Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I don't think anyone would argue that our defense is close to, if not as unique (sometimes even moreso) than our offense, but I've begun to notice something about our defense that seems as if it's negatively impacting our recruiting.

Different defensive schemes need different types of players. A traditional 3-4 needs a huge space-eating nose tackle that really doesn't have much of a place in a 4-3. The DEs in a 34 are larger and more suited to contain and stop the run, whereas DEs in a 43 are used much more often as pass rushers. OLBs in the 34 are often VERY different than OLBs in 43. CBs and MLBs in a tampa 2 defense are very different than even, say, a more aggressive, man-free 43 defense. Of course we could discuss the differences in defenses and the ideal players to suit those schemes, but that's not what I'm here to discuss...

If you believe what's been published about Tood Barr and Vili Moala, at least a portion of why they weren't interested in Oregon is that our defense doesn't fit their styles of play, namely that of a 34 (Barr's an ideal 34 DE, Moala's a taylor-made NT). We've also seen reports about Del Simmons. Grade issues or no, it would appear that we don't play enough of a 4-3 scheme to satisfy his style of play, and NC does...

Does this seem odd to anyone else? We're not getting kids because we don't run a 43, but we're missing on others because we don't run a 34? I think the answer lies in taking a page from our offense. Kids used to say, "I'm not a fit there", so Chip created the TZR. Basically a position that puts the best athlete on the field and uses his strengths however Chip can. De'Anthony Thomas and Colt Lyerla couldn't be more different in their athletic gifts, yet they're both being seriously looked at for the TZR... Similarly, when our offense was called a "spread", it connotated certain things that weren't always neccessarily good. I think it's certainly advantageous to have the media call us things like "the blur offense" as opposed to "tricky" or "gimmiky"...

So what if our defense got creative with some naming conventions like we did with the TZR? Instead of "Hybrid 34/43" or "an opportunisticly aggressive mishmash of different schemes", doesn't it seem very OREGON to have a specific NAME for our D and it's players?

Doesn't it seem like, if say our rush-lb spot (aka the Kenny Rowe position) were named "Rhino" or "Bolt" or something like that it could eventually catch on with recruits (like the TZR did) better than "you'll be an OLB/DE where you rush the qb alot but we'll also drop you back into coverage..."? What if, instead of our "Brandon Bair sometimes DT, sometimes DE" spot, it was something that connotated a diverse NFL range?

I guess I just feel like, with people who know football, certain defensive words have certain connotations. If you know football, you know the Steelers 34 means hard hitting, chance taking, always blitzing and pressuring. The Patriots D means all sorts of bizzare fronts and formations that are always hard to read, again, the Tampa 2 and it's prototypical players...

I think naming our D and it's different roles would go a LONG way in helping us recruit the Todd Barrs of the future.

glazeduck wrote:I don't think anyone would argue that our defense is close to, if not as unique (sometimes even moreso) than our offense, but I've begun to notice something about our defense that seems as if it's negatively impacting our recruiting.

Different defensive schemes need different types of players. A traditional 3-4 needs a huge space-eating nose tackle that really doesn't have much of a place in a 4-3. The DEs in a 34 are larger and more suited to contain and stop the run, whereas DEs in a 43 are used much more often as pass rushers. OLBs in the 34 are often VERY different than OLBs in 43. CBs and MLBs in a tampa 2 defense are very different than even, say, a more aggressive, man-free 43 defense. Of course we could discuss the differences in defenses and the ideal players to suit those schemes, but that's not what I'm here to discuss...

If you believe what's been published about Tood Barr and Vili Moala, at least a portion of why they weren't interested in Oregon is that our defense doesn't fit their styles of play, namely that of a 34 (Barr's an ideal 34 DE, Moala's a taylor-made NT). We've also seen reports about Del Simmons. Grade issues or no, it would appear that we don't play enough of a 4-3 scheme to satisfy his style of play, and NC does...

Does this seem odd to anyone else? We're not getting kids because we don't run a 43, but we're missing on others because we don't run a 34? I think the answer lies in taking a page from our offense. Kids used to say, "I'm not a fit there", so Chip created the TZR. Basically a position that puts the best athlete on the field and uses his strengths however Chip can. De'Anthony Thomas and Colt Lyerla couldn't be more different in their athletic gifts, yet they're both being seriously looked at for the TZR... Similarly, when our offense was called a "spread", it connotated certain things that weren't always neccessarily good. I think it's certainly advantageous to have the media call us things like "the blur offense" as opposed to "tricky" or "gimmiky"...

