3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

Posted 553 day(s) ago 3652 Views 76 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 77
Page 1 of 2 1 2
  1. #1
    huntinsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,189
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Owasso

    Defense 3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    Rumor is that the coaches have talked about switching to a 3-4 front on defense this year. Being in the Big 12 running a 3-3-5 would also be good with all the passing offenses.

    What's your thoughts on the possible switch up? ND and BAMA both have had success with it.

  2. #2
    OuachitaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    5,446
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    4063
    Location
    Dallas Texas

    Well we only have like 3 DL, seems like we would be more suited to run a 3-0-8.

  3. #3
    barlowd's Avatar
    Posts
    11,547
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    5727
    Location
    Whiskeytown

    We need some kind of change on D, that's for sure.
    The following users like this post: huntinsooner


  4. #4
    at this point i am not sure why all big 12 teams do not run the 3-4
    The following users like this post: madillsoonerfan5353


  5. #5
    huntinsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,189
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Owasso

    Originally Posted by barlowd View Post
    We need some kind of change on D, that's for sure.
    It seems like Mike is open to new ideas, which is a start. I also think if we started running a 3-4 or a 3-3-5 our recruiting could improve for LB's and D-line.
    2 users like huntinsooner's post: oorah_okie, Sooner 4 Life


  6. #6
    huntinsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,189
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Owasso

    Originally Posted by Gundy's Lettuce View Post
    at this point i am not sure why all big 12 teams do not run the 3-4
    With a new DC will osu look into it? They need to improve as much as we do.

  7. #7
    Until we have a dominating defensive line, rushing 3 and blitzing from varying LB positions is going to get more pressure on the QB. We need a Roy back as well. That is much more difficult for an offense to scheme against than 5 men they know they don't have to worry about, we've been outmanned from the snap all season long.

    If we can't get the players, we need to adapt our scheme and use what we can get, something Stoops has failed at miserably.
    The following users like this post: SoonerLibertarian


  8. #8
    Bad idea. How are going to work on our running game in practice if we have to deal with three lineman?

  9. #9
    OuachitaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    5,446
    Join Date
    May 2011
    vCash
    4063
    Location
    Dallas Texas

    I think we should just have another offense on the other side, give Norvell a team to coach. Draw up elaborate blocking schemes for if the other team fumbles or we get an interception.

  10. #10
    His Royal Highness the Honorable King of LandThieves Esq. III
    SoCaliSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,567
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    SoCal

    6-6-3....

    Beat that...****ers.

  11. #11
    Houston Sooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,425
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Brentwood, TN

    Won't work unless you get a fat nose tackle and 2 bigger inside LB's..

    2 users like Houston Sooner's post: madillsoonerfan5353, MoJoOkie


  12. #12
    I have wondered about the 3-3-5, but it has never been run at a big time program. WVU, BYU, Miss St, Zona now with Casteel and Wake are some places that I know run/ran it. It doesn't require as much beef up front as a 3-4 and mid majors like TU, ULM and Western Michigan have run it with undersized D lines. It definitely fits OU's personnel better than a traditional 3-4 and it is geared to stop the spread, though it is awful versus power run teams. That being said it has never been run with a Jordan Phillips at a 5 either, so it could be talent and not as much scheme as to why it as been so bad against power teams. It would allow a kid like Corey Nelson to play one of the hybrid OLB/S spots like spur or bandit. It would also put a lot of athletes on the field that can cover sideline to sideline. My biggest problem with it would be what do you do with all of the 4-3 DEs. You could stand one up and you could play another at a 5. That seems like a poor allocation of the edge rushers OU has been trying to bring in, because you nullify the 5 by making him two gap. It would be interesting to see and OU would be hell to prepare for with such an oddball defense, but I assume we stick with a 4 man front and this mental ****ion.
    2 users like eddyjizza's post: barlowd, SpankyNek


  13. #13
    Tobias's Avatar
    Posts
    944
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Santa Monica, California

    I don't give a **** about schemes. I just want to see some actual defense. What everyone saw from late October on....sure as shit didn't cut it.
    2 users like Tobias's post: S00NER14, Seabass


  14. #14
    RUF/NEK7's Avatar
    Posts
    20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Killeen, TX

    I'm telling you right now, you could trash the 3-3-5. The 3-4 would be intriguing and could really work. You would really spruce it up a bit and bring safeties to help stop the run. It will require stoops to use some zone coverages too which I, for one, would love to see.

