Important Change in the Defensive philosophy...no one seems to be discussing

#29
#29
Schemes are important. However, this season will de defined by depth, speed, and decision making. The defense will need to recognize what they are seeing, then react, and finish. Haven’t seen that in a long time.
 
#31
#31
Might just be wishful thinking but I really believe the improvement of the DL under Garner will take a lot of pressure off our LBs. Garner has always been magic with the big boys. Hoping he'll make it happen here too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlawn VOL, swampfoxfan and tarvol73
#33
#33
Everyone pretty much runs a 3-3-5, 4-2-5 or other nickel variations nowadays. Everything is so spread out now that you almost have to be in a nickel package. Only exception would be in goal line and some red zone situations.
 
#34
#34
Anyone see the A to Z video where the guy said that Pruitt would just come up with a defensive scheme on the fly and that's what would be ran during the game? He also said Henry T would be too busy figuring it out and figuring it out for the other LB's instead of just playing what they know. I would say that shouldn't be a thing this year.
 
#35
#35
LeBleu said:
Anyone see the A to Z video where the guy said that Pruitt would just come up with a defensive scheme on the fly and that's what would be ran during the game? He also said Henry T would be too busy figuring it out and figuring it out for the other LB's instead of just playing what they know. I would say that shouldn't be a thing this year.
Click to expand...

I would love to see that. It wouldn't surprise me and would explain a lot.
 
#36
#36
calban said:
Might just be wishful thinking but I really believe the improvement of the DL under Garner will take a lot of pressure off our LBs. Garner has always been magic with the big boys. Hoping he'll make it happen here too.
Click to expand...
We had a Dline last year? Linebackers?
 
#38
#38
tarvol73 said:
I have not seen any discussion regarding the shift in defensive philosophy from a 3-4 to a 4-3. I am aware that we are going to be multiple, but we are certainly moving away from a base 3-4, and I think that this will prove to be a huge factor. With Pruitt, Tennessee never really found a groove in the 3-4, and I don't believe that we really ever got the right personnel to do so. We never really had any pass rush, from LBs or the line. My premise is that we still have personnel better suited to a 4-3. I am aware that all defenses are multiple these days but most are still based and developed out of a 4-3 or 3-4. We have the makings of a decent defense in a 4-3 and, IMO, a much better pass rush than the last few years. Pruitt's defenses never had a mission. They never had an identity. If anything, the defense's mission might have been "bail out our crappy offense". Gone are the days of ball control, which obviously did not work.

So many people are worried about our LBs. Sure, we don't have a lot of LBs. The one's we do have are better suited to be rushers and in coverage, though perhaps not as good at stopping the run. Overall, the shift back to a 4-3, gives us better rushers on the line as well as at LB.

Roman Harrison never really found a spot. He should be a very good OLB in a 4-3 though he could have been in a 3-4 with better coaching.

Tyler Baron is a traditional 4-3 end. He was too small to be a 3-4 end. And really, he isn't a LB at all.

Byron Young was not here last year, but he could be an exceptional DE in rushing situations as well as an OLB.

Morven Joseph was never big enough to be a DL as some had projected. He probably wasn't big enough for an OLB in the previous scheme, but he should be fine in a more traditional 4-3 as an OLB.

William Mohan is a bit of a tweener, but in passing downs in which the coaches want a 3rd LB, a hybrid with LB leanings, Mohan should be good.

Willis may be good enough to excel as an OLB in a traditional 4-3 or as a rushing specialist or as a second LB when we only go with 2. He is a beast.

Mitchell was a very good MLB at Texas.

Banks may just have needed some coaching.

If you look at what could be our starting D, in particular in pass settings, it does not look that bad, especially when you look at the coaches this year compared to last year.

Line: Tyler Baron DE, Omari Thomas DT, Simmons, Terry or Solomon DT, Butler or Young, DE depending on the situation(very quick DE or large disruptive DE)
Coach: Rodney Garner

LB: Mitchell ILB, Willis, Harrison, or Mohan OLB, again depending on situation.
Coach: Brian Jean-Mary

Backfield: Flowers and McCollough at S, Taylor and Turnage at CB, Slaughter or McDonald or Marley or Hadden or Rucker
Coach Willie Martinez

The LBs never developed which should not be a shock. They were kinda coached for a couple years, with the first year being ,well, the first year and while they were turning it around in year 2, they had a new coach, or lack of coach in year 3, and never got there. When your LBs are failing as they did, the whole defense is going to fail. Any good coach is going to exploit a defense when a whole unit is not functioning as they should.

