the defensive will be more aggressive and implement interesting and varied blitz packages.

(02-10-2017 01:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have thoughts on what I would like to see and why I like it. I have no idea why Coach Bailiff decided to make the change or how it will be implemented!

I like that it is less predictable (easier to vary who rushes the QB and who is in coverage).

I like that Coach Bailiff finally recognized that his version of the 4-2-5 was not working at Rice, and it was time to try something else.

I am hopeful that this will lead to more speed on the field, with >2 CB's used as defensive backs and "big safeties" functioning as some of the LB's.

I am hopeful that the defensive will be more aggressive and implement interesting and varied blitz packages.

+1

Our defense has been so bad that anybody who is good at running a certain scheme should be an improvement. Needing only 3 interior linemen is probably a good fit for Rice in the long run. Finding a good athlete at 215lb is easier than at 270lb. We were decent with the 3-3-5 that one year with TG. As for the 3-4 vs 2-5 behind that, Bailiff hinted it could be adaptable, but let Stewart do his thing if that's a pure 3-4. Players like Schantz or Womac could move to the rush LB in the 3-4. A defensive lineman like Thompson could become a DE in the 3-4. If there being more linebackers around is a good thing for Ellerbee's playmaking opportunities, the new scheme could be an immediate hit. In CUSA, a safety is arguably more valuable than a linebacker, and pass coverage scheme needs more work than the front 7, so in that sense it seems like an odd scheme to go to. But creating unpredictability and potential chaos for an opposing offense at the line can make a big difference for the pass defense.

Overall, I like the move to 3-4. As a Steeler fan, I've seen the 3-4 do good things. For Rice, recruiting good DE/LB's is probably easier than good NT's. A new coach with his own scheme sounds like a good idea.

Dr K.

(02-10-2017 12:58 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  Since we hired Brian Stewart as our new DC, I have been pondering this decision and wanted to get some feedback. Given our defensive issues, what reasons could Coach Bailiff have that would persuade him that a transition to the 3-4 will help our defensive woes especially with regard to the proliferation of spread offenses? In short, why will the 3-4 be better against the spread than the 4-2-5?

Versus a 4-3 defense, the 3-4 gets more speed on the field by substituting a lineman for a linebacker. However, we used to run a 4-2-5 which substituted a linebacker for a safety. A 3-4 does allow you split the field numerically with regard to the linebackers and secondary.

We have gnashed our teeth over the recent years as safeties have been matched up with slot receivers. Now we may have outside linebackers running with receivers and though we may try to protect them by assigning them via field and boundary, teams will still try to exploit that match up.

Stanford has run a 3-4 for years and they have had a dominant run defense. But the 4-2-5 at Rice has been decent in run fits. Is it a factor of altering blocking schemes for the offense and the unpredictability of pressure? Bailiff mentioned guys like Womac and Schantz being able to transition from a three point stance to a stand up OLB. Truth be told, we have seen glimpses of this for some time now on passing downs. Womac is ideally suited for this transition as I think he played OLB in high school. I am assuming that these guys will be the rush OLBs playing mostly on the boundary (short side). Which makes me wonder what happens to our big safeties. Will they transition to OLB on the other side (field side, ie, increased athleticism)? This is all very exciting, but I'm wondering how the 3-4 will look at Rice. Will we still recruit Safeties and then convert them to linebackers or will we now start offering a ton of linebackers.

Thoughts?

excited for spring ball, and to see what these new guys have to offer. Our defense can't go anywhere but up, for gosh sakes.

Here an interesting look at when Virginia transitioned to the 3-4. http://www.streakingthelawn.com/platform...ent=safari
I think a lot of Rice's DE might be better suited as OLB in a 3-4. I hope one of the few DL listed as over 270 can be the run stopping NT the 3-4 needs.

I think Rice has plenty of beef for the 3-4. Heck, when healthy, I liked our interior line for the 4-2-5. Abercrumbia and Thompson have looked really good at times. Plenty of other guys provide some depth.

Why the 3-4?

1) Personnel. Rice always thin at DL (esp. DT). 3 DL easier to find depth than 4. As others said, easier to find 220 lb athletes vs. 280 lb bodies up-front.

2) Unconventional. Not a gimmick but not something opposing offensive teams have prepared for. Will force offenses to do things they normally don't have to do.

3) Unpredictability. Countless blitz packages can be utilized from all directions without having to play man-to-man in secondary. DB consistently says reason get beat deep is due to lack of pressure. This should help. Really will stress opposing QB's to recognize and opposing OL's to pick-up the pressure.

4) Expertise. Stewart has deep experience learning from folks who arguably have most knowledge on the planet on the x's and o's schematics of the 3-4 defense. For those who believed there were fundamental scheme issues on why we played so poorly on D (like me) …there should not be any gaps now. Execution may fail at times as kids learn new schemes but failure will not happen due to coaches having x's and o's in wrong spots.

Scheme by itself is not going to win any more games..but sure is step in right direction if it can accomplish the four things above. If Glaesman and/or Smalls can come in and deliver the dual-threat QB goods creating a long-term solution at QB…now there is real hope for the future of Rice Football that did not exist a few months ago.

I like this.
I still think Tyner could be good though.

(02-12-2017 11:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Why the 3-4?

1) Personnel. Rice always thin at DL (esp. DT). 3 DL easier to find depth than 4. As others said, easier to find 220 lb athletes vs. 280 lb bodies up-front.

2) Unconventional. Not a gimmick but not something opposing offensive teams have prepared for. Will force offenses to do things they normally don't have to do.

3) Unpredictability. Countless blitz packages can be utilized from all directions without having to play man-to-man in secondary. DB consistently says reason get beat deep is due to lack of pressure. This should help. Really will stress opposing QB's to recognize and opposing OL's to pick-up the pressure.

4) Expertise. Stewart has deep experience learning from folks who arguably have most knowledge on the planet on the x's and o's schematics of the 3-4 defense. For those who believed there were fundamental scheme issues on why we played so poorly on D (like me) …there should not be any gaps now. Execution may fail at times as kids learn new schemes but failure will not happen due to coaches having x's and o's in wrong spots.

Scheme by itself is not going to win any more games..but sure is step in right direction if it can accomplish the four things above. If Glaesman and/or Smalls can come in and deliver the dual-threat QB goods creating a long-term solution at QB…now there is real hope for the future of Rice Football that did not exist a few months ago.

Again, changing it up can only be good. Hate that we are losing Lyons and McGaskey on that side of the ball, they will be hard to replace. I really thought McGaskey was finally being used correctly, but too little too late. For that matter I will miss Wright and Cella on the other side of the ball, these are all guys that bring so much to the team besides just being good players. I think losing Dillard will hurt too, don't really like what I see from the younger RBs yet. It will be great to see what these guys are able to do at the next level though.