we will. If I recall correctly, they revert their ends in to a two technique (or sometimes head-up on the guard) and try and let their backers run. By and large, they just want the front three to tie up blockers. The second level does most of the heavy lifting. I think we will play with far more gap responsibility. Although I admit I don't know a whole lot about Diaco's defense.

Navy - 3.93 yds/rush def
Air Force - 3.75 yds/rush def
Army - 3.88 yds/rush def

ND - 4.75 yds/rush def

It's remarkable because, as you said, they don't get large at LB, and it's sort of the 3-4 formula to build up the MLBs so they can manage with lack of DL protection from the OL.

I don't like our condition relative to the other 3-4 teams at all. If those teams are moving to a 3-4 due to numbers on the DL, they're still probably looking a lot better than ND's numbers. Even if ND were just 1 man down per recruiting year relative to these other teams, that could be good for 3-4 DE/DT types on the roster today.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

But as far as the Service Academies go, they don't get too big. However, they run well and exert good tackling fundamentals. Navy just graduated five linebackers that comprised three of the top five tacklers from 2009 and racked up more than 60 percent of the teams tackles, sacks and tackles for a loss.

but not much.

We're short by about 1.9 men in the 6, 5, and 4 year annual recruiting hauls. So that's anywhere between, say, 7 and 10 front-7 men short compared to other 3-4 teams.

Also of note: All the military academies are running the 3-4. How big do their MLBs get?

Here's the whole sheet.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0ArsQZZeqBv5adEctanhzSWR5VlZMZlNrSVEwVTA2LUE&am...

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

In yards/rush defended.

Alabama, BYU, Cal, and Texas Tech.

Overall 2009 rushing def rankings:

Alabama: 10
BYU: 21
Cal: 23
TT: 38

Front 7 Recruiting Hauls
            2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  6YrsAvg 5YrsAvg  4YrsAvg
Alabama      10    4  10    9     9    6 8.00 7.6 8.5   
BYU          6    7  4     8     3    12 6.67 6.8 6.75
Cal          10    4  10    6     6    6 7.00 6.4 7
TT           5    12  7     5     9    12 8.33 9 8.25

ND           5    4  4     8     5    5 5.17 5.2 5.5

                                Top Teams Avg   7.50 7.45 7.63                                         
                                         Diff   2.33 2.25 2.13

ND's running a big deficit to these teams. In the avg. 6, 5, and 4 year hauls, ND's run at least a 2.13 man deficit in comparison. Not sure what it means. Statistically, I can't really argue here that it proves anything, but my hunch that you can't hid a numbers deficit with the 3-4 feels emboldened.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.

I figured it might be interesting to start looking at those 14 teams that have adopted the 3-4 as their base, and look at their recruiting just as I did with the T25 in rush defense and yds/rush defense. I'll try to put together the sheet between calls today.

Anything anyone think would be an interesting break down? I figure it'll be beneficial to look at position breakdowns this go around.

--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.