With Tennessee going back to a base 4-3 and getting coaches who can coach their units as units and within the context of the whole D, ie competent coaching, we will get much more out of the units and out of the defense as a whole. We will also get a much better pass rush with a defense that has a mission. We never really had a stated mission or goal before with Pruitt. They were good at stopping the run or the pass. They did not produce turnovers to any great extent. They never found an identity. This defense will have an identity and they will produce.

In short, Pruitt's defense never seemed to have a mission, a goal as it were, beyond being a 3-4. They never had the right personnel and by year 3 did not even have 2 of the coaches as the DL coach was fired and our LB coach was not a LB coach and didn't seem to coach much anyway. This new system is based on the 4-3, but more importantly, it has a goal, a mission. It wants to create TOs and sacks. It will fail and give up long TD's but it will also cause big turnovers and sacks. We have playmakers in spite of what all the trolls and PTSD Vol fans would have you believe. The most important change that we will see on defense, beyond just having real coaches for each unit, and beyond all those coaches being on the same page, will be the change in philosophy. Before Pruitt's defense was a 3-4 with no real mission, no identity, no real attainable goals. Now we have a coach, a system, and a philosophy, AND it is all structured with a mission, a focus if you will. That mission will be to get the ball back, to take chances, to rush, to be multiple, etc,

We will have a disruptive defense and we do have the athletes, right now. We will shock the masses. The new philosophy is to attack, both on defense and offense and that is a monumental shift from the past. Fulmer and Pruitt were both of the old-school. Ball control and beat them down with your beasts. That does not work anymore. We have finally arrived to the party.
Click to expand...

Given that Pruitt has a great defensive mind, it really surprised me that our defense was so bad. Especially last year. His first year, I saw evidence of fantastic defensive scheming and coaching, but it went downhill.

I wonder if the fact that they practiced against such inept offense and a system stuck in the 20th century had a lot to do with that. Perhaps practicing against Heupel's offense will better prepare this defense.
 
#39
#39
ftsandersvol said:
proxy-image
Click to expand...
All hail, Gramzer 🙋🙋
 
#40
#40
tarvol73 said:
I have not seen any discussion regarding the shift in defensive philosophy from a 3-4 to a 4-3. I am aware that we are going to be multiple, but we are certainly moving away from a base 3-4, and I think that this will prove to be a huge factor. With Pruitt, Tennessee never really found a groove in the 3-4, and I don't believe that we really ever got the right personnel to do so. We never really had any pass rush, from LBs or the line. My premise is that we still have personnel better suited to a 4-3. I am aware that all defenses are multiple these days but most are still based and developed out of a 4-3 or 3-4. We have the makings of a decent defense in a 4-3 and, IMO, a much better pass rush than the last few years. Pruitt's defenses never had a mission. They never had an identity. If anything, the defense's mission might have been "bail out our crappy offense". Gone are the days of ball control, which obviously did not work.

So many people are worried about our LBs. Sure, we don't have a lot of LBs. The one's we do have are better suited to be rushers and in coverage, though perhaps not as good at stopping the run. Overall, the shift back to a 4-3, gives us better rushers on the line as well as at LB.

Roman Harrison never really found a spot. He should be a very good OLB in a 4-3 though he could have been in a 3-4 with better coaching.

Tyler Baron is a traditional 4-3 end. He was too small to be a 3-4 end. And really, he isn't a LB at all.

Byron Young was not here last year, but he could be an exceptional DE in rushing situations as well as an OLB.

Morven Joseph was never big enough to be a DL as some had projected. He probably wasn't big enough for an OLB in the previous scheme, but he should be fine in a more traditional 4-3 as an OLB.

William Mohan is a bit of a tweener, but in passing downs in which the coaches want a 3rd LB, a hybrid with LB leanings, Mohan should be good.

Willis may be good enough to excel as an OLB in a traditional 4-3 or as a rushing specialist or as a second LB when we only go with 2. He is a beast.

Mitchell was a very good MLB at Texas.

Banks may just have needed some coaching.

If you look at what could be our starting D, in particular in pass settings, it does not look that bad, especially when you look at the coaches this year compared to last year.

