3-3-5 vs. 4-3 results tonight

TheGreatCatsby · Post by **TheGreatCatsby** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:13 pm

While we played the 3-3-5 tonight the first 25 minutes we couldn't stop the run and gave up long drives and bunches of yardage...then we switched it up to a 4-3 scheme (initially just bringing up a safety on the edge but later on using a lineman or lb), and we didn't give up anything. Tons of 3 and outs. No points except for the cheapie field goal to end the half and that was set up by a fumble. Then in the 4th quarter we switched back into the 3-3-5 and Nevada had their other long td scoring drive.

Seems to me when we play the 4-3 we just look so much better. We can set the edge on the run, and everyone seems to be in better position to make a play. The 3-3-5 just strains our already depleted linebacking core WAY too much. Maybe if we had like 3 Scoobys, the 3-3-5 would work. But we don't even have one Scooby right now. The 3-3-5 is pretty much worthless between the 20s, but it is slightly better inside the red zone because the 5 dbs can help out quicker on runs due to compressed space. But why keep running a crappy 3-3-5 scheme when your current personnel is much better suited to the 4-3? Hope we start seeing a lot more of the 4-3 going forward, and we might actually have a chance to beat UCLA.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:15 pm

I really think we will play what I would call a 4-2-5 with our LB issues. It was effective tonight.

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:12 pm

UNR passed for 159 yds and rushed for 168 yds against our beat up defense.

I'll take it. Jeff Casteel is a hell of a defensive coach - and has been for a long time. I'm happy with the win tonight. The D plugged holes and got it done by improvising and good coaching.

The 3-3-5 is what RR wants to run and Casteel is his coach. Quite honestly, I trust them more than some internet guy I don't know.

TheGreatCatsby · Post by **TheGreatCatsby** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:15 pm

wyo-cat wrote:UNR passed for 159 yds and rushed for 168 yds against our beat up defense.

I'll take it. Jeff Casteel is a hell of a defensive coach - and has been for a long time. I'm happy with the win tonight. The D plugged holes and got it done by improvising and good coaching.

The 3-3-5 is what RR wants to run and Casteel is his coach. Quite honestly, I trust them more than some internet guy I don't know.

But RR and Casteel ran a 4-3 most of the night. So I trust them to keep up with it

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:06 pm

Casteel may love the 3-3-5 but he is a genius at half time adjustment.

eoe · Post by **eoe** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:06 pm

3-3-5 is garbage and will continue to be so.

Recruit some damn DLIneman and stop running undersized speedsters out all over the field.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:09 pm

eoe wrote:3-3-5 is garbage and will continue to be so.

Recruit some damn DLIneman and stop running undersized speedsters out all over the field.

http://arizona.247sports.com/Season/201 ... ll/Commits

5 d linemen there

eoe · Post by **eoe** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:17 pm

Recruit 20 for all I care. Means little when you are only trotting 3 out there. Means even less when most are marginal Pac-12 rotation guys. Let's hope we can keep Allen on board, apparently received a Bama offer.

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:26 pm

TheGreatCatsby wrote:
wyo-cat wrote:UNR passed for 159 yds and rushed for 168 yds against our beat up defense.

I'll take it. Jeff Casteel is a hell of a defensive coach - and has been for a long time. I'm happy with the win tonight. The D plugged holes and got it done by improvising and good coaching.

The 3-3-5 is what RR wants to run and Casteel is his coach. Quite honestly, I trust them more than some internet guy I don't know.
But RR and Casteel ran a 4-3 most of the night. So I trust them to keep up with it

I didn't chart the game, but we ran a true 4 man front one or two plays tonight.

You need to understand the only team that ran a 4-3 tonight gave up 44 points and almost 600 yds on defense - that was Nevada.

A 4-3 is a defense with 4 down linemen, which means HAND on the ground. That's what a down lineman is. Jeff Casteel runs many different personnel on the line of scrimmage, but only 3 down linemen. He will present a 4 or 5 man front (on the line) but with only 3 down linemen. That presents a bigger challenge to the other team. Blocking a more athletic player at the line of scrimmage that is not a down lineman is a challenge.

I hate to go there, but we as a posting community could use a bit of education on what Casteel is doing.