  15. #15
    Heck no to the 3-3-5. The only time I've seen it successful is when opposing teams have little time to prepare or caught unaware. Sometimes teams will go to it if they dont have the personnel to run something else, but I don't think it's a viable permanent option. Still think our best option is to get better players and coaching for the front 7.

  16. #16
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,840
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by Tobias View Post
    I don't give a **** about schemes. I just want to see some actual defense. What everyone saw from late October on....sure as shit didn't cut it.
    Tony Jefferson spending more time on his back than a Vietnamese hooker didn't do it for you, eh?

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by eddyjizza View Post
    I have wondered about the 3-3-5, but it has never been run at a big time program. WVU, BYU, Miss St, Zona now with Casteel and Wake are some places that I know run/ran it. It doesn't require as much beef up front as a 3-4 and mid majors like TU, ULM and Western Michigan have run it with undersized D lines. It definitely fits OU's personnel better than a traditional 3-4 and it is geared to stop the spread, though it is awful versus power run teams. That being said it has never been run with a Jordan Phillips at a 5 either, so it could be talent and not as much scheme as to why it as been so bad against power teams. It would allow a kid like Corey Nelson to play one of the hybrid OLB/S spots like spur or bandit. It would also put a lot of athletes on the field that can cover sideline to sideline. My biggest problem with it would be what do you do with all of the 4-3 DEs. You could stand one up and you could play another at a 5. That seems like a poor allocation of the edge rushers OU has been trying to bring in, because you nullify the 5 by making him two gap. It would be interesting to see and OU would be hell to prepare for with such an oddball defense, but I assume we stick with a 4 man front and this mental ****ion.
    I agree with this post except your point about all the 4-3 DEs. DE is a question mark going into next season.
    I do like the 3-3-5, as it add flexiblity out of the base defense, adds speed with the 5 DBs, and a base defense of 6 to 8 (depending on the right and left SS) players in the box, and lasty is strong up the middle opposed to a 4-2-5 because there is a NG, MLB and FS all in the middle. The big bonus is it can be very hard for the opponents QB to read the defense pre snap--no side is overloaded in base and 8 potential rushers are near the LOS. The 3-4 is good at this too, but the 3-3-5 is better since the SS can play very close to the LOS.
    The downside is that less beef upfront can be detrimental to a power I rushing game.

    I actually think this last year would have been a great opportunity to try it. We got nothing from our DEs so my line up would have been something like this

    King at DE his was our best DE and big but had to slide to DT much of the season, Grissom and the other guy Ndule? as subs. The other two DL I would have put our decent group of DTs at; McGee (when playing), McFarland, Walker and sub in Phillips. That is a nice strong 3 man DL.

    At LB, Nelson and Shannon on the outside and Bird inside. Bird would have cleaned up any inside running and zone read option game MLB would not have much coverage responsiblities; Nelson and Shannon are fast. RJ Washinton for situational pass rush could come in, Wort a backup (takes bad angles, bad first step).

    CBs Colvin and Hurst. Nice. Very nice, this talent here would allow the defense (any defense really) to let others attack the QB and middle of the field.

    FS Needs to be a good cover guy as the 3-3-5 usually runs a 1 deep or 3 deep zone (although cover 2 is possible as well with the FS and a CB covering deep) and Tony Jefferson was our best cover safety.

    SS Guys like Roy Williams would reek total havic here. Need hard hitters first and then secondly guys that can cover TEs, short zones and even slot WRs. Harris and Ibeyoe would play here. As neither would be expect to cover deep passes much this would hide their weakeness.