Line: Tyler Baron DE, Omari Thomas DT, Simmons, Terry or Solomon DT, Butler or Young, DE depending on the situation(very quick DE or large disruptive DE)
Coach: Rodney Garner

LB: Mitchell ILB, Willis, Harrison, or Mohan OLB, again depending on situation.
Coach: Brian Jean-Mary

Backfield: Flowers and McCollough at S, Taylor and Turnage at CB, Slaughter or McDonald or Marley or Hadden or Rucker
Coach Willie Martinez

The LBs never developed which should not be a shock. They were kinda coached for a couple years, with the first year being ,well, the first year and while they were turning it around in year 2, they had a new coach, or lack of coach in year 3, and never got there. When your LBs are failing as they did, the whole defense is going to fail. Any good coach is going to exploit a defense when a whole unit is not functioning as they should.

With Tennessee going back to a base 4-3 and getting coaches who can coach their units as units and within the context of the whole D, ie competent coaching, we will get much more out of the units and out of the defense as a whole. We will also get a much better pass rush with a defense that has a mission. We never really had a stated mission or goal before with Pruitt. They were good at stopping the run or the pass. They did not produce turnovers to any great extent. They never found an identity. This defense will have an identity and they will produce.

In short, Pruitt's defense never seemed to have a mission, a goal as it were, beyond being a 3-4. They never had the right personnel and by year 3 did not even have 2 of the coaches as the DL coach was fired and our LB coach was not a LB coach and didn't seem to coach much anyway. This new system is based on the 4-3, but more importantly, it has a goal, a mission. It wants to create TOs and sacks. It will fail and give up long TD's but it will also cause big turnovers and sacks. We have playmakers in spite of what all the trolls and PTSD Vol fans would have you believe. The most important change that we will see on defense, beyond just having real coaches for each unit, and beyond all those coaches being on the same page, will be the change in philosophy. Before Pruitt's defense was a 3-4 with no real mission, no identity, no real attainable goals. Now we have a coach, a system, and a philosophy, AND it is all structured with a mission, a focus if you will. That mission will be to get the ball back, to take chances, to rush, to be multiple, etc,

We will have a disruptive defense and we do have the athletes, right now. We will shock the masses. The new philosophy is to attack, both on defense and offense and that is a monumental shift from the past. Fulmer and Pruitt were both of the old-school. Ball control and beat them down with your beasts. That does not work anymore. We have finally arrived to the party.
Click to expand...

Just from a philosophical standpoint, I have always found the 4-3 preferable vs the 3-4. But that is to contain the run. If you go with 5 or 6 DBs to cover for pass happy teams? Well, that means you only have 5 or 6 players on the LOS. So, the 4-3 vs 3-4 arguments are redundant from that point onward. Whoever you have on the LOS better be able to shuck off blockers, and be disruptive for the opposing QB. Best way to do that is for whoever is rushing his blind side to knock that tackle into wherever he is standing. Do not let him run whatever play he has called. Disrupt the progression. And hope those DBs are covering his first two WR options. And watch out for whoever his safety valve is. The TE or RB can either turn nothing into a huge gain. Or it can be your best opportunity for a gimme pick 6.
 
#41
#41
To be honest, there's not a huge difference in a 4-2-5 nickel and a 3-3-5 nickel. We played our 3rd linebacker close to the line or even with a hand on the ground most of last year. Kivon and Johnson were more or less DE anyway. despite playing OLB. Nothing has really changed there imo.
 
#43
#43
3-4 Defenese work great when you have a monster nose guard. Someone who is big and can get the attention of 2 OLinemen. Needless to say it's hard to find a lot of those guys and given this years personnel limitations I think 4-3 makes more sense.

Plus you have to have the right personality. I remember Albert Haynesworth went to the Redskins for all that money, but didn't want to play nose tackle. He had tons of sacks in a 4-3, you just can't get as many sacks at nose.
 
#44
#44
When you see a new defense and you are not sure what you are seeing just go to the line and yell "Omaha" "Omaha" and then hand the ball off to a RB and let them figure out what to do.
 
#45
#45
I always run 4-3 Firemen Blitz on PS3 NCAA Football games. No one seems to be able to handle that defense very well. 4-3 is great because you have more beef up front but still have the 3 LBs.
 
