Shafer on the 3-4 switch

[Bortukal]

This quote from Chris Carlson's article on Syracuse.com today.

"A little more speed on the field," Shafer said. "Trying to research it and how we matched up athletically, we thought that was the way to go. As a coach you fight the 20-20 hindsight but you also learn from it. It's a difficult lesson because we didn't do a good job. At the end of the day, from a scheme point of view, the scheme had soundness in it but we didn't play it as well as we needed to. We weren't as disciplined as we needed to be."

I can't believe my eyes. I thought the kids played their hearts out. I distinctly recall a GT drive when the game was well out of reach where the defense came out fired-up, hit hard and did everything they good to get to the ball despite being in what seemed like an insurmountable hole. I don't see how one can say that the result on the scoreboard was a product of discipline and execution on the field and not due to poor planning from the coach's box.

That scheme was doomed from the start.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

the kids did not play their hearts out... they simply did not. Take a look at the last two TD's, you see kids with questionable effort all over the place. When you get beat 56-0 it's everything, effort, coaching, players, etc.

Good Lord

 

[dollarbill44]

This quote from Chris Carlson's article on Syracuse.com today.
"A little more speed on the field," Shafer said. "Trying to research it and how we matched up athletically, we thought that was the way to go. As a coach you fight the 20-20 hindsight but you also learn from it. It's a difficult lesson because we didn't do a good job. At the end of the day, from a scheme point of view, the scheme had soundness in it but we didn't play it as well as we needed to. We weren't as disciplined as we needed to be."

I can't believe my eyes. I thought the kids played their hearts out. I distinctly recall a GT drive when the game was well out of reach where the defense came out fired-up, hit hard and did everything they good to get to the ball despite being in what seemed like an insurmountable hole. I don't see how one can say that the result on the scoreboard was a product of discipline and execution on the field and not due to poor planning from the coach's box.

That scheme was doomed from the start.

It was doomed from the start because our D isn't set up to play a 3-4 and they aren't used to playing a 3-4. Imo, the scheme itself wasn't at fault, but a 4-3 team running a 3-4 is to blame. It's not a good game plan. Heck, NFL teams struggle going between the two from one season to the next.

 

[Rocco]

He's not going to come out and say, "I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"... He resorted to typical coach speak.

And lastly, the players get alot of the blame as well. They missed really, really easy assignments at times and did not keep contain at all.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

He's not going to come out and say, "I'm an idiot, I really screwed up"... He resorted to typical coach speak.

And lastly, the players get alot of the blame as well. They missed really, really easy assignments at times and did not keep contain at all.

Agreed, bonehead plays everywhere as well.

 

[Crusty]

Guys, that is what the GT triple does to teams, especially the firt time you see it at game speed. When you are sure of your assignment you can do it aggressively. GT has so many variations that it makes guys unsure and they hesitate. hesitate.

They get you back on your heals watching the game.

 

[Bortukal]

It was doomed from the start because our D isn't set up to play a 3-4 and they aren't used to playing a 3-4. Imo, the scheme itself wasn't at fault, but a 4-3 team running a 3-4 is to blame. It's not a good game plan. Heck, NFL teams struggle going between the two from one season to the next.

This is what I meant, that the team isn't built to play 3-4 and isn't experienced in it. There was an entire thread here prior to KO blasting the scheme (and Michael Cohen) as a bad idea when it was found out that was what we were going with.

 

[Chip]

Agreed, bonehead plays everywhere as well.

Which is what I would guess happens when you change defenses and get players who are thinking too much about their assignment after the snap.

It's the part that Shafer and Bullough completely miscalculated.

 

[Crusty]

It was doomed from the start because our D isn't set up to play a 3-4 and they aren't used to playing a 3-4. Imo, the scheme itself wasn't at fault, but a 4-3 team running a 3-4 is to blame. It's not a good game plan. Heck, NFL teams struggle going between the two from one season to the next.

As sutomcat correctly pointed out we play 3-4 all the time in our Oakie package. I have watched all of Shafer's videos and he spends an hour on various 3-4 Oakie packages. It is not that foreign. Not a stupid decision but in hindsight not the best one either.

 

[PhatOrange]

As sutomcat correctly pointed out we play 3-4 all the time in our Oakie package. I have watched all of Shafer's videos and he spends an hour on various 3-4 Oakie packages. It is not that foreign. Not a stupid decision but in hindsight not the best one either.

We play the 3-4 Oakie package in obvious passing downs though. So yes while we run it, we're not running it on obvious running downs; nor as a base against running teams.

 

[CuseCrew08]

Every single lineman was blown off the ball because each of them were double teamed. Its hard to stop the run when they automatically have 2 yards every play... If he went to a 5-2 or even 5-3 the lineman would have been able to hold the line of scrimmage and let the LB's make plays... Dumb, dumb, dumb plan by SS and Bullough

 

[kuethstheman]

Sorry man but bad post! Where did he say they didn't play their hearts out?

Against the option, it's all about assignments and not usually doing what your instincts and training tell you that you should do. It takes a special discipline to pull that off or lots of speed to quickly recover from the mistakes. So apparently the 3-4 was done in hope that the extra speed would make up for the likelihood that they wouldn't always react correctly. As he admits, it didn't work and they have to learn from it.

 

[PhatOrange]

Every single lineman was blown off the ball because each of them were double teamed. Its hard to stop the run when they automatically have 2 yards every play... If he went to a 5-2 or even 5-3 the lineman would have been able to hold the line of scrimmage and let the LB's make plays... Dumb, dumb, dumb plan by SS and Bullough

I pointed out in the BYU plays that I saw they were playing a 5-2 and 4-3.

 

[PhatOrange]

It's like saying the basketball team should be used to playing man D because we (sometimes) full court press.

