“Worst case scenario, the D will have to play a high risk, high reward style, going for TOs to make up for giving up big plays or long drives. With the prospects for offensive improvement, that could still do very well.”

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn I read in a JF interview with Andy Buh (too lazy/busy to go look) that Cal will play more of a (my words) “bend but don’t break’ style of defense. What I recall he specifically said was, (and paraphrasing from memory- maybe I should have just gone back and re-read the interview article) that their philosophy would be to not give up big plays, to keep the action underneath, and make opposing offenses have to execute a lot of successful plays down the field to be able to score.

To me, that is the exact opposite of of a high risk, high reward defense that forces lots of turnovers. I remember being somewhat bummed/disappointed in the switch to the 4-3 and in what I interpreted as Buh’s seemingly passive philosophy on defense. I foresee our defense on the field for a LOT of plays and minutes. Especially with what will be, we hope, a fast-paced, high tempo, big play, high scoring offense. We score fast, or not, and are on and off the field quickly in either scenario, and our defense is out there for long stretches. Then when they get a 3 and out, our O is on and off again, and the D is right back out there. We better be 2 1/2 to 3 deep across the field on defense, will lots of talent and well conditioned guys on the defensive side.

And it’s not pre-snap, it’s post snap where the player drops out (if he drops pre-snap, it tells the QB it’s a zone).

I’ll readily admit, should Scarlett be physically ready to run-stop as a DE, there won’t be much of an issue with the starting DL. The problem is that a good DL requires depth and a lot of substitutions, or they can be worn down by a few drives.

Again, this SHOULD only be an issue for a year or two, and even then it’s a depth issue.

But my real question-fear-concern is that Dykes’ regime holds the same phylosophy for defense that they do for offense, which I don’t think works. Because a defense must react and prevent what the offense is trying to do, there is not much room for creatively utilizing talent.

The difference b/w the 3-4 and 4-3 is a blurry and changing thin line. With all the scheme variations, there is no stark contrast. If you’re worried about the 4-3, think about how many times we’ve had LB’s push up to the line and pretty much act as D-linemen. The defense is a more nebulous thing than the offense. Pushing a LB, which is part of many many many D formations/scenarios, ostensibly results in a 4-3.
So, now instead we will have instances where a DE drops into lurk mode 5 yards back, essentially becoming a LB and ta-da, 3-4. The only difference is the first couple seconds pre-snap.

So I think there is a general consensus that we have many more good linebackers than defensive lineman and perhaps also that the 3 – 4 is generally considered to be best to defend the spread formation, which seems to dominate offenses now (though I haven’t counted and people could disagree about the prevalence of that formation).

So when is Jeff going to raise these points to Buh again, to Dykes, or to Buh and Dykes together? Not to say he has to, but it would seem to be good reporting to follow up with someone on the Cal coaching staff on this issue, since it has been discussed so much on this board. Of course, the coaches have the right to coach however they want. That’s their job. I write on this board (and stock market boards) just for fun because I like to write.

Go Bears!

The switch happened with Clancy, and the reasons given were twofold, plus 1 worthy of noting. (1) easier recruiting (many more quality LBs than DEs – LBs tend to get more years of PT as well, though what went unsaid was the crucial impetus placed on getting elite NTs for the 3-4) and (2) more flexibility (allowing one to vary looks and coverages).

They also believed the 3-4 would work better against the spread (which the new regime suggests the 4-3 is better suited for). Now, if your 3-4 can’t stop a spread with a power run capability (like Oregon), you are screwed, but I tend to believe the 3-4 is better suited to compete with the spread.

Personally, however, I’d like to see a return to the 46 defense whenever the opposition only has 2 wideouts. We had our best Ds when the old Buddy Ryan pressure-up-the-middle system was used, great for creating turnovers. Downside – too many spread teams, and the advent of the intentional back shoulder throw makes it a HUGE gamble to play 1 on 1 against two WRs sets every time.

Damn you, offensive innovation! You ruined my favorite defense!

I really don’t follow Cal football in as much as I used to, and so I could be wrong, but with respect to your comment above, I think Cal switched from the 4 – 3 to the 3 – 4 a year or two ago under Clancy. Someone should correct me if I am wrong.