Bear Down Wildcats

catinfl wrote:

chiefzona wrote:Not only is the recruiting and evaluations bad, the development is poor as well as the coaching. This isn't the big east anymore.

So, everything is bad in your opinion? Maybe we should hire you as the new DC

No, not everything. I was centered on the DL. I would never take that job. I'd settle for DL coach though and I do have ties to SoCal recruiting.

But Chief, would you be willing to coach the DL in the 335

Saint James wrote:But Chief, would you be willing to coach the DL in the 335

No. 3-4 I would.

I'm not worried. This is RR 4th year coaching but technically he has only had 3 recruiting classes considering the amount of time allowed to recruit the 1st class. Also considering the number players that left the first and second class it's almost as if RR has had 2.5 recruiting classes. We're hurt and going to be hurt all year long, good experience for the young guys. I'm excited for next year and even more excited for the year after that. The man can coach, I have faith.

chiefzona wrote:

Saint James wrote:But Chief, would you be willing to coach the DL in the 335

No. 3-4 I would.

Explain to me why there's a difference in 3-4 and 3-3-5? While 3 down lineman is the base for both of them they still rush four just as much as the 3-3-5. We have 4 people rushing the QB a lot.

catinfl wrote:

chiefzona wrote:

Saint James wrote:But Chief, would you be willing to coach the DL in the 335

No. 3-4 I would.

Explain to me why there's a difference in 3-4 and 3-3-5? While 3 down lineman is the base for both of them they still rush four just as much as the 3-3-5. We have 4 people rushing the QB a lot.

4 LB's > 3 LB's?

catinfl wrote:

chiefzona wrote:

Saint James wrote:But Chief, would you be willing to coach the DL in the 335

No. 3-4 I would.

Explain to me why there's a difference in 3-4 and 3-3-5? While 3 down lineman is the base for both of them they still rush four just as much as the 3-3-5. We have 4 people rushing the QB a lot.

In the 3-3-5, the NT's primary focus is to eat blocks and always tries to gain 2 blocks because that opens the way for the Mike to control the A gap. So an NT wants to get a C and a G and not really try to shed the blocks and get into the play, however be a pawn so the Mike and LBs can do their primary jobs. The NT in the 335 usually plays a 0 or 1 tech. In the 3-4, an NT plays a 0 tech and tries to control the A gap by not eating blocks, but shedding them and getting in the play whether by stuffing the run or pass rush. They are not a pawn at all.

In the 3-3-5, the DE's as I call them though one is a DT, usually have the same function. Just depends on who is outside of which one. Both usually play a 5 tech, sometimes a 4 inside and they have multiple functions and play calls that they adhere too. Casteel calls the plays in so it varies at what responsibility one or the other can have. See, that's the intricacy of the positions on the DL in the 3-3-5. It takes awhile to learn. You have to know if a safety is shading on your outside and if they have the C gap or you do. If they are blitzing on your outside shoulder or you are cutting inside. There are so many variables and differences. In the 3-4, the 2 DE's are always protected on the outside so don't have to worry about C or D gap protection or responsibility. They usually play a 3 tech and control the b gaps as well as shed blocks to make the tackle or rush the passer.

So, their are differences in playing the line in both schemes. 3-4 is less to know and easier to play IMO. Many high schools run a 3-4 and 4-3 so there usually isn't much of a learning curve as we have seen in the 3-3-5.

Casteel at WVU 2002-2011 (no box score stats for 2002 and 2003)...

32 games against Top 25 teams (at the time they played) and bowl games. 15 wins and 17 losses.

Defense:

391.9 YPG (23 games - no box score stats for 2002 and 2003)

28.7 PPG (32 games)


At Arizona 2012-part of 2015...

19 games against Top 25 teams (at the time they played) and bowl games. 8 wins and 11 losses.

Defense:

510.2 YPG

37.1 PPG

Good read on Zack Rosenblatt on UA's defense:


http://tucson.com/sports/football/colle ... ?id=201408" target="_blank


Some stats from it:


Arizona's season statistics

Red zone defense: 95.8 scored-against percentage (12th in Pac-12, 122nd nationally)

First downs allowed: 111 (10th in Pac-12, 103rd nationally)

Kick return defense: 23.68 yards per return (10th in Pac-12, 103rd nationally)

Forced turnovers: 6 (11th in Pac-12, 84th nationally)

Pass defense: 260.6 (11th in Pac-12, 103rd nationally)

Our kick-return defense is going to be a sore spot all year, I fear.

As for red zone defense and forced turnovers, wow. Be loyal to whatever lame D you want, but if opponents are scoring on you inside the 20 a whopping 96 percent of the time--especially at a school with as strong a defensive tradition as Arizona--you as a coach should be personally embarrassed.

Bend all you want, blame injuries all you like, but either coach your players up to force offensive mistakes or be a third-down defense. One way or another, defensive PT should be predicated on making some damn stops.

Neither have been the case with Casteel's scheme, and the general mindset seems to find it acceptable, and I will never understand that.

On the red zone defense, 18 TDs and 5 FGs.

So much for the bend and not break 3-3-5.

catgrad97 wrote:Our kick-return defense is going to be a sore spot all year, I fear.

As for red zone defense and forced turnovers, wow. Be loyal to whatever lame D you want, but if opponents are scoring on you inside the 20 a whopping 96 percent of the time--especially at a school with as strong a defensive tradition as Arizona--you as a coach should be personally embarrassed.

