The offense has a nice discussion going, let's talk defense.

Disclaimer: Defense will also be situational but the base formation gets installed in spring practice and fall camp first.

 

3 DOWN:

COSTS:  

• LIGHTER VS THE RUN
• PASS RUSH COMES FROM ACTIVATING LINEBACKERS AND SECONDARY

BENEFITS

• FREEMAN HAS RECRUITED WELL AT LINEBACKER. Is Sneed better than the Vyper candidates? SIMILIAR CONVERSATION WE HAD ON OFFENSE ON WHICH PLAYER IS BETTER THE 3RD RECEIVER OR THE SECOND TIGHT END
• DEFENDS THE SPREAD OFFENSE EASIER. LINEBACKERS AND SAFETIES "SPY" MOBILE QBS BETTER.

 

4 DOWN:

COSTS

• LESS SPEED- SNEED WILL OUTRUN THE VYPER
• HOW DEEP IS ND AT DE? IF ND GETS A VYPER AS A TRANSFER IT CHANGES. SIMILIAR IF WE SEE VYPERS GETTING HOME IN THE BOWL GAME. LOSING KEELEY HURTS HERE.

BENEFITS

• MORE POWER- BOTELHO AND JR WEIGH MORE AND THUS LIKELY SET A RUN EDGE BETTER THAN SNEED.
• CONTINUITY- IRISH RAN MUCH MORE 4-2-5 WITH GOLDEN. 

 

I THINK FORMATIONS ARE ALWAYS DICTATED BY WHO YOUR BEST PLAYERS ARE. SO I'M JUST PRESENTING A FRAMEWORK WHERE A LINEBACKER MIGHT BE BETTER THAN THE 4TH DEFENSIVE LINEMAN. 

THOUGHTS?

 

 

 

I am a 3-4 guy myself.  You have to have a space eater in the middle though and they don't grow on trees.  Anymore this is becoming harder and harder to say that you're base this or that, because everything changes opponent to opponent especially for ND who will face Navy one week then air raid the next.  Additionally you feel better running a mostly zone scheme against one team vs M2M against another.  

I think you have to find players who are adaptable to both and get enough of them.  I don't know that you can fully commit to one style, similar to MMA where specialists were overtaken by well rounded fighters.  Can't have holes in your game.

I look at Clemson, who could not or would not adjust to our O.  We whipped there D's strength(DL) and their formations which remained fairly vanilla all game.  Did they just feel their studs could manhandle us like previous games in the trenches?  

Regardless of how many down lineman we had, one of our biggest issues was getting home on LB blitzes.  Too many times they were ineffectual where I thought just the DL hit home better without the blitz and the LBs could've clogged passing lanes.  Tackling was a big issue for me as well, which doesn't deal with scheme, but coaching and execution.  Needs to get better.

I know this year I didn't feel the knot in my stomach that says "Why isn't this guy on the field?" because Foskey really was the guy that was the best player. Betrand was the most efficient player.  I'm never willingly taking the best player or most efficient player off the field. 

We lose Foskey so to me the candidates for best player are Sneed, Morrison, Botelho, Liafau etc

I didn't really name a big guy. I know an Ademilola could be back.

If Freeman wants Sneed, Morrison, Liafau, Bertand, Kiser... I'm already at 4 backers... So do you see why I was thinking a 3 man front?

2 hours ago, jessemoore97 said:

I am a 3-4 guy myself.  You have to have a space eater in the middle though and they don't grow on trees.  Anymore this is becoming harder and harder to say that you're base this or that, because everything changes opponent to opponent especially for ND who will face Navy one week then air raid the next.  Additionally you feel better running a mostly zone scheme against one team vs M2M against another.  

I think you have to find players who are adaptable to both and get enough of them.  I don't know that you can fully commit to one style, similar to MMA where specialists were overtaken by well rounded fighters.  Can't have holes in your game.

I look at Clemson, who could not or would not adjust to our O.  We whipped there D's strength(DL) and their formations which remained fairly vanilla all game.  Did they just feel their studs could manhandle us like previous games in the trenches?  

Regardless of how many down lineman we had, one of our biggest issues was getting home on LB blitzes.  Too many times they were ineffectual where I thought just the DL hit home better without the blitz and the LBs could've clogged passing lanes.  Tackling was a big issue for me as well, which doesn't deal with scheme, but coaching and execution.  Needs to get better.