 

[phil77]

Good Teams/Good Coaches play your stuff and make teams adjust to you. You do not throw your game plan you had out all year long for one team. That is bad coaching IMO.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Which is what I would guess happens when you change defenses and get players who are thinking too much about their assignment after the snap.

It's the part that Shafer and Bullough completely miscalculated.

Or they just make bonehead plays like they did versus NW and Clemson

 

[Bortukal]

Sorry man but bad post! Where did he say they didn't play their hearts out?

I didn't say that he did say they didn't play their hearts out. But he did say that the scheme wasn't to blame and that "lack of discipline" on the part of the players was.

You can be disciplined like a drill sergeant, but that's not going to help you when you're a DT getting blocked by a OG and OT at the same time.

All the excellent points being mentioned by posters here, missed assignments, boneheadedness, etc., can be traced to players being unfamiliar with the scheme and unsure of their assignments to begin with.

I saw effort on the field, that's all I'm saying. The scheme we presented allowed for mismatches up front and for the OL to get to the second level too easily too often.

 

[oldpinepoint]

What I was amazed at was how quick the GT OL was firing out and driving our DL off the ball. They were getting to the second level so fast and getting on our linebackers. We had no penetration and we couldn't even hold the LOS. My biggest problem is we stuck with the scheme even though it wasn't close to working. Adjustments were nonexistent and anything would have been worth a try once the game got out of hand, which it clearly was at 21-0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[NineOneSeven]

Every single lineman was blown off the ball because each of them were double teamed. Its hard to stop the run when they automatically have 2 yards every play... If he went to a 5-2 or even 5-3 the lineman would have been able to hold the line of scrimmage and let the LB's make plays... Dumb, dumb, dumb plan by SS and Bullough

Ding ding ding. Most obvious thing I've ever seen. Line was getting absolutely torched. It was simple math 5+ > 3. Always.

 

[Crusty]

We play the 3-4 Oakie package in obvious passing downs though. So yes while we run it, we're not running it in obvious running downs; nor are we running it as a base against running teams.

 

[upperdeck]

we lost because the dline was more worried about getting cut then playing the play.. the 3-4 was not the issue, even on the goal line plays we got blown off the ball and they weren't in 3-4 down there..

you can see plays with 3 guys in position and all 3 messed up the assignment.. its the same thing we are seeing on pass plays, guys are missing assignments and it leads to big plays.

so if it was our scheme why did GT avg almost 5 yds a play against BYU since that scheme worked so well? they avg 5.8 against us and 5.5 against Miami, 4.6 against UNC and 5.7 against Duke..

we did only marginally different than every other team.. had the offense scored 20+ like we expected and take two GT drives away they get the same 300 yds they get against every one else.. only one team has stopped them and thats VT.. BYU didnt stop them they got ahead so they passed 25 times. they never stopped the run..

I blame the offense more than the D its the score that makes it seem like it all on the D.. as tomcat said we turned at 35-20 loss into much worse that it really seemed..

 

[Crusty]

We play the 3-4 Oakie package in obvious passing downs though. So yes while we run it, we're not running it on obvious running downs; nor as a base against running teams.

Shafer has many variations of the 3-4 base and 3-4 Oakie and the guys should be well schooled in them. He plays different zones out of each and different blitz packages - including, wait for it - NO BLITZ.

3-4 gives us a 7 man front same as the 4-3.The difference between 3-4 base and 3-4 Oakie is where everyone lines up and gap responsibilities. Gap responsibilities change but they are nothing new. The NT can only line up in a few spots and can only cover a couple of gaps so it is not like anything strange. The DEs line up a little more to the outside shoulder of the tackle or end in the Oakie but that is about it.

The logic of playing the 3-4 to get faster with an extra LB is not nonsense, as a matter of fact, if the strength is your LB corp, it makes a great deal of sense.

The problem is that GT is really really good at it and it is impossible to practice for them and have it resemble anything like game speed. There was no way we were going to be prepared first time in. Could have been better yes, but the 4-3 or 5-2 or 11-0 would not have changed things much.

This is a case of a special offense that executed about as well as it can be executed. The offense just couldn't stay on the field and that made it far worse.

On to Wake Forest.
Go Orange!





Of course but the basics are the same - 7 guys on the line pretty much lined the same except for the DE.
Of course but the basics are the same - 7 guys on the line pretty much lined the same except for the DE.
Of course but the basics are the same - 7 guys on the line pretty much lined the same except for the DE.

 

[jgeorge322]

This quote from Chris Carlson's article on Syracuse.com today.
"A little more speed on the field," Shafer said. "Trying to research it and how we matched up athletically, we thought that was the way to go. As a coach you fight the 20-20 hindsight but you also learn from it. It's a difficult lesson because we didn't do a good job. At the end of the day, from a scheme point of view, the scheme had soundness in it but we didn't play it as well as we needed to. We weren't as disciplined as we needed to be."

I can't believe my eyes. I thought the kids played their hearts out. I distinctly recall a GT drive when the game was well out of reach where the defense came out fired-up, hit hard and did everything they good to get to the ball despite being in what seemed like an insurmountable hole. I don't see how one can say that the result on the scoreboard was a product of discipline and execution on the field and not due to poor planning from the coach's box.

That scheme was doomed from the start.

ok so how about that excuse of not switching out of 3-4 when we it clearly wasn't working? thats the better question.

 

[Crusty]

ok so how about that excuse of not switching out of 3-4 when we it clearly wasn't working? thats the better question.

Well THAT is really the question, for which I have absolutely no answer!

 

[upperdeck]

could it have been a function of the Dt getting hurt so the rotation was thinner than expected to try and jump into something else? it could also be maybe they decided it was a learning thing for the players they had in the game.. getting better at positioning in a game we were not going to win is not a bad thing.