The Official Drop the 3-3-5 Thread.

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:06 pm

OSUCat wrote:Its strange how almost bipolar this defense can be.

that extra DB helps when you play a team like Oregon.

Jeff Casteel has had real success as a DC - and has had nationally ranked D's in the past. We can play against Oregon.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:06 pm

UAdevil wrote:
Chicat wrote:Maybe they play best against the spread?
This sure is what it looks like to me.

Go against it every day in practice, and it's not like anyone is wearing us down. They come up the biggest late in games.

Reydituto · Post by **Reydituto** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:59 pm

azcat49 wrote:I have a feeling this thread will heat up by the end of Thursday evening

Little bit nippy in here actually ...

Or maybe just nipply ...

OSUCat wrote:No one here thinks that the 3-3-5 will be dumped this year. Heck, I do not think it will ever change with RR here and Casteel not retiring. I'm still goin to complain when it sucks. Unless you are suggesting that since the coach will never change the defense formation so we shouldn't complain, than I raise you a

Some here, and a few on other boards, think it should be dumped this year actually. ASAP. Complain all you want about the performances when they are poor. Blame the scheme instead of the lack of personnel if you really believe that (I still think it's a lack of personnel, and will argue that until it changes one way or the other, but at least that's a somewhat rational debate). I am suggesting however that calling for the scheme to get axed, when there is no real possibility it ever will while RR is coach, is tilting at windmills. Complete waste of time and bandwidth. Also, crapping all over those who point this fact out, is obnoxious.

Again, I'm not defending poor execution.

RazorsEdgeAZ wrote:I'm in the "how do we know yet" mode about whether the 3-3-5 will be good enough or "successful" in the Pac12. I still believe with quality recruits the 3-3-5 can work well in the Pac12 and spread. Even Mike Stoops has implemented 3-3-5 schemes at OU. Especially targeting "tweener" LBs and adding quickness (blitzes) on the field. Maybe doesn't say much...

I am surprised how the Arizona defense performed (or not) against Cal. Just from a progression standpoint. Looking at the depth chart/result, many contributors still are pre-Casteel / Rich Rod recruits. Recuiting issue? Don't know. "Only" in year three. Less than that from full recruiting classes.

If you look back at Casteel and the 3-3-5 at WV, common fan frustration theme was the "bend but don't break" defense. But I read that with other defenses as well. 3-3-5 at WV from 2001-2011 really "successful" from a total and scoring defense ranking(s).

I know one can't fully compare defensive performance across different leagues, but someplace to start. At least for me starting some point to build expectations of what to expect from 3-3-5 compared to what Arizona defenses have accomplished since 2001. Some of this for me is the "good enough" because of Rich Rod offensive fire power.

Casteel's 3-3-5 2001-2011 ranked better than Arizona in both Total & Scoring Defense in all years except:
2006 Total and Scoring defense
2008 Total Defense (WV scoring Def higher ranked)
2009 Total Defense ((WV scoring Def higher ranked)
***Note: WV had better/lower Yards Per PLAY avg in all above years. Just played more plays (spread Off)

I know it's hard to compare, BUT Looking at Arizona's (2013) 5.26 yards per play defense and 24.2 points per game last year, those stats are better than most Arizona defenses 2001-2011. I would guess most AZ fans don't think Casteel and Rich Rod have the depth, recruits or build they anticipate on defense yet.

I just don't know yet. Stats tell me it's possible the 3-3-5 can still improve, be improved on and maybe produce comparable, sometimes better results than what we're used to. Pace of play has really changed college game.

Good post. Some things I could quibble with, but the only point I will make in response is that this scheme is employed with the pace of play in mind. That's why I say UA still doesn't have all the personnel they need, they're still not deep enough to rotate enough players to give them that edge in the 4th, although tonight they could have fooled me.

Chicat wrote:Maybe they play best against the spread?

Precisely. Zone-read spread moreso than Air Raid-style spread, which is why Wazzu worries me more now than they did a month ago.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:48 am

Chicat wrote:Maybe they play best against the spread?

Doesn't the first team offense practice against the first team defense? I seem to recall one of the players saying: "goods against the goods" or something like that.

Oregon had 41 rushes against 31 passing attempts. You think the Ducks would have passed more being how porous the UA DBs are.

However, the Cats did have a decent 3 man rush which I have not seen before, and probably won't again.

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Sat Oct 04, 2014 1:07 pm

Anybody notice that ROLL TIDE is playing the 3-3-5 stack right now against Ole Miss!