 

I tend to agree for a 3 man front.  We have more LBs who could and should rotate especially against up tempo offenses.  Compared to the DL where we lose our best rusher and a few other leaving us possibly undermanned and a bit more inexperienced.  We have to get our playmakers time/more involved next year like Kollie, Sneed, and Botolho.  I think under a 3 man front you can turn loose the playmakers to make plays using their talents even if they aren't always in the right spot.  Sometimes those guys can overcome the mental side of things with pure athleticism, while also making the D unpredictable and hard to game plan.

 

I don't care to be honest. 3-4 and 4-3 are both fine. We've played both under Freeman at times. I'm good with a flex D.

On the roster.. Sneed is only 215ish, so not really a Vyper candidate. I'm guessing 240-270 is the ideal range. Junior is a candidate move permanently after splitting time later. 

With us running nickel a good amount, really 4-2 and 3-3 half the time.

In short, whatever the roster/talent fits. 

13 minutes ago, OKelleyIrish said:

 

I don't care to be honest. 3-4 and 4-3 are both fine. We've played both under Freeman at times. I'm good with a flex D.

On the roster.. Sneed is only 215ish, so not really a Vyper candidate. I'm guessing 240-270 is the ideal range. Junior is a candidate move permanently after splitting time later. 

With us running nickel a good amount, really 4-2 and 3-3 half the time.

In short, whatever the roster/talent fits. 

Sneed would be a drop linbacker in a 3-3 but one lineman would need to come off the field which to me is an end. I'm assuming the Vyper end would come off bcause a big end stops the run better.

16 minutes ago, FaithInIrishForever said:

Sneed would be a drop linbacker in a 3-3 but one lineman would need to come off the field which to me is an end. I'm assuming the Vyper end would come off bcause a big end stops the run better.

Ideally, an ideal Vyper can either play a big-OLB and also a LEO type DE. 

But if we keep flexing, it'll simply be situational. 

We have plenty of flexible and talent in the LB unit, so the group won't limit us. But we do need DL to step up. 

Just now, OKelleyIrish said:

Ideally, an ideal Vyper can either play a big-OLB and also a LEO type DE. 

But if we keep flexing, it'll simply be situational. 

We have plenty of flexible and talent in the LB unit, so the group won't limit us. But we do need DL to step up. 

I think they are going try to put JR at that big OLB. So it will be interesting. I separate Vyper into two seperate positions which makes me confusing. Foskey played a bit of the LB part but not much the 2nd year. Freeman made him do it in year 1.

2 hours ago, FaithInIrishForever said:

I think they are going try to put JR at that big OLB. So it will be interesting. I separate Vyper into two seperate positions which makes me confusing. Foskey played a bit of the LB part but not much the 2nd year. Freeman made him do it in year 1.

He's (JR) listed as both (current Rivals depth chart for SC). 2nd at Middle LB/MIKE, and 3rd at Vyper. And there was a article about splitting time at both. Most chatter is about Vyper more and more lately due to weight. 

I don't really split the Vyper position. To me, same position, that plays both (OLB/DE). The Freeman scheme views it that way, but we have a new DC now, which makes things even more complex. Who knows what we'll see lol after 1st year... 

57 minutes ago, OKelleyIrish said:

He's (JR) listed as both (current Rivals depth chart for SC). 2nd at Middle LB/MIKE, and 3rd at Vyper. And there was a article about splitting time at both. Most chatter is about Vyper more and more lately due to weight. 

I don't really split the Vyper position. To me, same position, that plays both (OLB/DE). The Freeman scheme views it that way, but we have a new DC now, which makes things even more complex. Who knows what we'll see lol after 1st year... 

Foskey was recruited by Lee to be a 4-3 end if I remember correctly. So I always put the player in the position they were recruited for. I know that is weird when the coaches are long gone. Now this is Freeman and staff's FIRST chance to define VYPER.

Like you say against spread teams its likely the OLB. Against pro/power teams its likely the DE. 

 

23 minutes ago, FaithInIrishForever said:

Foskey was recruited by Lee to be a 4-3 end if I remember correctly. So I always put the player in the position they were recruited for. I know that is weird when the coaches are long gone. Now this is Freeman and staff's FIRST chance to define VYPER.

Like you say against spread teams its likely the OLB. Against pro/power teams its likely the DE. 

 

That makes this year fun. Polian recruited Botelho to be a terror on Special Teams. At a MINIMIUM, Polian knew Jordan would be blocking punts and stuff, which he has. Now its his chance to prove he can impact the defense like he impacts special teams.

played more 3 today with Jr. in the game then I remember