I have to say that confuses me a bit. To me, the advantage of the 3-4 is in its ability to disguise things, especially blitzes and pressure. The trade off is having less size and numbers on the line of scrimmage in the run game.
Why run that in base downs only to change it up in obvious passing downs? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I think he is referencing the Seattle style base defense, surely with some modification. The positioning of the Leo resembles a 3-4. He plays wide and can either put his hand on the ground or rush from a standing position.
The DTs for the most part would not line up at 0. The "NT" would look more like a 1-tech or a 1i-tech.
You can call it a 4-3, but it resembles a 3-4 and uses similar principles. It would not be the traditional 3-4 in which you have a fire plug, 0-tech NT and bulky, run-stopping ILBs. You are concentrating on more disruptive inside players.
I think that is DQ's aim. But I could easily be wrong.