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:08 am

Casteel named National DC of the week.

In the 31-24 win, Arizona limited Oregon to 4 of 14 third-down conversions. Only four other teams in the last four years have the Ducks converted less than 29% of third-down opportunities.

Oregon finished the game by averaging just 3.5 yards per rush. Only Stanford and LSU have been able to accomplish that mark against the Ducks in the last four years.

http://247sports.com/Article/Jeff-Caste ... k-31826710

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:22 am

dc4azcats wrote:Casteel named National DC of the week.

In the 31-24 win, Arizona limited Oregon to 4 of 14 third-down conversions. Only four other teams in the last four years have the Ducks converted less than 29% of third-down opportunities.

Oregon finished the game by averaging just 3.5 yards per rush. Only Stanford and LSU have been able to accomplish that mark against the Ducks in the last four years.

http://247sports.com/Article/Jeff-Caste ... k-31826710

Thats Impressive!

Catstatic · Post by **Catstatic** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:34 pm

No one knows the spread offense like RR. Logic suggests no one therefore knows how to defend it like RR. More and more teams are going to the spread offense. When these teams play Arizona, they will be facing a defense specifically designed and refined to stop the spread by the best in the business.

At times the 3-3-5 is infuriating and seemingly always confusing. However, what Casteel's defense has done against Oregon the last two years cannot be denied. Carry on with the 3-3-5!!

Go Cats!!

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:42 pm

Hey, the 3 man rush isn't working. IT ISN'T F**CKING WORKING.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Not built to go against physical offenses.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:49 pm

The textbook definition of the 3-3-5 is that you generally rush 4, with the 4th rusher being a blitzer from the other 8 positions. The idea being the offense doesn't know where the 4th rusher is coming from.

But the Arizona 3-3-5 rushing 3 with no blitzers makes every decent QB look like Joe Montana.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:14 pm

Going into the 4th quarter has Arizona blitz once? I know that we rush three, and sometimes we have a VERY late blitz from the LB that is watching the RB , but nothing else.

Doesn't help that Scooby has disappeared for the USC game.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:21 am

Scooby disappeared? WTF are you talking about? 8 solo tackles. 4 assisted tackles. A sack. 3 tackles for loss. What the hell else do you want him to do?

Reydituto · Post by **Reydituto** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:14 am

I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

BearDown89 · Post by **BearDown89** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:17 am

Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and them little amount of pressure US did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agree. USC beasted the Cats in the trenches. Pretty straightforward really.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:41 am

It seems to me that what would wake up the 3-3-5 is linemen that demand a double team. Our guys last night were able to be handles one on one.

RazorsEdgeAZ · Post by **RazorsEdgeAZ** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:50 am

Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agreed. Arizona held USC to 424 total yards. Something ASUU or Ore. St couldn't do. Stanford held USC to less yards but lost.

Arizona allowed USC same avg per yard for rushes AND pass. Both at 6.1ypp. That hurt. Hurt as much maybe as Arizona ending up with only 77 yards rushing themselves (2.7y/p/p).

1st half USC averaged 9.2 yards per carry with those two long runs. 2nd half Arizona defense held USC to 4.8 yards per carry with USC rushing more than twice the carries as the 1st half.

Arizona held USC to slightly less yards in 2nd half than the 1st half (210 to 214) even though USC ran many more plays in 2nd half than 1st (43 to 26)

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:51 am

azgreg wrote:It seems to me that what would wake up the 3-3-5 is linemen that demand a double team. Our guys last night were able to be handles one on one.

I think you're right, and IMO the most valid criticism of the 335 is that it seems to be tough to recruit guys like that.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:11 am

RazorsEdgeAZ wrote:
Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agreed. Arizona held USC to 424 total yards. Something ASUU or Ore. St couldn't do. Stanford held USC to less yards but lost.

Arizona allowed USC same avg per yard for rushes AND pass. Both at 6.1ypp. That hurt. Hurt as much maybe as Arizona ending up with only 77 yards rushing themselves (2.7y/p/p).

1st half USC averaged 9.2 yards per carry with those two long runs. 2nd half Arizona defense held USC to 4.8 yards per carry with USC rushing more than twice the carries as the 1st half.

Arizona held USC to slightly less yards in 2nd half than the 1st half (210 to 214) even though USC ran many more plays in 2nd half than 1st (43 to 26)

This one thing I really like about this staff. They seam to make very good adjustments at half time. Either that or the second half is where our depth and conditioning takes over. maybe a little of both.

