I have not read much hyping Melton as the starter, but there seems to be a good number of commenters who believe he will. What am I missing?

Muschamp has been quoted on various occasions saying that in instances where the other team fields 3 receivers the defense needs to adjust and use a nickelback. In the Big 12, that’s essentially every play except short-yardage and against OU or A&M (OU uses 2 TE sets and A&M is going to use some 21 personnel with Lane as FB).
Over at Barking Carnival Scipio Tex claims we are using a base nickel defense. I don’t know if he knows something extra but it seems reasonable from Muschamp’s quotes and the primary personnel groupings in the spring game that will be in the 4-2-5 on the majority of snaps.
Melton has gotten a lot of buzz from his spring. He played pretty well last year as well, I remember him coming up right after a sack on Graham Harrell last year and slapping Harrell on the helmet while taunting him. Hopefully he cuts down on that sort of thing but he seems likely as a starter or guy who takes many snaps. He also has been used as a DE or DT in pass rush instances since 2006.

as the Big-12 moves more and more towards a spread offense, expect to see more nickel formations and/or faster linebackers.

I don’t think the 4-3 will be a very viable defense in the Big 12 on many downs. Particularly when our linebackers, though fast and talented, are not particularly great in pass coverage.
Our scheme the last two years (Cover-4) put our linebackers in terrible positions to make plays, as well as our secondary. We had Michael Griffin, Tarrel Brown (albeit injured) and Aaron Ross in 2006 and teams still threw all over us. It makes a big difference when you don’t line up in formations that are easy to exploit.
It may be that we had injured players in the spring game but Muschamp’s quotes and the reality of the predominance of the spread in the big 12 makes me believe that the 4-3 will not be the primary scheme.
You can have great players in the 4-3 and be very sound technically and still get burned by mismatches. Even the Indianopolis Colts, who run tons of base cover-2 used a nickel-base when they played the Pats last year.

everyone should just stop using nt altogether. it is confusing and detracts from the post.

The problem with using Palmer as the nickel back on an every down basis is that it leaves us susceptible to the run. When you use a safety-type player as the nickelback you become better against the pass than with a linebacker but better against the run than with a 3rd corner. Using a Rover-type in the 4-2-5 can allow you to bring 8 in the box and have 2 of them be safeties. It just allows more flexibility.
Chizk brought in the cover-4 as our base coverage after the championship year as a response to our weakness against the run. It proved to be fairly effective at shutting down the run (except the option) and left us super-vulnerable to short passes and deep shots from play-action. In our Cover-4 our safeties would look to help against the run, leaving us vulnerable to play-action and trick-plays. Our linebackers were given large areas in the flats to cover which they were totally incapable of defending. We were better against the tricks and play-action in 07 but still super-susceptible to short passes. Teams could dink-and-dunk the ball down the field and collected big YAC totals as their athletes ran circles around Derry and Killebrew. Our DE’s were frequently near the top of the tackles totals as they played containment all the time to cover for our LBs and were thus unable to rush the quarterback. When we did rush the QB he had easy passes to make against our soft coverage. The only thing that the Cover-4 “prevent” defense prevented was punts.
What I’ve heard from Muschamp says we’re going to run more man-defense and some pattern-matching (matchup-zone). Using a 4-2-5 usually lends itself to Cover-1 also.
Mack said they wanted Muschamp because he knew how to disguise coverages so we’ll probably use some of everything.

Chizk brought in the cover-4 as our base coverage after the championship year as a response to our weakness against the run.

I don’t think you go to a Cover 4/quarters scheme to shut down the run. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you lose Huff to the draft after the ‘05 season? The Cover 4 scheme seems more predicated on stopping the deep passing game, keeping the defense from giving up the big play. This would make sense if you are trying to break in some inexperienced defensive backs.

It proved to be fairly effective at shutting down the run (except the option) and left us super-vulnerable to short passes and deep shots from play-action. In our Cover-4 our safeties would look to help against the run, leaving us vulnerable to play-action and trick-plays.

In Cover 4, you’re okay with giving up short passes; you just don’t want to give up the big play. Biting on play-action isn’t a result of scheme, it is a result of defensive players not being disciplined, and opponents taking advantage of their over-aggressive nature. You weren’t vulnerable to play-action and trick plays b/c of a Cover 4 scheme, you were vulnerable b/c your defensive staff encouraged your players to attack. Well, attacking can come at a cost sometimes.

Not sure how accurate any of it is, but in relation to the depth chart thought I’d throw it out:

-Regarding DT, Randall reported in better shape than Humphrey and is ahead of him for playing time right now. Also, Ben Alexander has dropped 20+ pounds. Wilcoxin will be a contributor this year.

-Regarding safety – Scott is the one more often mentioned as being a S/LB hybrid. Wells and Thomas are better in coverage. Thomas appears to be ahead of both Wells and Scott. Don’t discount Gideon at the S/LB role as well.

Also, I understand the point of playing the most athletic LB’s, most upside, etc. But in the depth chart both starters are typical OLB’s. Am I way off in thinking you’d want at least one true MLB (Norton or Bobino) on the field at all times?

Is Roy Miller being down to 285 a good thing?

welcome, and well played on the la confidential reference.

IIRC, y’all had injuries to several of those players, which necessitated younger, less-experienced players playing. Didn’t Brown have to sit out a game b/c of an arrest?
Despite all that NFL talent, I recall your ‘06 pass defense being fairly pedestrian. The Ohio State game was a precursor of problems to come.

Looking at the ‘06 stats, you gave up 236 yds per game passing, which is pretty bad when you remember that the new clock rules basically cut 14 plays out of every game, and depressed offensive stats. (As a comparison, A&M was giving up 190.5 yds per game passing, and we didn’t have a good pass defense, as we showed against California.)

If you want to get to the theoretical level, and say that you averaged 7.5 yds given up per pass play in ‘06, and add in half of those 14 plays cut out by the clock rules, you would end up with a secondary giving up over 280 yds per game, which means there really is no difference between the secondary you fielded in ‘06 or ‘07, when it comes to stopping the pass.

Granted, that is a hypothetical stretch, but it shows that the problems in ‘07 were foreshadowed.

Wait, let me see if I understand this: Your attempt to use the safeties to stop the running game was ineffective b/c of poor linebacker play, but poor linebacker play was why you were using the safeties to stop the run. Huh?
I would think either the safeties can stop the run or they can’t, linebacker play wouldn’t have anything to do with it.

You can use a package to cover up flaws at LB, but dont expect to always get a great pass rush, this is very much a "read and react" type defense.

Good call on the middle linebacker, I’m not sure how we would adjust with that other than using Norton or Bobino. However, Muckleroy can technically play all 3 LB positions. Roy Miller being down to 285 is plenty good. He’s not getting plowed or moved easily by anyone at that weight and he can attack the backfield with more explosiveness. The days of 300+ Defensive tackles are gone.