Questionable Thoughts About 2013, and Beyond

Buc, My preference would be a 4 man front, but I am not a die-hard 4-3 guy. There are a view minor differences, but the end result is trying to attack the same gaps. Most of the time in a 3-4, you are going to be rushing at least 4. I have also seen 4 man fronts drop an end, even seen a tackle drop into coverage and only rush 3. You can achieve the same end results out of either base.

I would like to see us in a true 4-2-5 with JHC playing the joker/rover/spur, whatever you want to call it. The kid is too good of a player near the line of scrimmage not to help out against the run. He is not an ILB either though. Let him roam the field and do a little bit of everything. Also, nothing creates an issue for a QB like having two stud ends. Ask any team that played usc last year.

GO DAWGS

I would prefer a 4 man front. It's been my experience that the 3 man front makes it too easy for blockers to get past the line and start blocking on the 2nd level. That's tough when you are playing in the SEC where most teams have road pavers who are also pretty agile and can really get out to that 2nd level quickly.

I really like AD5's word about the 4-2-5 with that hybrid role if you have a player capable of filling that rover spot. I'm big on disguising what I want to do and not giving the O easy pre snap reads, and I think I can do that with a lot with 4-2-5.

My preferences are based on what I know best. I'm not saying the 3 man front wont work. It's just Grantham's 3 man front that seems to be a problem.

So no matter how you slice it... me, I'm a 4 man front. Then again though... it may just be TG that soured me a bit on the 3 man front and I want to be as far away from his "schemes" as humanly possible.

AllDawgs5 wrote: I would like to see us in a true 4-2-5 with JHC playing the joker/rover/spur, whatever you want to call it. The kid is too good of a player near the line of scrimmage not to help out against the run. He is not an ILB either though. Let him roam the field and do a little bit of everything. Also, nothing creates an issue for a QB like having two stud ends. Ask any team that played usc last year.

GO DAWGS

I hadn't thought about this, but sounds like a very good idea to me also.

Buc wrote:

wlayton wrote: Buc I have always like the four man front, especially in this run first league.

wlayton, sometimes we can take putty and shape it the way we want it. Sometimes as you and I know, it does not always turn out the way we want.

Brother, I believe that grantham has not yet figured out the "putty" formula. Too far in at this point for him to pull back. If he went to a "true" four man front, that would be dropping his ego, and I truly believe he is not going to do that, not capable of that.

At some point soon, he will tell us that he runs a four man front. I see that, but the one problem with his four man front is he is disguising the three man front . . . . he thinks. He is not above high school level defensive coaching. By that I mean this . . . . he has learned a "few tricks", but I see some of the same "tricks" by high school coaches on Friday nights.

McGarity and our head coach bought it, I did at one time, but after watching his defense, can see the same on the high school level, and performed at a higher level.

I believe that he has allowed himself to be trapped by . . . . himself. Does that make sense wlayton?

Is that where the term "dilusional" is properly used, Buc?

AllDawgs5 wrote: Buc, My preference would be a 4 man front, but I am not a die-hard 4-3 guy. There are a view minor differences, but the end result is trying to attack the same gaps. Most of the time in a 3-4, you are going to be rushing at least 4. I have also seen 4 man fronts drop an end, even seen a tackle drop into coverage and only rush 3. You can achieve the same end results out of either base.

I would like to see us in a true 4-2-5 with JHC playing the joker/rover/spur, whatever you want to call it. The kid is too good of a player near the line of scrimmage not to help out against the run. He is not an ILB either though. Let him roam the field and do a little bit of everything. Also, nothing creates an issue for a QB like having two stud ends. Ask any team that played usc last year.

GO DAWGS

AD5....would you equate JHC to a Thomas Davis type player?...one of my favorites, hits like a truck.

Wlayton, I probably wouldn't. Thomas Davis was one of my all time favorites. Davis was more physical, and a better striker. Took great angles in the run game, and he didn't miss when he got there. I think Harvey-Clemmons is a more fluid athlete. He has the hips of a DB, and is pretty good in coverage. Seemed to me when H-C wanted to make a difference, he did. Sky really is the limit with him if he gets it right between the ears. Right now, he is not close to the tackler that Davis was, but he is also just a sophomore. I would probably compare him more to a Shawn Taylor. He is not the player Taylor was yet, but I do think he could end up playing a similar role for the Dawgs in a 4-2.

I think highly of JHC talent. IMO he is one of the best athletes on the teams, if not the best. Very talented kid. Hope he gets it right upstairs. Not happy the suspension was academically related, but beats smoking the wacky again.

GO DAWGS - So much talent on the defensive side of the ball. Any system should be able to be successful, if IF THE COACH NOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.