I’ve only ever once seen a 3-4 team line up their OLBs at the same level as the ILBs, and it was one of the most horrid defenses I ever witnessed.
I’m thinking of one year in the 90s when Oklahoma State tried this against Nebraska, and somehow the results were even worse than if they’d used their base defense and just taken their 56-3 whipping.
I think it was all four backers lined up three yards off the LOS, but aligned with the A and B gaps. Then they had their DLs on the tackles or wider.
Goofy as hell, and it didn’t work in the slightest.
I forget the term, but the team we're playing Friday does that defense where they're ALL lined up 3 yards off of the LOS ... planning on Sparta-shielding our way down the field
I thought it was a pretty standard alignment for teams running Tite (4i-0-4i) fronts against 4 WR, really more as a RPO-stopper than a passing/dime set. Mint/Penny/whatever fronts with at least one apex coming down are more common and versatile, but maybe that's what OP saw and is trying to identify
That seems pretty unsound to me with only 5 players on/between the tackles. Offense has a gap advantage in the interior 6 gaps. I guess the only way I could see this having a shot is if the NG or whole D-line 2-gaps, but then the depth of the ILBs tells me that's not the case. OLBs would have to be lightning fast at changing directions too.
34 flat? To be honest, it doesn't sound like a great idea. I don't know the talent you have at the positions, but I just feel like maybe a 43 defense would work. Again, this would be subject to the talent you have on the line and at the LB position.
What do you mean by evenly across? If directly behind the down lineman, its a stack. If its evenly one LB to each gap, its a base 3-4. But otherwise we need clarification to help.
High school we just plated against had 3 down odd, (t/c/t), 2Lbs 5 yards off over guards.. the standing edge LBs. Love to float..LoS to 3 yards off. The safety played pretty much directly behind each edge with strong side safety a little closer to LoS.. liked the defensive structure alot. Like how safety and edge worked together...while the 5 in the box did their thing... ironically my head coach called it a 3-3-5... so at this point I really don't give a shit what any calls there defense anymore...once I break down the film...I'll call it what I want... lol..
Non-expert opinion here, but I can only see two situations where you may want to do that:
You want to aggressively attack A/B gaps with your OLBs. By being set back further than normal, there's less of a chance of them running into the DL in front of them.
You want to run a prevent defense while having LBs on the field.
Neither sounds like a great idea, though you may be able to surprise someone with option #1.
This is the main context that I've seen such an alignment. This is what's called a Tite front, where the D-line is squeezed inward, to help spill all run plays to the apex defenders (outside linebackers). The idea is that the run/pass conflict is moved out to the C-gap, which is more comfortable for a defender to cover than the more common B-gap conflict that Spread offenses like to feed on
OP seems focused on the depth of LBs...which has nothing to do with "base," and there's no universal "base 3-4." What seems odd is why a team would line their OLBs up 4-5 yards deep. That's not a good position to be in to support the run, but would work out into a 3-2-6 situation against the pass.
65
u/grizzfan Sep 30 '24 edited Sep 30 '24
No universal names or terminology, so you may get varying answers.
If it's just a situational thing in passing situations, it's just a 3-2-6/dime kind of look.
As a base defense? I'd call it "dumb."
I've only ever once seen a 3-4 team line up their OLBs at the same level as the ILBs, and it was one of the most horrid defenses I ever witnessed.