Did we dump the 3-3-5 for good?

[UNT86]

We didn't run the 3-3-5 a single play tonight.  We were primarily in a 3-4 front. Lots of man in the secondary.  We did run some nickel, but it was 4-2-5 with the extra DB being an extra corner.

 

And we finally stopped the run. Coincidence?  I think not.

 

Don't know who made the change, but it gives me hope.

[cousin oliver]

Just now, UNT86 said:

We didn't run the 3-3-5 a single play tonight.  We were primarily in a 3-4 front. Lots of man in the secondary.  We did run some nickel, but it was 4-2-5 with the extra DB being an extra corner.

 

And we finally stopped the run. Coincidence?  I think not.

 

Don't know who made the change, but it gives me hope.

Good eye noticed that as well.  Caponi is living on borrowed time it appears.

[peanuts104]

2 minutes ago, UNT86 said:

We didn't run the 3-3-5 a single play tonight.  We were primarily in a 3-4 front. Lots of man in the secondary.  We did run some nickel, but it was 4-2-5 with the extra DB being an extra corner.

 

And we finally stopped the run. Coincidence?  I think not.

 

Don't know who made the change, but it gives me hope.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Odom run the 3-4?

[GMG_Dallas]

 

UTSA folks noticed too

 

[Venson]

It appears we did. 

5 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Odom run the 3-4?

Maybe Odum is the new guy running the D and we have reassigned Caponi. I don't know any of that, but the D looked a lot better playing 3-4 than they did playing 3-3-5. I don't know who made the change, but it was for the better. If we continue with that look, the guys should get much better as they get more comfortable in that scheme.

[Hunter Green]

2 hours ago, Venson said:

It appears we did. 

Maybe Odum is the new guy running the D and we have reassigned Caponi. I don't know any of that, but the D looked a lot better playing 3-4 than they did playing 3-3-5. I don't know who made the change, but it was for the better. If we continue with that look, the guys should get much better as they get more comfortable in that scheme.

Morris stated in his post game interview that it was agreed upon that they would put their best eleven men on defense. Depth at LB dictated that.

[GMG_Dallas]

21 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

Morris stated in his post game interview that it was agreed upon that they would put their best eleven men on defense. Depth at LB dictated that.

Whatever it takes. 

[Old Eagle]

Thank God, whatever the reason!

[TIgreen01]

Maybe Morris getting embarrassed in front of his old Tech buddies did the trick to wake him up?  Whatever it took, I just hope we don’t revert back.

Edited September 22 by TIgreen01

[Meangreen Fight]

1 hour ago, Hunter Green said:

Morris stated in his post game interview that it was agreed upon that they would put their best eleven men on defense. Depth at LB dictated that.

I think the flow of the game impacted those rush numbers also.  It would have been very interesting if Wyoming didn't kill their first drive of the second half with a big loss on a fumbled snap.  They followed that up with a punt that might as well been a turnover, field position wise.  And offense kept the pressure on by scoring. 

[TheColonyEagle]

Whatever it was. That 2nd half D was deserving of those uniforms…..

[3_n_out]

And it appeared we had some semblance of a pass rush with the new scheme we were running. 

[Venson]

Being a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I approve of the 3-4 defense.

[SilverEagle]

1 hour ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Whatever it was. That 2nd half D was deserving of those uniforms…..

...AND if they keep improving, they might actually earn the right to be called the MEAN GREEN.  But they have a long way to go from that 66-68 group.

[golfingomez]

1 hour ago, Meangreen Fight said:

I think the flow of the game impacted those rush numbers also.  It would have been very interesting if Wyoming didn't kill their first drive of the second half with a big loss on a fumbled snap.  They followed that up with a punt that might as well been a turnover, field position wise.  And offense kept the pressure on by scoring. 

Regardless of the"flow"... The defense held them to about 50 yards in the second half last night...

[Big Z]

They brought in a dump truck to practice last week 

[Glory to the Green]

20 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

Regardless of the"flow"... The defense held them to about 50 yards in the second half last night...

I think they had 0 yards in the 3rd quarter.  ZERO!

[El Paso Eagle]

28 minutes ago, Glory to the Green said:

I think they had 0 yards in the 3rd quarter.  ZERO!

It seems the defense made adjustments at halftime that stepped up their game.

[C Rod]

We may have found the silver lining in the humiliating loss to Tech. 

Sometimes an old-fashioned ass whoop'n is what's needed to humble someone and inspire change. 

[Matt from A700]

19 minutes ago, C Rod said:

We may have found the silver lining in the humiliating loss to Tech. 

Sometimes an old-fashioned ass whoop'n is what's needed to humble someone and inspire change. 

Unfortunately last week may have cost us a few thousand fans last night, but I will take the W... especially that Tech game leads to a defense that doesn't humiliate the university like you said.

[southsideguy]

We must have had an impact on the defense this week.  I was listening to Morris talk after the game and he mention the defense and social media......Why to go guys

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, C Rod said:

We may have found the silver lining in the humiliating loss to Tech. 

Sometimes an old-fashioned ass whoop'n is what's needed to humble someone and inspire change. 

shades of 2001 LaMo? Too soon to tell.

[aztecskin]

It was the right call. Wyoming had big tight end sets and it would have been silly to have the 3-high look against it.

 

For what it is worth we held SFA to similar numbers with the 3-high.

My eyes told me the 3-4 look was the same "scheme" with the fourth linebacker just taking the star's responsibilities. 

In the defense's playbook, that mostly means you don't have the option to go to some false looks to disguise which safety is playing deep. In reality, the team still can do all the split-field safety stuff (2 high/quarters/2-read/2-man/ etc) stuff. 

The 3-4 is useful as we have lots of depth at linebacker now. The defensive line is also more effective. I think we'll see some 3-high stuff situationally, as it was primarily designed to stop spread offenses. In our league we have a lot of run-heavy squads so it is not necessarily useful here. 

[UNT86]

Everybody is run heavy against a 3-3. Too many gaps, not enough dudes to fill. It's a math problem. 

3-3-5 was designed to fit those specific 11 players.  We've been trying to fit our 11 into that specific scheme.  Good coaches do what is best for their kids at that moment.  Poor coaches try to fit square pegs into round holes.

[aztecskin]

3 hours ago, UNT86 said:

Everybody is run heavy against a 3-3. Too many gaps, not enough dudes to fill. It's a math problem. 

3-3-5 was designed to fit those specific 11 players.  We've been trying to fit our 11 into that specific scheme.  Good coaches do what is best for their kids at that moment.  Poor coaches try to fit square pegs into round holes.

I mean I’ve spent lots of time talking about this defense (which I do not love) but there aren’t too many gaps. The scheme accounts for gaps, but relies on excellent linebacker play to go along with excellent safety play. 

For me, it always comes down to the defensive line. In 2013, we ran a 4-3 base and Flusche et al generated pressure with that front four and it made the whole group very good. 

The next year with the same base we were leaky. The difference was the line. 

Reffett had a solid defense with Nate Brooks and Kemon Hall at corner and would bring LB blitzes (to make up for the lack of great line play) and it worked. The  next year they struggled as the corners couldn’t man up and the pressure was late. 

Littell’s defenses post Reffet were awful until he lucked into the Murphy twins and upset top 25 UTSA. Mazin Richards helped him get enough to get to the title game the next year. 

Last year? Awful line play. This year? Better line play. It’s always about line play no matter how many you put out there. Get pressure on the QB or else you lose.