TheGreatCatsby · Post by **TheGreatCatsby** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:54 pm

Our 4th guy, what I'm calling our 4-3 package tonight, was right on the line next to the other defensive lineman, and we normally placed him on the right side of the line where Nevada kept running. Good adjustment by Casteel. Sure, his hand wasn't down, so if you don't want to call it a true 4-3 fine, but we had a 4th defender positioned right there on line next to the defensive lineman to hold the edge. Couldn't care less if his hand was down or not, it doesn't matter, because the result was the same as whether his hand was on the ground or not-on any running play Nevada tried to run outside the tackles once we switched to that scheme, it forced the running back to go back up into the middle where our linebackers and defensive lineman were, and they never gained anything significant on the ground with that alignment.

The absolute weakest point of the 3-3-5 is on running plays outside the tackles. The 3 d-lineman are immediately consumed by the offensive line, which requires a linebacker to cut through the dither and blockers coming at them, pick a perfect line to pursue the running back, and make a tackle. It's a great scheme when you have a linebacker as talented as Scooby, because he has an amazing ability to shed blockers, knife through the bodies and pick a perfect line on the running back, causing a tackle for a loss. But when your linebackers are just average, or otherwise are being blocked by lineman, or tight ends, or a fullback, or navigating around other co-defensive players, or don't happen to pick the absolute perfect line to the running back, you get absolutely KILLED on the run.

Hey, if we draft 3 Scoobys every year I'm all for the 3-3-5, because the scheme absolutely requires stellar linebacker play. But that's asking a lot out of your linebackers. And was happy tonight to see the adjustment, and hope Casteel remains flexible as games progress because we're thin at linebacker right now, but at his disposal he does have quite a few playmaking defensive backs who can help out on the line. When Tellas Jones was first called up in the second quarter to set the edge, he did a hell of a job.

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:06 pm

Look - had we shat a brick tonight like the Scum, that would be a different story, but we won on the road with Casteel's 3-3-5. Enjoy the win.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:11 am

Uh, perhaps the fact that Nevada was playing a 2-TE set most of the first half (at least) had something to do with our different look on defense...?

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:12 pm

The 3-3-5 is a glorified Nickel and best used as anything but a base defense. But that is pure what I've said for awhile now.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:40 am

Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:35 am

Puerco wrote:Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

Today's base set? How many college teams run the 3-3-5 as a BASE set?

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:41 pm

chiefzona wrote:
Puerco wrote:Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

Today's base set? How many college teams run the 3-3-5 as a BASE set?

All I know is we keep winning. Let me know when style points are being awarded and maybe I will give 2 sh!ts about how we win.

I know it bugs the crap out of Chief that we keep winning in spite of his views and how bad our D is (allegedly). 28-14 is RR's record since he's been here. Pretty incredible when you think about what he took over.

splitsecond · Post by **splitsecond** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:33 pm

chiefzona wrote:The 3-3-5 is a glorified Nickel and best used as anything but a base defense. But that is pure what I've said for awhile now.

Is it truly our base though? We run more of a 4-2-5 based on the positioning of players on the majority of downs. Yes, it is said 3-3-5 is our base, but again a good comparison is the Cardinals who claim a "base" 3-4 defense, and run far more hybrid 4-2-5 and 4-3 looks than true 3-4 looks.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:31 pm

splitsecond wrote:
chiefzona wrote:The 3-3-5 is a glorified Nickel and best used as anything but a base defense. But that is pure what I've said for awhile now.
Is it truly our base though? We run more of a 4-2-5 based on the positioning of players on the majority of downs. Yes, it is said 3-3-5 is our base, but again a good comparison is the Cardinals who claim a "base" 3-4 defense, and run far more hybrid 4-2-5 and 4-3 looks than true 3-4 looks.

Yes, the 3-3-5 Odd Stack is Arizona's base defense. 3 DL, 3 LB and 5 DBs. Of the 5 DBs, 3 safeties and 2 corners. When you see a 4-3 you know exactly what it is because 4 DL are on the field with 3 LBs behind them and some schools then bring out the Nickel from there or a 4-2-5. Arizona runs a 3-3-5 base despite the positioning that you see. The 4th standing up on the line can be a multitude of different players such as the Bandit, Spur, Will or Sam. They are not D linemen. It's just either stunting a blitz off the edge or actually blitzing. That 4th LB that you see is a Spur or Bandit which are safety positions. You always see 3 DL and 3 LBs because that's the base. They have a lot of different looks though.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:08 am

chiefzona wrote:
Puerco wrote:Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

Today's base set? How many college teams run the 3-3-5 as a BASE set?

Give it time. Probably should have said '... becomes today's base set.'