    Basically, I think the 3-3-5 is and attacking in your face defense, prolly the most aggressive scheme, that really would have accented our strengths and hide our weakness last year. For 2013 IDK, we lose our top 3 DTs, our DEs are question marks, we still don't have a MLB, and we lose 3/4 of our DBs.

    Still it might be worth it. It can manufacture QB pressure, and it is a penetrating defense by nature to disrupt any complicated run game.

  18. #18
    SECsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    491
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Deep Souf

    3-3-5 doesn't work. We don't have the personnel for 3-4. Gotta be 310-320 at NT. DE's 275-290. Two backers in the 250-260 range. Of course, our coaches will try to run it with our undersized players anyway. Good Luck.

  19. #19
    I am a fan too and it has been run well. The idea that it has never worked is bullshit. Dunn, Strong and Casteel all ran an odd stack at different times and had very good defenses. I look at guys like Byrd and Thomas and see the kind of flexibility at safety/backer you need. OU has the edge guys to use a stand up Lou/SAM too. That was more my point earlier. That if you recruit these edge rushers you just can't phase them out by running the typical 220 lb Lou and the higher cut guys would be bad 5's.
    2 users like eddyjizza's post: Dr Sleep, SpankyNek


  20. #20
    Originally Posted by SECsooner View Post
    3-3-5 doesn't work. We don't have the personnel for 3-4. Gotta be 310-320 at NT. DE's 275-290. Two backers in the 250-260 range. Of course, our coaches will try to run it with our undersized players anyway. Good Luck.
    In the NFL maybe, not so much in college. Even some NFL teams get away with smaller nose tackles if they get good leverage. Kelly Gregg started for some good Baltimore defenses for 7 or 8 years in the NFL and he was probably 6-0 300 maybe 290-300 tops at his best. The good things about the 3-4 our DEs don't need to be pass rushers as much which is where our ends were weakest at. We can basically have our best pass rushers at OLB and have the ends used to basically either help with the run or to make sure that the rushing LBs get their lanes to the QB. It would fit our ends more even though they aren't as big. Again as others have posted it would also allow for more zone defense which is what Stoops has always liked to run. It's a lot easier to disguise if we also have a good blitzing DB.

    It's a lot better than the 3-0 or 4-1 defenses we ran out there this year that did jack shit against the pass.
    3 users like SoonerLibertarian's post: Dr Sleep, eddyjizza, Sooner 4 Life


  21. #21
    fdubzou's Avatar
    Posts
    7,546
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    2909
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska

    3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    Originally Posted by Houston Sooner View Post
    Won't work unless you get a fat nose tackle and 2 bigger inside LB's..

    This.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  22. #22
    prrriiide's Avatar
    Posts
    527
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Knoxvega$

    I watched Tennessee implode on defense this past season from Sunseri ramming a 3-4 up their ass with 4-3 personnel. Something else to consider is that the 3-4 doesn't just effect the box. It changes up DB alignments and coverage responsibilities as well. What I saw from UT this season was constant shrugging and questioning where they were supposed to be and where they were supposed to line up in the secondary. They were actually serviceable against the run with McCullers (6-6, 377) stopping up the middle, but against the pass they were, to put it kindly, the Keystone Kops. If OU wants to go to a 3 man front, they need to start recruiting the horses for that now to implement in 2 years.

  23. #23
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,749
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by prrriiide View Post
    I watched Tennessee implode on defense this past season from Sunseri ramming a 3-4 up their ass with 4-3 personnel. Something else to consider is that the 3-4 doesn't just effect the box. It changes up DB alignments and coverage responsibilities as well. What I saw from UT this season was constant shrugging and questioning where they were supposed to be and where they were supposed to line up in the secondary. They were actually serviceable against the run with McCullers (6-6, 377) stopping up the middle, but against the pass they were, to put it kindly, the Keystone Kops. If OU wants to go to a 3 man front, they need to start recruiting the horses for that now to implement in 2 years.
    We have a few bodies that can plug the NT position. You don't need someone who is 350+ to do that.