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:17 am

azgreg wrote:
RazorsEdgeAZ wrote:
Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agreed. Arizona held USC to 424 total yards. Something ASUU or Ore. St couldn't do. Stanford held USC to less yards but lost.

Arizona allowed USC same avg per yard for rushes AND pass. Both at 6.1ypp. That hurt. Hurt as much maybe as Arizona ending up with only 77 yards rushing themselves (2.7y/p/p).

1st half USC averaged 9.2 yards per carry with those two long runs. 2nd half Arizona defense held USC to 4.8 yards per carry with USC rushing more than twice the carries as the 1st half.

Arizona held USC to slightly less yards in 2nd half than the 1st half (210 to 214) even though USC ran many more plays in 2nd half than 1st (43 to 26)
This one thing I really like about this staff. They seam to make very good adjustments at half time. Either that or the second half is where our depth and conditioning takes over. maybe a little of both.

I think those are all true.

Reydituto · Post by **Reydituto** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

azgreg wrote:
RazorsEdgeAZ wrote:
Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agreed. Arizona held USC to 424 total yards. Something ASUU or Ore. St couldn't do. Stanford held USC to less yards but lost.

Arizona allowed USC same avg per yard for rushes AND pass. Both at 6.1ypp. That hurt. Hurt as much maybe as Arizona ending up with only 77 yards rushing themselves (2.7y/p/p).

1st half USC averaged 9.2 yards per carry with those two long runs. 2nd half Arizona defense held USC to 4.8 yards per carry with USC rushing more than twice the carries as the 1st half.

Arizona held USC to slightly less yards in 2nd half than the 1st half (210 to 214) even though USC ran many more plays in 2nd half than 1st (43 to 26)
This one thing I really like about this staff. They seam to make very good adjustments at half time. Either that or the second half is where our depth and conditioning takes over. maybe a little of both.

Yeah, I'd go with both, although if you had asked me after USC went up 21-6 after their first drive early in the 3rd, I might have had a different answer for you.

Also, great breakdown RazorsEdgeAZ. Really, aside from Stanford, and maybe Washington, there aren't many "great" or even "good" defenses in the Pac-12 this season. But (also aside from Stanford, who can't run the ball, and Colorado), the league is filled with "very good" to "great" offenses. I don't expect UA's defense to rank all that highly across the board on a national basis, but I have come to believe that they will perform well enough keep UA in most Pac-12 games, as they did last Saturday and really have all season.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:09 pm

azpenguin wrote:Scooby disappeared? WTF are you talking about? 8 solo tackles. 4 assisted tackles. A sack. 3 tackles for loss. What the hell else do you want him to do?

I had been drinking, and I think I posted it around halftime, or atleast that's when I really had the thought.

Although, I still stand that on the two long TD's him and two other wildcats got blocked by two USC linemen. Its easy to get TD's when that happen.

Scummy Dick Douglas · Post by **Scummy Dick Douglas** » Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:36 am

Reydituto wrote:
azgreg wrote:
RazorsEdgeAZ wrote:
Reydituto wrote:I think the defense actually played pretty well all things considered. We rushed 4 more than you guys realized, USC's OL was just that good.

Scooby played well, and the little amount of pressure UA did generate later in the game came from Scooby rushing the QB and beating his blocker 1 on 1.

The secondary had it's best game, and while USC ran the ball well, they didn't throw the ball all that effectively. USC was held to 28 points, only Stanford has held them to less so far. If you had told me that Buck Allen ran for 205 yards I would have said USC scored 50+. Defense was the least of UA's problems tonight, red zone offense and special teams lost this game.

Agreed. Arizona held USC to 424 total yards. Something ASUU or Ore. St couldn't do. Stanford held USC to less yards but lost.

Arizona allowed USC same avg per yard for rushes AND pass. Both at 6.1ypp. That hurt. Hurt as much maybe as Arizona ending up with only 77 yards rushing themselves (2.7y/p/p).

1st half USC averaged 9.2 yards per carry with those two long runs. 2nd half Arizona defense held USC to 4.8 yards per carry with USC rushing more than twice the carries as the 1st half.

Arizona held USC to slightly less yards in 2nd half than the 1st half (210 to 214) even though USC ran many more plays in 2nd half than 1st (43 to 26)
This one thing I really like about this staff. They seam to make very good adjustments at half time. Either that or the second half is where our depth and conditioning takes over. maybe a little of both.
Yeah, I'd go with both, although if you had asked me after USC went up 21-6 after their first drive early in the 3rd, I might have had a different answer for you.

