OL and DL really young, experience should help

[friend10]

I agree. This team more suited for 4-3. Somtimes you have to play the scheme your players are suited for and not just say "we always play a 3-4 and that's what we do"

[SMU 86]

4-2-5 maybe?

[mrydel]

Against A&M I would suggest the 4-5-5.

[SMU2007]

Against A&M I would suggest the 4-5-5.

[smusic 00]

Against A&M I would suggest the 4-5-5.

Yes, and sub in the 4-5-11 on third downs.

[JasonB]

The 3-4 defense is great for a team that is under budget restriction in the NFL or has recruiting limitations in college football. The reason being that in the NFL, you can find three linemen that don't have to be allstarts, and you can afford to underpay that position. In college, you can find tweener DE in high school and get really good athletic players who are perfect OLB in the 3-4.

Larger organizations like the Cowboys should never go with a 3-4 IMHO, because they have enough resources. The 3-4 defense is perfect for college teams like SMU, because it allows us to try and go after some really good athletes who don't fit into a scheme at the big schools. Tank was probably undersized for a 4-3 MLB, but put him in the 3-4 with another ILB and he is great.

The experience gap on the OL and DL just shows our recruiting gap we had 3-4 years ago. It is great we have size on both sides and we are young, but ideally we would have had experienced players ready to step in on both sides. Lots of misses on both sides of the line and at WR in the recruiting classes 3-4 years ago.

[Lebanese4Life]

yeah... I don't think we have the personnel to employ a 4-3 defense. we've got a ton of LBs, but not many good D-linemen

[SMU 86]

The 3-4 defense is great for a team that is under budget restriction in the NFL or has recruiting limitations in college football. The reason being that in the NFL, you can find three linemen that don't have to be allstarts, and you can afford to underpay that position. In college, you can find tweener DE in high school and get really good athletic players who are perfect OLB in the 3-4.

Larger organizations like the Cowboys should never go with a 3-4 IMHO, because they have enough resources. The 3-4 defense is perfect for college teams like SMU, because it allows us to try and go after some really good athletes who don't fit into a scheme at the big schools. Tank was probably undersized for a 4-3 MLB, but put him in the 3-4 with another ILB and he is great.

The experience gap on the OL and DL just shows our recruiting gap we had 3-4 years ago. It is great we have size on both sides and we are young, but ideally we would have had experienced players ready to step in on both sides. Lots of misses on both sides of the line and at WR in the recruiting classes 3-4 years ago.

All NFL teams have the same salary cap and the revenue is split equally amongst owners. Also who were the misses on the line and at wr you are talking about?

[RGV Pony]

I can think of five off the top of my head on the OL, 6 if you count the LSU transfer that didn't work out. There's probably more.

[SMU 86]

I can think of five off the top of my head on the OL, 6 if you count the LSU transfer that didn't work out. There's probably more.

By misses I thought he was talking about recruits that they did not get to commit to SMU. But if that is what he he saying okay.

[Rebel10]

The 3-4 defense is great for a team that is under budget restriction in the NFL or has recruiting limitations in college football. The reason being that in the NFL, you can find three linemen that don't have to be allstarts, and you can afford to underpay that position. In college, you can find tweener DE in high school and get really good athletic players who are perfect OLB in the 3-4.

Larger organizations like the Cowboys should never go with a 3-4 IMHO, because they have enough resources. The 3-4 defense is perfect for college teams like SMU, because it allows us to try and go after some really good athletes who don't fit into a scheme at the big schools. Tank was probably undersized for a 4-3 MLB, but put him in the 3-4 with another ILB and he is great.

The experience gap on the OL and DL just shows our recruiting gap we had 3-4 years ago. It is great we have size on both sides and we are young, but ideally we would have had experienced players ready to step in on both sides. Lots of misses on both sides of the line and at WR in the recruiting classes 3-4 years ago.

If by size on the D Line you might height then yes we have that but if you mean weight then no we do not have it. Probably need about a year for our DE's to put on about 20 pounds each so they won't get pushed around so much like the did in a good part on the MSU game. As far as the rest is concerned you are going to have a lot of misses in DITR recruiting.

[East Coast Mustang]

I've always thought the 3-4 is superior because who can disguise the pass rush in more ways that with the 4-3. With that being said, you need a dominant NT and DE's who can occupy blockers, and we don't have any of those right now

[Pony147]

I don't think the DL has played that bad considering their experience. I see our scheme as as problem especially our soft zone coverage. Seems like we need to get in bump and run man coverage so we can blitz more with linebackers. Worked against Tech & Montana State when we did it. Get burnt once in awhile doing it but it can also produce big plays and turnovers.

I also agree that we should have done this in our first two games. Unfortunately, I don't think this will work against teams with good o-lines and experienced, mobile qb's (aka A$M and TCU). If they can evade the blitzing lb's then they will be able to find the open receivers (that beat our cb's in man coverage) or scramble for 30 yards before our safeties can run them down. With that being said, I don't think any defensive scheme we do will help us beat A$M or TCU.

[Roach]

When we don't blitz we rush 3 against 5. Even with the size we had last year upfront it didn't work. Only way to disrupt the other team's office is to bring more people than they can block and hope their quarterback can't pick up open receiver. We have about 6 or 7 sacks through first 2 games this year. How many did we have last year through the same amount of games? (Montana State upgrade vs SFA) Our problem right now is turnovers. Have had a few chance w/fumbles and interceptions but didn't pull them off like last year. Play tighter on receivers and bring more pressure.

Yes and no. That's true, that 3 on 5 is an unfavorable matchup. But on the other hand, the Tech QB got the ball out in an instant. He caught the snap, turned and threw. There were a couple of times we had a guy untouched who still didn't get there. If that's the case, Mason has no choice but to call off the blitz and drop 7 or 8 into coverage, which he did during the Tech game. The Montana State QB held on to the ball longer, so Mason kept bringing pressure.

[Rebel10]

When we don't blitz we rush 3 against 5. Even with the size we had last year upfront it didn't work. Only way to disrupt the other team's office is to bring more people than they can block and hope their quarterback can't pick up open receiver. We have about 6 or 7 sacks through first 2 games this year. How many did we have last year through the same amount of games? (Montana State upgrade vs SFA) Our problem right now is turnovers. Have had a few chance w/fumbles and interceptions but didn't pull them off like last year. Play tighter on receivers and bring more pressure.

Yes and no. That's true, that 3 on 5 is an unfavorable matchup. But on the other hand, the Tech QB got the ball out in an instant. He caught the snap, turned and threw. There were a couple of times we had a guy untouched who still didn't get there. If that's the case, Mason has no choice but to call off the blitz and drop 7 or 8 into coverage, which he did during the Tech game. The Montana State QB held on to the ball longer, so Mason kept bringing pressure.

Looking at the replay Mayfield was not getting the ball out in an "instant." Even the announcers were wondering why SMU did not bring more pressure.