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:56 pm

Puerco wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
Puerco wrote:Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

Today's base set? How many college teams run the 3-3-5 as a BASE set?
Give it time. Probably should have said '... becomes today's base set.'

Oh, it seems to be all the rage. DCs at every college are clamoring to make it their base defense.

ANGCatFan · Post by **ANGCatFan** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:14 pm

Off topic from the OP, but here is a good article on how to stop the zone read from SB Nation.

Rich Rodriguez started ripping teams with this scheme and it really took off when Vince Young's Longhorns made it the foundation of their offense in 2004 and 2005 seasons that ended with back to back Rose Bowl victories, the latter of which brought Texas a national championship.

So naturally, defenses responded and now have multiple techniques for defending the play which are dulling the impact of the scheme around the college football world. This is why you hear Urban Meyer noting, "we aren't really a spread-option team anymore," because things are evolving.

The days of offenses using the zone read as a quick and easy way to use the QB as a runner to punish defenses for aggressively attacking zone runs are gone. Teams that hope to rely on the play as an every week strategy now need to have multiple ways to run and protect the play because defenses have caught up.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:30 pm

Remember when the Run and Shoot was popular? Defensive coordinators adjusted. Detroit Lions drafted that UH QB Heisman Trophy winner Andre Ware in the first round, but he never made an impact in the league. Typical Detroit Lions pick though, even before Matt Millen.

Same with the Desert Swarm Double Eagle Flex Defense. Offensive coordinators adjusted.

FightWildcatsFight · Post by **FightWildcatsFight** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:50 pm

The zone read is as alive as ever, but now in the form of run-pass-options and some more advanced running concepts. It is one of those strategies that will always be at least somewhat relevant because there aren't many other ways to effectively remove a defender from the play AND pick up an extra play-side blocker.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:41 am

The zone read is now one component of RichRod's offense. This is why it's almost impossible for a true freshman to beat out anyone with experience for the starting QB spot. His offense is very simple yet extremely complex and relies on the QB to make correct reads on give-keep-throw. Since he's gotten to Arizona he's incorporated a lot more designed pass plays to the offense because 1. he's had the QBs to do it and 2. adapt or die. 2013 was the exception because he catered that offense around the fact that not only was Denker a very good runner (and didn't have a great arm), but he had Carey as a power back. Right now the offense is at 70 pass attempts and 76 rushing attempts. Last year they finished with 561 pass attempts and 563 rushing attempts. 2013 was the outlier, the year they went heavy on the zone read, and they had 382 pass attempts and 638 rushing attempts.

RichRod likes to play to numbers and space. If the defense puts 6 guys in the box, it's likely to be a running play. If he's got 2 on 1 coverage on one side and single coverage on the other, the QB is going to be looking to the single coverage side. The other thing is that he likes to play to the wide side of the field to get guys in space. Defenses have learned this and they're adjusting, learning how to disguise coverages to try to invite throws to certain areas. The problem is that they still have to defend the zone read and that makes it harder for them to drop someone into coverage who was lined up to stop a run. Defenses will continue to evolve, but as RR has shown, so will he.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:24 am

chiefzona wrote:
Puerco wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
Puerco wrote:Given the prevalence of 3- and 4-WR spread offenses around the country, yesterday's nickel is today's base set.

If you've got the horses to line up in a 2-TE set and shove the ball down the 3-3-5's throat, all the more power to you. Most programs don't.

Today's base set? How many college teams run the 3-3-5 as a BASE set?
Give it time. Probably should have said '... becomes today's base set.'
Oh, it seems to be all the rage. DCs at every college are clamoring to make it their base defense.

Maybe they should be, given the way hurry up spread offenses have been shredding their defenses over the past 15 years or so. It's only going to get worse, and if you don't have top shelf talent in your D, the only way to fight back is to get more athletic guys who can cover more space. Those guys are usually NOT defensive linemen.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:47 pm

Cough, cough, excuse me. Something stuck in my throat.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:03 pm

13 players on the field wouldn't help this team tonight.

whatisee · Post by **whatisee** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:15 pm

OSUCat wrote:13 players on the field wouldn't help this team tonight.

Cayman Bundage...my poor man. And Bruno is getting used

whatisee · Post by **whatisee** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:22 pm

and then Bruno gets a sack lol

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:32 pm

If ever there were a time for Casteel to adapt to his personnel (and not stubbornly stick to the 3-3-5) its next week vs. Stanford. The 3-3-5 is a perfectly acceptable defense to run against a spread team......but NOT against a power team like Stanford who will likely line up with a 7 man line on offense. Will Casteel deploy a 3 man front (with 2 CB's playing 10 yards off the ball and two safeties 15 yards off the ball) against Stanfords 7 man massive front wall???