Also, great breakdown RazorsEdgeAZ. Really, aside from Stanford, and maybe Washington, there aren't many "great" or even "good" defenses in the Pac-12 this season. But (also aside from Stanford, who can't run the ball, and Colorado), the league is filled with "very good" to "great" offenses. I don't expect UA's defense to rank all that highly across the board on a national basis, but I have come to believe that they will perform well enough keep UA in most Pac-12 games, as they did last Saturday and really have all season.

I would put USC's defense in the same convo with UW and Stanford. USC is a very good defense, and with decent coaching and even a modicum of depth, they would be a great defense. Of all the defenses in the PAC, no defense is littered with more NFL talent than SC. I just hope they keep that coaching staff comprised of recruiting coordinators around as long as possible, because they will never utilize that talent level to it's full potential.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:36 pm

Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?

RockyRaccoon · Post by **RockyRaccoon** » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:46 pm

OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?

We were pretty much running dime the entire night because of Wazzu wanting to throw the ball 95% of the time. UCLA runs the ball too much and too well to get away with that again.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:24 am

OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?

Have to believe it was a one game trick intended for WSU only.

I loved what we did..............it was very "Un-Casteel" like. I could be wrong but I don't believe we rushed only 3 at any time in the game. I would love to see more 4 man fronts with pressure but I'm not expecting it.

Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

azthrillhouse · Post by **azthrillhouse** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:31 am

dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:05 am

dmjcat wrote:
OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?
Have to believe it was a one game trick intended for WSU only.

I loved what we did..............it was very "Un-Casteel" like. I could be wrong but I don't believe we rushed only 3 at any time in the game. I would love to see more 4 man fronts with pressure but I'm not expecting it.

Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

So you are more of a 4-1-6 guy?

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:16 am

It was a nice wrinkle that UCLA will have to look at and be ready for. I doubt we stay in it though, but it might be our 3rd down defense. I hope Denson stays as a CB. He has good speed and reaction to be a difference maker at the position. I think McCall and Denson CB's will be a great combination of the future (if they keep growing).

Scooby is a beast in that outside pass rush position.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:16 am

UAEebs86 wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?
Have to believe it was a one game trick intended for WSU only.

I loved what we did..............it was very "Un-Casteel" like. I could be wrong but I don't believe we rushed only 3 at any time in the game. I would love to see more 4 man fronts with pressure but I'm not expecting it.

Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

So you are more of a 4-1-6 guy?

Don't know about 4-1-6 but I'll take a 4 man front with more pressure at the line of scrimmage (and on the QB) vs. what we do now any day of the week. Hate to say it but the used-car-salesman up north operates a very effective defense (as he has proven twice against us already).

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:21 am

dmjcat wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?
Have to believe it was a one game trick intended for WSU only.

I loved what we did..............it was very "Un-Casteel" like. I could be wrong but I don't believe we rushed only 3 at any time in the game. I would love to see more 4 man fronts with pressure but I'm not expecting it.

Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

So you are more of a 4-1-6 guy?
Don't know about 4-1-6 but I'll take a 4 man front with more pressure at the line of scrimmage (and on the QB) vs. what we do now any day of the week. Hate to say it but the used-car-salesman up north operates a very effective defense (as he has proven twice against us already).

ASU didn't win the game in 2012 because of their defense. They gave up 522 yards, and that's with Ka'Deem getting hurt in the first half. That injury and Matt Scott's
stupid ass swan hop is why Arizona lost that game.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:23 am

azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?

In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:26 am

UAEebs86 wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
OSUCat wrote:Do we keep this altered defense formation that we saw against WSU, or will we revert back to the 3-3-5 for UCLA?
Have to believe it was a one game trick intended for WSU only.

I loved what we did..............it was very "Un-Casteel" like. I could be wrong but I don't believe we rushed only 3 at any time in the game. I would love to see more 4 man fronts with pressure but I'm not expecting it.

Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.

So you are more of a 4-1-6 guy?
Don't know about 4-1-6 but I'll take a 4 man front with more pressure at the line of scrimmage (and on the QB) vs. what we do now any day of the week. Hate to say it but the used-car-salesman up north operates a very effective defense (as he has proven twice against us already).

ASU didn't win the game in 2012 because of their defense. They gave up 522 yards, and that's with Ka'Deem getting hurt in the first half. That injury and Matt Scott's
stupid ass swan hop is why Arizona lost that game.

