Jump to content
Charles Fischer

DC DeRuyter Running 3-4 or 4-3 Defense at Oregon?

Recommended Posts

"The Ducks under DeRuyter will likely run a base 3-4, but their secondary depth in the pass-happy Pac-12 means they have the flexibility to rely on the nickel package with sophomore Jamal Hill when needed."

Above is a tidbit from an Athletic article by Gerald Alexander where he interviewed former players under Coach DeRuyter, yet people disagree...

On Sunday, Coach Eric Boles of FishDuck will give us more information and his take on whether we see the 4-3 or the 3-4!

 

Mr. FishDuck

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reserve my excitement for when the rubber meets the road.

His resume is certainly full of positivity, however, we've experienced this type of hoopla before in our new coordinators and been burned. He certainly will be blessed with, perhaps, the best players he will have ever coached. 

I wish him all the luck in the world and hope he will surprise and delight me with his skills. In Coach C we trust but verify!

Edited by Old Geezer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know that he can be comfortable in both... I anticipate that eventually the defense will be so dialed in that they will be able to run both equally well as the need arises. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article on Rivals was a very interesting read about why DeRuyter might move to a 4-3.

 

I know there is absolutely no reason to fear the use of the 4-3 as it does have its own inherent strengths and weaknesses and it does look like it would be an amazing fit for Oregon's current roster... but I keep getting Hoke flashbacks.

I'm still super excited to see how this Oregon team looks next year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, David Marsh said:

This article on Rivals was a very interesting read about why DeRuyter might move to a 4-3.

Dale makes a good point in the article in that a 3-4 needs a big Nose Tackle, and those are hard to recruit as everybody wants them. Yet I am not so sure about the 4-3 because we had pretty good defenses in the 3-4 with a 270 lb. NT in the past....

And tomorrow we get a short primer on what DeRuyter has done from Coach Boles.  And I guess it is pronounced, "DeeRooter"  and not "DeeRighter" from what I heard on YouTube...

Mr. FishDuck

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Charles Fischer said:

Yet I am not so sure about the 4-3 because we had pretty good defenses in the 3-4 with a 270 lb. NT in the past....

Though Jordon Scott having shed about 20 pounds, down to around 300, really didn't look terribly good this season.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, David Marsh said:

Though Jordon Scott having shed about 20 pounds, down to around 300, really didn't look terribly good this season.

There are some of us who believe losing that weight actually hurt his effectiveness in the middle.  He wasn't able to push back on centers nearly as well this season as in the past.  

I'm not smart enough to predict what kind of defense DeRuyter will implement at Oregon.  But given his track record, it's pretty safe to say he'll design one that fits what we have...right now the strength and potential is at linebacker so perhaps 3-4?  After his past success with linebackers I'm sure Sewell, Flowe, etc. are very excited for next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope it doesn't take a year to get the defense "in tune" with a new approach. 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll take at least a half season to settle into DeRuyter's setup, plus the youth of many players.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Charles Fischer said:

And I guess it is pronounced, "DeeRooter"  and not "DeeRighter" from what I heard on YouTube...

That seems to be the case, 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"4-3"/"3-4" likely makes for a good topic for off-season discussion.

I'd still be surprised to see a base "4-3" and I'm not sure exactly how it appears to be a better fit for returning defensive personal? Popo should be able to step into the nose backed up by Jayson Jones. The following several seasons Jones is about as nose tackle as you are gonna find. 

I'm not sure about turning Funa in an every down DE either. KT-Popo-Williams-Funa would be a pretty smallish "4-3" front. The OLBs on both sides of the DeRutyer "3-4" are considered to be a rush LBs anyway, one side especially so, often manned by a converted DE. You could put ISM at the more traditional OLB spot and then pair Sewell and Flowe inside. If you end up on obvious passing downs (or whenever desired) you can sub in a nickle and walk Funa up in a "4-2-5". With Pickett gone, instead of replacing him, Hill could move into the other S position.

Isn't the greater preference in today's college football towards "3-4s" and variations with a (full time) base nickle defense about getting more guys who can play in space on the field against different types of spread offenses? Returning to a base "4-3" seems to be counter to that approach?