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:27 am

Adapt to his personnel? What kind of talent do you think we have on the DL to run anything other than a 3 man front?

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:36 am

You can't adapt to anything until Casteel is gone and you all know that isn't happening unless RR is gone too. The game of football has not changed as far as one simple rule in years. You can run all the gimmicks you want but in the long run, you'll get exposed. This rule in football is simple and easy to grasp. The game is won and lost in the trenches.

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:02 am

ChooChooCat wrote:Adapt to his personnel? What kind of talent do you think we have on the DL to run anything other than a 3 man front?

Choo-Choo: If you are expecting me to argue that we have a boatload of outstanding DL's
that we need to utilize then you came to the wrong place

All I am saying is that I would rather see another average DL utilized up front
in a 4 man front (Worthy?) than to stick with an extra safety with 4.8 speed.
Even when we play our slow footed DB's/safeties 10-15 yards off the ball the
other guys receivers run past them anyway.

Stanford is going to play 2 tight end smash mouth football next Saturday.
Casteel needs to adjust accordingly (4DL's or an extra LB). 5 DB's are not
going to cut it. Since we seem to have a shortage of LB's I would submit that
an extra DL is in order. Maybe we can keep some of those 300lb Stanford OL's
off of Scoobys knees.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:44 am

chiefzona wrote:You can't adapt to anything until Casteel is gone and you all know that isn't happening unless RR is gone too. The game of football has not changed as far as one simple rule in years. You can run all the gimmicks you want but in the long run, you'll get exposed. This rule in football is simple and easy to grasp. The game is won and lost in the trenches.

That became very clear to me last night.

RR football is gimmicky football. It works when you are at a small DII school or low DI program, but once you climb the ladder, it fails.

Hard Edge, OKG, 3-3-5, Dual threat, all gimmicks when unflinchingly adhered too.

Don't get me wrong, I like RR and think he's the best coach for ARIZONA at this moment. But last night popped the "win big" dreams that we all had for this year, and I'm ok still supporting RR while admitted his style may not be the type for sustained and long-term success.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:46 am

At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:53 am

Merkin wrote:At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.

Totally Merkin, and I'm fine with that. Might be the silver lining in his poor big game record.

Ennui is the term for my feelings wrt Arizona Football this AM.

whatisee · Post by **whatisee** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:24 am

Merkin wrote:At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.

What do you do in his shoes? Sit Cayman after the first airball? Serious question

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:31 am

whatisee wrote:
Merkin wrote:At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.
What do you do in his shoes? Sit Cayman after the first airball? Serious question

Maybe after the 4th or 5th high snap. Bundage never did calm down, maybe with a few minutes left but not sure he was still out there.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:41 am

dmjcat wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:Adapt to his personnel? What kind of talent do you think we have on the DL to run anything other than a 3 man front?

Choo-Choo: If you are expecting me to argue that we have a boatload of outstanding DL's
that we need to utilize then you came to the wrong place

All I am saying is that I would rather see another average DL utilized up front
in a 4 man front (Worthy?) than to stick with an extra safety with 4.8 speed.
Even when we play our slow footed DB's/safeties 10-15 yards off the ball the
other guys receivers run past them anyway.

Stanford is going to play 2 tight end smash mouth football next Saturday.
Casteel needs to adjust accordingly (4DL's or an extra LB). 5 DB's are not
going to cut it. Since we seem to have a shortage of LB's I would submit that
an extra DL is in order. Maybe we can keep some of those 300lb Stanford OL's
off of Scoobys knees.

I gotcha, you threw me off with the adapt to his personnel angle, when in general we don't exactly have much of worthwhile personnel in general to adapt to defensively. I also don't know how 4 DLs would help with covering TEs other than forcing Furd's TEs to block more, but then again not like we have much DL talent to force them to have a 6th blocker on their OL.

whatisee · Post by **whatisee** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 11:12 am

Merkin wrote:
whatisee wrote:
Merkin wrote:At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.
What do you do in his shoes? Sit Cayman after the first airball? Serious question

Maybe after the 4th or 5th high snap. Bundage never did calm down, maybe with a few minutes left but not sure he was still out there.