Bend all you want, blame injuries all you like, but either coach your players up to force offensive mistakes or be a third-down defense. One way or another, defensive PT should be predicated on making some damn stops.

Neither have been the case with Casteel's scheme, and the general mindset seems to find it acceptable, and I will never understand that.

That is a staggering percentage.

the 3-3-5 Red Zone defense under RR in Power Five hasn't really performed that well (except RR's 1st year at UM). In the BE though it did fantastic. Which led to the "bend, don't break". At WV the Red Zone Defense tops in Country at least one year. Top 40 others.

In Power Five

2014 (107) 88.7
2013 (99) 87.2
2012 (75) 84

2010 (87) 86 UM
2009 (98) 88
2008 (45) 80

The Details to TY's 95.8
24 Opp Red Zone Atts
11 TDs by Opp Rushing
7 TDs by Opp Pass
5 FGs
23 TD's or FGs
1 Time Opp did not score while in RZ

Another awful stat from that article regarding big plays:


In the last two weeks, Arizona has allowed 27 plays of 15 or more yards and seven plays of 30 or more yards.

Since everyone else is digging for stats and whatnot, I took a look at some old stats, namely 1991. After 4 straight years of an average of 330-340 yards a game given up, the 1991 team gave up 405 yards per game, a lot in a time when the fast offenses we see now weren't a thing. They gave up 33 points a game and gave up 54 two weeks in a row. Common thread with this year's team? Injuries, particularly at linebacker (although that team was just an injury parade the likes of which we never hope to see again. The offense was just dropping guys left and right.) They went from decent to bad in one season. A lot of younger guys had to play to fill things in. Of course, those guys turned out to be sort of decent in the years following...

I'm not implying that the defense is going to be lights-out great when they're back at full strength, but it'll be better (there's not really too much worse they could get anyway.) The '91 team had several guys that would go on to become one of the most dominating defenses ever in CFB, but they still took their lumps before that. Very few teams can take this kind of injury bug and still play at a top level. I can see these guys getting back close to where they were last year when most of the injured guys are back and I think they'll be about 60-ish in CFB next year on defense. If they get there next year then it's up to the offense to play to their potential. This year's still a little small to throw back in the water, though, and we'll see what they've got in the tank. Winning the next four is not unrealistic.

On the cusp of the verge of turning the corner.






















Once again. Maybe we're just circling the block.

With how explosive RR offenses are, you don't need (and really can't expect) a dominant defense. Even if the defense is average, UA can play with and beat anyone. So I guess the question is, can UA field an average defense with the 3-3-5?

Scummy Dick Douglas wrote:With how explosive RR offenses are, you don't need (and really can't expect) a dominant defense. Even if the defense is average, UA can play with and beat anyone. So I guess the question is, can UA field an average defense with the 3-3-5?

With depth yes, without no.

Well with the lost to WSU I don't know how this defense is every going to play better when the next four game are going to tough as hell.

It's just a passive D and nobody knows how to tackle.

Fundamentals are lacking.

Salty wrote:It's just a passive D and nobody knows how to tackle.

Fundamentals are lacking.

You have to keep in mind that we have a lot of guys playing significant minutes that in a normal situation would never see the field. Itt comes down to the fact that we just don't have the horses to play any scheme.

azgreg wrote:

Salty wrote:It's just a passive D and nobody knows how to tackle.

Fundamentals are lacking.

You have to keep in mind that we have a lot of guys playing significant minutes that in a normal situation would never see the field. Itt comes down to the fact that we just don't have the horses to play any scheme.

Do you mean the talent to play in this scheme.

cordera89 wrote:

azgreg wrote:

Salty wrote:It's just a passive D and nobody knows how to tackle.

Fundamentals are lacking.

You have to keep in mind that we have a lot of guys playing significant minutes that in a normal situation would never see the field. Itt comes down to the fact that we just don't have the horses to play any scheme.

Do you mean the talent to play in this scheme.

I mean just what I said. Any scheme.

azgreg wrote:

Salty wrote:It's just a passive D and nobody knows how to tackle.

Fundamentals are lacking.

You have to keep in mind that we have a lot of guys playing significant minutes that in a normal situation would never see the field. Itt comes down to the fact that we just don't have the horses to play any scheme.

I'm aware of this, however some of your point is the result of deliberate recruitment of OKG's.

Well, Cats did keep him under 600 yards, which he was on pace for.

Nothing sums up this defense more than when it is Wazzu's last drive and you know they are going to run 3 times and they average less than 100 yards a game rushing yet we can't get a stop.

Incredibly frustrating for everyone involved.

With Rich Rod's offense (he's shown he can move the ball with anybody) just an average defense would be good enough. I'm not asking for the reincarnation of Desert Swarm (though that would be nice ), just a defense that can get a 3 and out every once in a while, give the offense a short field every once in a while, make that 3rd or 4th and 1 stop every once in a while.

Only 5 eligible receivers on a team. Cats drop back 8 in coverage.

Yet constantly Falk had wide open receivers to throw too, especially in the middle of the field 10-20 yards downfield.

Like azcat49 mentioned about the last series unable to stop the run, on 3rd and long you know where the ball is going to go and you still can't stop it even with 8 back.