So what if our defense got creative with some naming conventions like we did with the TZR? Instead of "Hybrid 34/43" or "an opportunisticly aggressive mishmash of different schemes", doesn't it seem very OREGON to have a specific NAME for our D and it's players?

Doesn't it seem like, if say our rush-lb spot (aka the Kenny Rowe position) were named "Rhino" or "Bolt" or something like that it could eventually catch on with recruits (like the TZR did) better than "you'll be an OLB/DE where you rush the qb alot but we'll also drop you back into coverage..."? What if, instead of our "Brandon Bair sometimes DT, sometimes DE" spot, it was something that connotated a diverse NFL range?

I guess I just feel like, with people who know football, certain defensive words have certain connotations. If you know football, you know the Steelers 34 means hard hitting, chance taking, always blitzing and pressuring. The Patriots D means all sorts of bizzare fronts and formations that are always hard to read, again, the Tampa 2 and it's prototypical players...

I think naming our D and it's different roles would go a LONG way in helping us recruit the Todd Barrs of the future.

You are essentially saying we need to market our defense better. Marketing makes the world go round, and has certainly been a huge force for Oregon football in general. I think your idea is good. The hard part is branding the positions we need most- D-lineman. The "bolt" idea is great for the DE/LB hybrid, but that seems to be a position we can fill. What do you do to attract those dominant space eaters we seem to miss on? We need a marketing name that attracts those guys. Something that makes fat, fast, strong guys feel like they are lean, cool, running backs. Have to think on that one a bit.

!!!STUD!!!



With apologies to the ladies present, I realize this seems over simplified, but we are talking about 17-20 year old lads, here!

I think we need to see how are current system plays out a little longer before we make any drastic changes...

None of the guys that started last year were recruited by CK or Azz

And if you're really honest... I think that scheme actually made them look better than they really are.

Boom wrote:I think we need to see how are current system plays out a little longer before we make any drastic changes...

None of the guys that started last year were recruited by CK or Azz

And if you're really honest... I think that scheme actually made them look better than they really are.

Not sure if you read the whole post, but I'm not advocating for any ACTUAL changes... just a touch-up job on the descriptions and definitions of the roles in our scheme.

Imagine the following 2 scenarios:

A. Large D-Lineman, we see you being invaluable on our Dline in being able to apply pressure up the middle. You'll probably play 40% over the A gap where we'll utilize your burst, but on run downs we'll play you over the center some to utilize your strength and try to stop the run, and then other times we'll slide you out to play over the tackles on the strong side while we attack from the weak, with you playing out here we'll be able to use your length and ability to contain...

B. We see you as an ideal fit to play our Dozer spot. We LOVE this role because we can use your various strengths in different ways, etc., etc., etc.

Someone earlier called it marketing... As a marketing man myself I see it more as branding... semantics.

I feel like, with defined roles and names for those roles, I feel like the opportunity kids would get in our D (particularly our DL) would be much more attractive...

The Lean Green Shut Out Machine... Where Goose Eggs get laid every week!

glazeduck wrote:

Boom wrote:I think we need to see how are current system plays out a little longer before we make any drastic changes...

None of the guys that started last year were recruited by CK or Azz

And if you're really honest... I think that scheme actually made them look better than they really are.

Not sure if you read the whole post, but I'm not advocating for any ACTUAL changes... just a touch-up job on the descriptions and definitions of the roles in our scheme.

Imagine the following 2 scenarios:

A. Large D-Lineman, we see you being invaluable on our Dline in being able to apply pressure up the middle. You'll probably play 40% over the A gap where we'll utilize your burst, but on run downs we'll play you over the center some to utilize your strength and try to stop the run, and then other times we'll slide you out to play over the tackles on the strong side while we attack from the weak, with you playing out here we'll be able to use your length and ability to contain...

B. We see you as an ideal fit to play our Dozer spot. We LOVE this role because we can use your various strengths in different ways, etc., etc., etc.

Someone earlier called it marketing... As a marketing man myself I see it more as branding... semantics.