Maybe move Walton up to start at C? Put Bundage back at his G spot where he could easily help call the blocking out till walton comes up to speed? Wonder why he was so excited last night. Other than the obvious

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:52 pm

whatisee wrote:
Merkin wrote:
whatisee wrote:
Merkin wrote:At least RichRod isn't in danger of leaving now. No major program is going to hire a coach who can't win the big one.
What do you do in his shoes? Sit Cayman after the first airball? Serious question

Maybe after the 4th or 5th high snap. Bundage never did calm down, maybe with a few minutes left but not sure he was still out there.
Maybe move Walton up to start at C? Put Bundage back at his G spot where he could easily help call the blocking out till walton comes up to speed? Wonder why he was so excited last night. Other than the obvious

Could be wrong but I think some of the mis-snaps were driven by Bundage trying to get into blocking position before UCLA's huge NT (Clark) knocked him on his ass. Clark is a 310 lb monster and he was knocking Bundage around pretty good. Last night wasn't the first time we have seen poor snaps.....we have seen them every game, but Bundage had more than normal. We definitely miss Gurrola. Hate to sound like a broken record but 4 years in and we don't have a serviceable center......yet another sign of poor recruiting.

cordera89 · Post by **cordera89** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:23 pm

CalStateTempe wrote:
chiefzona wrote:You can't adapt to anything until Casteel is gone and you all know that isn't happening unless RR is gone too. The game of football has not changed as far as one simple rule in years. You can run all the gimmicks you want but in the long run, you'll get exposed. This rule in football is simple and easy to grasp. The game is won and lost in the trenches.
That became very clear to me last night.

RR football is gimmicky football. It works when you are at a small DII school or low DI program, but once you climb the ladder, it fails.

Hard Edge, OKG, 3-3-5, Dual threat, all gimmicks when unflinchingly adhered too.

Don't get me wrong, I like RR and think he's the best coach for ARIZONA at this moment. But last night popped the "win big" dreams that we all had for this year, and I'm ok still supporting RR while admitted his style may not be the type for sustained and long-term success.

RR style of football is not gimmicky, just because we run a spread offense doesn't make it gimmicky. Every time someone saids that who ever run that offense is not a real offense that bs. Last night loss was a mirror of are own reflection saying we are not their, we are not ready to complete against powerhouse type team. RR has been running his style of offense for long time it is bound for long term success. As for the defense it remain to be seen that Casteel doesn't have the right style player for his scheme they can do good against lesser opponent but against teams with a good offense with elite talent it make it more difficult. This title should of been name Arizona 3-3-5 vs West Virginia 3-3-5.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:07 pm

cordera89 wrote:
CalStateTempe wrote:
chiefzona wrote:You can't adapt to anything until Casteel is gone and you all know that isn't happening unless RR is gone too. The game of football has not changed as far as one simple rule in years. You can run all the gimmicks you want but in the long run, you'll get exposed. This rule in football is simple and easy to grasp. The game is won and lost in the trenches.
That became very clear to me last night.

RR football is gimmicky football. It works when you are at a small DII school or low DI program, but once you climb the ladder, it fails.

Hard Edge, OKG, 3-3-5, Dual threat, all gimmicks when unflinchingly adhered too.

Don't get me wrong, I like RR and think he's the best coach for ARIZONA at this moment. But last night popped the "win big" dreams that we all had for this year, and I'm ok still supporting RR while admitted his style may not be the type for sustained and long-term success.
RR style of football is not gimmicky, just because we run a spread offense doesn't make it gimmicky. Every time someone saids that who ever run that offense is not a real offense that bs. Last night loss was a mirror of are own reflection saying we are not their, we are not ready to complete against powerhouse type team. RR has been running his style of offense for long time it is bound for long term success. As for the defense it remain to be seen that Casteel doesn't have the right style player for his scheme they can do good against lesser opponent but against teams with a good offense with elite talent it make it more difficult. This title should of been name Arizona 3-3-5 vs West Virginia 3-3-5.

Actually it is gimmicky and it's not because the spread. It's the Zone Read Option that makes his offense gimmicky. You can run a spread pro style type of offense and it can be very effective. Especially with receivers over 6 feet. You can run TE splits and wide and do timing routes and hot reads. Most teams run these type of offenses. The Zone Read Option IMO screws up QBs because they are watching for way too many things instead of just 3 to 5 step drop/play action and then firing a strike to the receiver. Not having to read the ends and making a decision whether to put the loaf of bread in the oven or toss it to a receiver who has already over run his route. Like the 3-3-5, the Zone Read Option takes way too long to get and perfect and even now in his 3rd year with the program, Anu makes mistakes and bad decisions in it. For a 4 year QB....it doesn't make sense to want to learn it when you can run a Pro Style offense like Rosen, or a multiple/spread very quickly and thrive in it. Plus, RR loves QBs with inferior arms for some reason.