Yep, and the asu defense took advantage of the "Swan Hop" didn't they??

Anyone denying that Cracker hasn't put an effective defense on the field in the past 3 years is living in serious denial. The fact that they are doing as well as they are this year with 9 starters to replace is a testament to that.

jimson · Post by **jimson** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:46 am

dmjcat wrote:
azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?
In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.

Yeah Yeah and last years win didn't count either because Oregon didn't care enough.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:55 am

dmjcat wrote:
azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?
In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.

My goodness DMJ, you are the board pessimist. First it was we will not be favored in any renaing games on our schedule to we will be lucky to win 7. Then the we cant beat Wazzu or Utah on the road. Give it a rest and root for the cats. You will enjoy it I promise.

Oh and BTW, injuries are part of football. I would love to see you tell RR that his win at Oregon has an asterisk next to it. Just laughable

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:05 am

azcat49 wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?
In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.

My goodness DMJ, you are the board pessimist. First it was we will not be favored in any renaing games on our schedule to we will be lucky to win 7. Then the we cant beat Wazzu or Utah on the road. Give it a rest and root for the cats. You will enjoy it I promise.

Oh and BTW, injuries are part of football. I would love to see you tell RR that his win at Oregon has an asterisk next to it. Just laughable

Good Grief, I enjoyed yesterdays win immensely. Watching us operate with a 4 man front and actually pressure the QB was a 3 hour joy-fest. But to get an inflated head and think that our defense "shut down" Oregon and not realize that their OL wasn't operating with a full deck is just silly. I'm a realist, Not a pessimist.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:09 am

jimson wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?
In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.
Yeah Yeah and last years win didn't count either because Oregon didn't care enough.

So you are crediting AZ's win over Oregon last year to our defense??? Well, if you think that the 3-3-5 caused Kadeem to have the game of his life, and resulted in Denker looking like Steve Young for 1 game, or caused the Oregon receivers to drop about a bazillion wide open passes (most of them for what would have been hefty gains), then have at it. Whatever floats your boat.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:12 am

Did I miss the game were Arizona played Oregon without their Heisman candidate, starting running backs, wr's, TE's, defense, and special teams? Sorry, if I did. Anyone have it on replay?

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:17 am

dmjcat wrote: So you are crediting AZ's win over Oregon last year to our defense??? r caused the Oregon receivers to drop about a bazillion wide open passes (most of them for what would have been hefty gains), then have at it. Whatever floats your boat.

You mean that keeping Oregon to 9 points in the first 3 quarters has nothing to do with the defense? How much bazillion wide open passes did they really drop and are they all tds?

A realistic wouldn't say a bazillion. A realistic maybe point to other games, but would say that this defense seems to hold Oregon type of offenses to their lows and gives them credit when its due. A realistic would give the win against Oregon to the defense, the offense, and special teams because it was a complete game, drops or not.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:19 am

No doubt we don't have a shut down defense but RR just want a few stops and more possesions offensively. Its the Wooden theory, get more opportunities and you should win.

I too enjoyed the new wrinkle. Scooby and Turituri make for strong rush ends. Probably can't do that as a base defense at UCLA but in my mind I think we win out. Not because I am just an optimist but because this staff is nails and Solomon gives us a chance every game.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:20 am

I hope we can keep UCLA rushing down. It's probably the thing I am worried about the most.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:23 am

OSUCat wrote:Did I miss the game were Arizona played Oregon without their Heisman candidate, starting running backs, wr's, TE's, defense, and special teams? Sorry, if I did. Anyone have it on replay?

So by your logic if the UA were to lose Baucus, Ebbeles, Gurrola, and Bundage for this Saturdays UCLA game it would have no effect on how Solomon/Wilson/WR's play????? Riiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttt!

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:38 am

dmjcat wrote:
jimson wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
azthrillhouse wrote:
dmjcat wrote: Funny, our best defensive effort of the year came when we dumped the 3-3-5.
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?
In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.
Yeah Yeah and last years win didn't count either because Oregon didn't care enough.
So you are crediting AZ's win over Oregon last year to our defense??? Well, if you think that the 3-3-5 caused Kadeem to have the game of his life, and resulted in Denker looking like Steve Young for 1 game, or caused the Oregon receivers to drop about a bazillion wide open passes (most of them for what would have been hefty gains), then have at it. Whatever floats your boat.