 

One thing for sure (Total PLAYS last 5 games):

UO 64  UCLA 82

UO 66  OSU 82

UO 60  Cal 79

UO 60  USC 80

UO 46  Iowa State 85

 

(Drives of 10+ plays and result)

OPPONENT'S 10+ play drives (17)

19 plays (td) - Cal

16 plays (td) - OSU

15 plays (td) - Iowa State

14 plays (td) - Iowa State

13 plays (td) - UCLA

13 plays (td) - Cal

13 plays (downs) - OSU

13 plays (fg) - Iowa St.

12 plays (td) - USC

12 plays (fg) - USC

12 plays (td) - USC

12 plays (td) - UCLA

11 plays (fg) - OSU

10 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (fg) - OSU

10 plays (td) - UCLA

10 plays (fumble) - Iowa State

 

OREGON'S 10+ play drives (6)

14 plays (td) - USC

13 plays (fg) - UCLA

11 plays (fg) - USC

11 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (fg) - Cal

 

something a little more aggressive will be welcomed.

"Bend but don't break" still needed to get off the field at some point - and didn't do so very well in 2020. The big total play discrepancy and long drives allowed these last 5 games are trends that needs to go away in 2021.

Edited by AnotherOD
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AnotherOD said:

 

"4-3"/"3-4" likely makes for a good topic for off-season discussion.

I'd still be surprised to see a base "4-3" and I'm not sure exactly how it appears to be a better fit for returning defensive personal? Popo should be able to step into the nose backed up by Jayson Jones. The following several seasons Jones is about as nose tackle as you are gonna find. 

I'm not sure about turning Funa in an every down DE either. KT-Popo-Williams-Funa would be a pretty smallish "4-3" front. The OLBs on both sides of the DeRutyer "3-4" are considered to be a rush LBs anyway, one side especially so, often manned by a converted DE. You could put ISM at the more traditional OLB spot and then pair Sewell and Flowe inside. If you end up on obvious passing downs (or whenever desired) you can sub in a nickle and walk Funa up in a "4-2-5". With Pickett gone, instead of replacing him, Hill could move into the other S position.

Isn't the greater preference in today's college football towards "3-4s" and variations with a (full time) base nickle defense about getting more guys who can play in space on the field against different types of spread offenses? Returning to a base "4-3" seems to be counter to that approach?

 

One thing for sure (Total PLAYS last 5 games):

UO 64  UCLA 82

UO 66  OSU 82

UO 60  Cal 79

UO 60  USC 80

UO 46  Iowa State 85

 

(Drives of 10+ plays and result)

OPPONENT'S 10+ play drives (17)

19 plays (td) - Cal

16 plays (td) - OSU

15 plays (td) - Iowa State

14 plays (td) - Iowa State

13 plays (td) - UCLA

13 plays (td) - Cal

13 plays (downs) - OSU

13 plays (fg) - Iowa St.

12 plays (td) - USC

12 plays (fg) - USC

12 plays (td) - USC

12 plays (td) - UCLA

11 plays (fg) - OSU

10 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (fg) - OSU

10 plays (td) - UCLA

10 plays (fumble) - Iowa State

 

OREGON'S 10+ play drives (6)

14 plays (td) - USC

13 plays (fg) - UCLA

11 plays (fg) - USC

11 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (td) - OSU

10 plays (fg) - Cal

 

something a little more aggressive will be welcomed.

"Bend but don't break" still needed to get off the field at some point - and didn't do so very well in 2020. The big total play discrepancy and long drives allowed these last 5 games are trends that needs to go away in 2021.

Numbers don't lie. 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coach just dropped his article and I hadn't even thought of a pass rush heavy "2-4-5" with something like a K.Williams-Dorlus front, Funa and KT as walked up OLBs, ISM (or Flowe) and Sewell inside LBs, and whichever 5 DBs. That's putting together a lot of 4 (or 5) player pass rushing ability on the field together while still allowing for 7 (or 6) player coverages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the thinking on why Deruyter wasn't calling  plays for Cal this year?  Kayvon has said many times he likes having  his hand  in the dirt, do  you see that changing  this under Deruyter?  Would you think our new  DC is on the  level of Avalos or more a Leavitt that doesn't  choke his players or have massive stock in Pepsi? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...
Top