The 3-3-5 is a complete gimmick. Like the Zone Read Option, it takes the DL too long to learn and be proficient at it. Also, 4 and 5 star DL guys don't want to play in it because it doesn't benefit them. You become a pawn and not a star in the system while the LBs get all the praise. NTs try to draw a C and G and don't get the numbers nor the notoriety. As you all can see, Arizona is in year 4 and the DL is still garbage. There's no depth and this team is in trouble. Gimmicks only work for so long and are not long term options for winning the big ones.

My other problem is that I feel RR and staff do not take special teams seriously enough. Horrible punt returns with way too many fair catches because their is no talent nor blocking or lane responsibility. Same with kick off returns. It's just ridiculous and things need to change. RR needs to stop being so one track minded and open up his philosophy to proven schemes and things that work over the long term. You HAVE to recruit well in the PAC 12. There is no getting out of it. If you want to get past the big boys, you gotta recruit big. No excuses.

cordera89 · Post by **cordera89** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:03 pm

I don't think RR offense is gimmick at all. Of course it is the zone read option offense that his identity on offense, He can't abandon something that made him successful as a HC. You have to give RR the credit of what he has done with the spread offense. He turn a worst offense to a powerhouse type offense if having the right personal, We all know what happen with him while he was at Michigan without that type personal. I don't see how QB can be screw up if they were Pro style QB or didnt learn his offense as good as any QB in the nation. If Matt Scott and BJ denker struggle to run his offense you would of made good point but both of them didn't. Scott ran the offense perfectly and Denker was less efficient but both did well running despite having one full year of running it. As for TE's I still haven't got freaky clue on why RR will never put in package just for them but it big freaky waste of talent in that Position.

As for Defense I don't want to hate to say that 3-3-5 is getting obliterated by strong opponent but without quality Defense of prospects in which it lacking in, 3-3-5 can be mediocre at best or worst without quality player. It still remain to be seen that the scheme maybe not the best choice against quality of the PAC 12 team. Some time it had good days and worst days. Til this day we still don't have a true DLine man. It amaze me that we still haven't got quality DB or LB. Don't get me wrong. We have recruit decent LB in Ware, Cobb and Smother but they don't see the field often. We did recruit a 4 star DL in Sheriff William but he haven't seen the field yet. And having Neal and Denson at CB even thou it their first full year starting. Only thing I can say is trust staff of developing them.

Recruiting has been decent but not good I mean we recruited a lot of three star prospect and we had convince or stole a few 4 star prospect. I believe RR and staff knows what their doing in recruiting. Just got to trust them or we are left to wonder are we ever going to grab 4 or 5 star recruit

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:55 am

Every year because of the cream puffs scheduled, Arizona is going to get 3 wins outta the gate. Another with Colorado and up till now, Utah was kind of a gimme. That's 5 wins already. Add another weak North team like OSU or Wazzu and then your already bowl eligible. Now, RR is 2-10 against UCLA, USC and ASU. There lies the problem. Along with a tough Stanford and some years now with CAL on the rise as well as a surging Utah....things are going to get harder year in and out and recruiting as a whole has to get better....especially on defense.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:45 pm

FIRE RR!!!

cordera89 · Post by **cordera89** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:55 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:FIRE RR!!!

Dude RR isn't going anywhere.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:58 pm

Relax, it's a running joke.

OSUCat · Post by **OSUCat** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:27 am

I know some people have real issue with the scheme in general, but I have always wondered this question since we moved to 3-3-5 base.

Could Alabama win a National Championship with a 3-3-5 base defense? Or any other more defense dominant teams be as sucessful in defense if they ran a 3-3-5?

cordera89 · Post by **cordera89** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:07 pm

OSUCat wrote:I know some people have real issue with the scheme in general, but I have always wondered this question since we moved to 3-3-5 base.

Could Alabama win a National Championship with a 3-3-5 base defense? Or any other more defense dominant teams be as sucessful in defense if they ran a 3-3-5?

That unless you have a full stock of 4 and 5 star recruit on the defensive then yea it possible.

Login • Register