#46
#46
tarvol73 said:
I have not seen any discussion regarding the shift in defensive philosophy from a 3-4 to a 4-3. I am aware that we are going to be multiple, but we are certainly moving away from a base 3-4, and I think that this will prove to be a huge factor. With Pruitt, Tennessee never really found a groove in the 3-4, and I don't believe that we really ever got the right personnel to do so. We never really had any pass rush, from LBs or the line. My premise is that we still have personnel better suited to a 4-3. I am aware that all defenses are multiple these days but most are still based and developed out of a 4-3 or 3-4. We have the makings of a decent defense in a 4-3 and, IMO, a much better pass rush than the last few years. Pruitt's defenses never had a mission. They never had an identity. If anything, the defense's mission might have been "bail out our crappy offense". Gone are the days of ball control, which obviously did not work.

So many people are worried about our LBs. Sure, we don't have a lot of LBs. The one's we do have are better suited to be rushers and in coverage, though perhaps not as good at stopping the run. Overall, the shift back to a 4-3, gives us better rushers on the line as well as at LB.

Roman Harrison never really found a spot. He should be a very good OLB in a 4-3 though he could have been in a 3-4 with better coaching.

Tyler Baron is a traditional 4-3 end. He was too small to be a 3-4 end. And really, he isn't a LB at all.

Byron Young was not here last year, but he could be an exceptional DE in rushing situations as well as an OLB.

Morven Joseph was never big enough to be a DL as some had projected. He probably wasn't big enough for an OLB in the previous scheme, but he should be fine in a more traditional 4-3 as an OLB.

William Mohan is a bit of a tweener, but in passing downs in which the coaches want a 3rd LB, a hybrid with LB leanings, Mohan should be good.

Willis may be good enough to excel as an OLB in a traditional 4-3 or as a rushing specialist or as a second LB when we only go with 2. He is a beast.

Mitchell was a very good MLB at Texas.

Banks may just have needed some coaching.

If you look at what could be our starting D, in particular in pass settings, it does not look that bad, especially when you look at the coaches this year compared to last year.

Line: Tyler Baron DE, Omari Thomas DT, Simmons, Terry or Solomon DT, Butler or Young, DE depending on the situation(very quick DE or large disruptive DE)
Coach: Rodney Garner

LB: Mitchell ILB, Willis, Harrison, or Mohan OLB, again depending on situation.
Coach: Brian Jean-Mary

Backfield: Flowers and McCollough at S, Taylor and Turnage at CB, Slaughter or McDonald or Marley or Hadden or Rucker
Coach Willie Martinez

The LBs never developed which should not be a shock. They were kinda coached for a couple years, with the first year being ,well, the first year and while they were turning it around in year 2, they had a new coach, or lack of coach in year 3, and never got there. When your LBs are failing as they did, the whole defense is going to fail. Any good coach is going to exploit a defense when a whole unit is not functioning as they should.

With Tennessee going back to a base 4-3 and getting coaches who can coach their units as units and within the context of the whole D, ie competent coaching, we will get much more out of the units and out of the defense as a whole. We will also get a much better pass rush with a defense that has a mission. We never really had a stated mission or goal before with Pruitt. They were good at stopping the run or the pass. They did not produce turnovers to any great extent. They never found an identity. This defense will have an identity and they will produce.

In short, Pruitt's defense never seemed to have a mission, a goal as it were, beyond being a 3-4. They never had the right personnel and by year 3 did not even have 2 of the coaches as the DL coach was fired and our LB coach was not a LB coach and didn't seem to coach much anyway. This new system is based on the 4-3, but more importantly, it has a goal, a mission. It wants to create TOs and sacks. It will fail and give up long TD's but it will also cause big turnovers and sacks. We have playmakers in spite of what all the trolls and PTSD Vol fans would have you believe. The most important change that we will see on defense, beyond just having real coaches for each unit, and beyond all those coaches being on the same page, will be the change in philosophy. Before Pruitt's defense was a 3-4 with no real mission, no identity, no real attainable goals. Now we have a coach, a system, and a philosophy, AND it is all structured with a mission, a focus if you will. That mission will be to get the ball back, to take chances, to rush, to be multiple, etc,

We will have a disruptive defense and we do have the athletes, right now. We will shock the masses. The new philosophy is to attack, both on defense and offense and that is a monumental shift from the past. Fulmer and Pruitt were both of the old-school. Ball control and beat them down with your beasts. That does not work anymore. We have finally arrived to the party.
Click to expand...
I think we end up in a 4-2-5, at least this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarvol73
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top