Didn't you just credit ASU's increibly effective defense with stopping Scott's swan-hop-dive-thing? Can't have it both ways, dmj.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:44 am

[
Holding the Ducks to 24 in Autzen didn't do anything for you, huh?[/quote]

In case you missed it we beat Oregon with 4 of their starting offensive lineman out. Yes, we held them to 24 but thats with a very big asterisk next to the win. Question: Do you think we would have held them to 24 if they had all 5 of their OL starters healthy??? Need to keep the discussion real.[/quote]
Yeah Yeah and last years win didn't count either because Oregon didn't care enough.[/quote]

So you are crediting AZ's win over Oregon last year to our defense??? Well, if you think that the 3-3-5 caused Kadeem to have the game of his life, and resulted in Denker looking like Steve Young for 1 game, or caused the Oregon receivers to drop about a bazillion wide open passes (most of them for what would have been hefty gains), then have at it. Whatever floats your boat.[/quote]

Didn't you just credit ASU's increibly effective defense with stopping Scott's swan-hop-dive-thing? Can't have it both ways, dmj.[/quote]

Huh?????? Better read the post again......I said (repeatedly for those with reading comprehension issues) that Cracker has put up an effective defense. They guy I was replying to stated that asu's defense was no good and then referenced the swan dive..........he's the fellow having it both ways!

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:08 am

dmjcat=

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:10 am

dmjcat wrote:
Huh?????? Better read the post again......I said (repeatedly for those with reading comprehension issues) that Cracker has put up an effective defense. They guy I was replying to stated that asu's defense was no good and then referenced the swan dive..........he's the fellow having it both ways!

I didn't say ASU's defense was "no good". I said they didn't win one particular game because of their defense, which you said they
did: "the used-car-salesman up north operates a very effective defense (as he has proven twice against us already)."

Talk about reading comprehension. And please preview your posts and learn how to use the quote function.

Got your New Mexico Bowl tickets yet?

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:16 am

Puerco wrote:
Didn't you just credit ASU's increibly effective defense with stopping Scott's swan-hop-dive-thing? Can't have it both ways, dmj.

He blames Oregon's O-line being banged up for Arizona's victory this year, but doesn't acknowledge Ka'Deem's injury in the 2012 ASU game as
a reason for ASU's victory.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:22 am

dmjcat wrote:
Huh?????? Better read the post again......I said (repeatedly for those with reading comprehension issues) that Cracker has put up an effective defense. They guy I was replying to stated that asu's defense was no good and then referenced the swan dive..........he's the fellow having it both ways!

You gave ASU's defense credit for stopping a bad play against us, and you refuse to give our defense credit for stopping someone else's bad play. You're inconsistent in your criticism of UA and your praise of ASU.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:42 am

dmjcat wrote:
So by your logic if the UA were to lose Baucus, Ebbeles, Gurrola, and Bundage for this Saturdays UCLA game it would have no effect on how Solomon/Wilson/WR's play????? Riiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttt!

Sorry buddy, I never stated that it had "no effect" on the game. I was showing that their are more parts of the game than one position, which you are not recognizing. Also, if Oregon was starting a RS QB at Arizona and a Freshman RB I would think it would be a game breaker, but it was at Oregon with a Heisman Candidate and 4/5 stars across the board. It was also three offensive lineman that they knew would be out, it is Oregon fault for not game planning correctly. Oregon could have one 5 wide and just short pass us to till death, but they didn't. Oh, I will stop. Is clear that pessimism runs deep in you. Not giving Arizona any credit for the win is not realistic.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:20 pm

OSUCat wrote:
dmjcat wrote:
So by your logic if the UA were to lose Baucus, Ebbeles, Gurrola, and Bundage for this Saturdays UCLA game it would have no effect on how Solomon/Wilson/WR's play????? Riiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttt!

Sorry buddy, I never stated that it had "no effect" on the game. I was showing that their are more parts of the game than one position, which you are not recognizing. Also, if Oregon was starting a RS QB at Arizona and a Freshman RB I would think it would be a game breaker, but it was at Oregon with a Heisman Candidate and 4/5 stars across the board. It was also three offensive lineman that they knew would be out, it is Oregon fault for not game planning correctly. Oregon could have one 5 wide and just short pass us to till death, but they didn't. Oh, I will stop. Is clear that pessimism runs deep in you. Not giving Arizona any credit for the win is not realistic.

"It was also three offensive lineman that they knew would be out, it is Oregon fault for not game planning correctly" So Oregon needs to plan better and not have the majority of their offensive line get hurt??? OMG,

Login • Register