I feel like, with defined roles and names for those roles, I feel like the opportunity kids would get in our D (particularly our DL) would be much more attractive...

Oregon Football is the brand, and turning into a darn good one. I think you are talking strategies within the brand. OK, now I am officially a nerd.

Based off of Chips answers during his recent pressers, it sounds like it isn't so much the scheme that scares recruits off, but the pace that scares them. I can understand why a 300lb recruit might prefer to play somewhere that isn't going to be as demanding as what we are running at Oregon. I bet our practices look pretty daunting to a guy that has been able to succeed by just being bigger than everyone else and hasn't had to work out nearly at the level that our defense does.

We cannot assume anything about what Chip and Azz tell the recruits. Branding? whatever. We will adapt are defense completely for a DT like Clowney. It is nice to have options. Any DT that thinks they can go some where else and take plays off we don't want him. Now what other defenses do when they play us? They better play fast and be ready because we have a very fast offense. Chip is changing college defenses. Every DT when they play us and other short count, no huddle offenses better play fast. Do you assume the main answer to why we have a hard time bringing DTs here is 3-4 versus 4-3? I don't. Every coach will tell and show a kid how their scheme is better than ours. And we show them how we will use them and make them better, get them to NFL.. s*** Azz coached Dwight Freeny, Haloti Ngata went here. Two of the best DLs in the NFL, by most accounts. The coaches recruit in the best ways and I am sure they study it and adapt constantly. I was impressed when DAT said Chip showed him films, edited to show how he would use him specifically in our offense. They are doing the same for the DLs, too. We will continue to adapt our scheme to our personnel and we tell the recruits that. Now does Azz play enough video games with his recruits. Maybe we should have him do that on their visits like at Cal. Maybe we could put video games in the locker room? Maybe we could move our campus to Seattle, so Shelton would come here. I am sorry to rant but, we know so little about what gets a recruit to come here. As Chip said it is different things with every single recruit. 22 different reasons, he said. Let's get better facilities. Let's get prettier cheer leaders. Let's go to the Rose Bowl or the Natty. Let's run a 3-4 or a 4-3 to get them here. Check. We all want great DLs to come here. It sucks we struck out this year with a couple of DLs. With WR recruiting last year, this year was great last year, two WRs did not stay academically eligible. A couple years ago we had some DLs not make it academically. Next year we will bring in some great big DLs. I hope. s*** look at how much we all want to get one with that crazy Clowney Thread. Believe me Chip is way ahead of us and so is AZZ.

They probably tell these kids , "If you want to work hard, practice fast, and play some AZZ-KICKING 'D', this is the place for you! Otherwise, I hear the PAC12 S is looking for our leftovers."

+1

The results on the field from last season show our defense is just fine. We will get the right fits for our defense, and our recruiting will continue to improve. If we bring out another strong unit this season that only helps in getting prospects to be interested in what we do. I'm not worried about the lack of blue chip defensive tackles coming here, if we keep winning it will take care of itself. The whole making up names for positions is kind of ridiculous as well

I don't think worried is the adjective to describe my desire for stud DTs... It is more that they are one of the few luxuries that are currently not readily available to the Ducks, and one of the most obvious... A mild case of Greed is probably a better description.

That's what happens when you are on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how to create a dominant monster on D to match the masterpiece that has been the Oregon O since Chip's arrival.

woundedknees wrote:I don't think worried is the adjective to describe my desire for stud DTs... It is more that they are one of the few luxuries that are currently not readily available to the Ducks, and one of the most obvious... A mild case of Greed is probably a better description.

That's what happens when you are on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how to create a dominant monster on D to match the masterpiece that has been the Oregon O since Chip's arrival.

I think that greed has big part in us wanting more DTs. We see what happens when the offense gets top-flight athletes so want it on the defensive side of the ball as well.

guys, its not just greed .... hehe!

we've got 5 scholarship guys at DT. five.

it's a numbers game. and we'll get our numbers next year. DT will be the TOP PRIORITY for the 2012 class, without question. there's a chance we can get some 4 or 5 star studs there in 2012. if not, we'll get some other guys, so either way we'll have more DTs coming in next year.

DT may never be the strength of Oregon's defense. but as long as we get some good talent there next year we will be fine overall