  24. #24
    prrriiide's Avatar
    Posts
    527
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Knoxvega$

    Originally Posted by nolesooner View Post
    We have a few bodies that can plug the NT position. You don't need someone who is 350+ to do that.
    But we do need the horses in the secondary and LB to run it. Secondary would probably be passable assuming they can pick up the schemes. LB, we're ****ed in a 3 man front.

  25. #25
    Mr. Pink's Avatar
    Posts
    1,035
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Orlando, FL

    The scheme doesn't matter if you don't have the players to execute it or those players who are suited for the scheme don't execute it properly. OU's problem has been both; players and execution.

  26. #26
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,749
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by prrriiide View Post
    But we do need the horses in the secondary and LB to run it. Secondary would probably be passable assuming they can pick up the schemes. LB, we're ****ed in a 3 man front.
    How big do our LBs NEED to be to play in a 3-4 scheme? We have guys that are 350. Aaron Franklin and Corey Nelson are our smallest linebackers and soonersports roster says he weighs in at 212 and 219....which I doubt is accurate. I imagine a few of our DEs would go back and play OLB, like Rashod Favors who is 250. PL Lindley is 240.

    Jordan Phillips and Damon Williams are over 300 lbs and We have Quincey Russell coming in who is over 300 lbs.
    The following users like this post: Dr Sleep


  27. #27

    Re: 3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    We're big enough to run a 3-4. I really hope we go that direction this year.

  28. #28

    Re: 3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    We are probably small at LB for the 4-3

  29. #29
    nlight1's Avatar
    Posts
    2,685
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Oklahoma & nowhere else

    3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    3-3-5 sounds good to me.

  30. #30
    SoonerSapper's Avatar
    Posts
    4,125
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Fort Irwin CA

    I like the 3-3-5, as it is great at causing confusion on the offense and you can bring pressure from multiple places.

    I'm not sure I can see MS running the 3-3 due to the need to run a lot more zone coverage than we did this past season, and just his lack of familiarity with the scheme. There's a lot more to changing defense than just where guys line up, it would require a change for the entire defensive staff.

    I don't buy the excuse that the defense doesn't work and would get gashed by power running teams (BTW, which are in short supply in the Big XII). Currently the only BCS schools I know of that run the 3-3 are WVU, Arizona, Miss St. Most of the other teams that run it are teams that don't have a heck of a lot of talent; the service acadamies, and Tulsa (I'm sure there are others). If you run the 3-3 you do allow some "bubbles" that can be ran on, same with any other defensive scheme. But it's made up for with the assumption that the stunting and blitzing inheret with the scheme will cause loss of yardage plays.

    Against power teams the key is to rotate players, and splay the Spur/Bandit (SS types) closer to the line. Same thing, you bank on getting the power running team off schedule by causing loss of yardage plays through blitzing.

    Anything would be better than the back alley abortion that we called a defense the last half of the season.
    The following users like this post: Dr Sleep


  31. #31

    Re: 3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    Originally Posted by SoonerSapper View Post
    I like the 3-3-5, as it is great at causing confusion on the offense and you can bring pressure from multiple places.

    I'm not sure I can see MS running the 3-3 due to the need to run a lot more zone coverage than we did this past season, and just his lack of familiarity with the scheme. There's a lot more to changing defense than just where guys line up, it would require a change for the entire defensive staff.

    I don't buy the excuse that the defense doesn't work and would get gashed by power running teams (BTW, which are in short supply in the Big XII). Currently the only BCS schools I know of that run the 3-3 are WVU, Arizona, Miss St. Most of the other teams that run it are teams that don't have a heck of a lot of talent; the service acadamies, and Tulsa (I'm sure there are others). If you run the 3-3 you do allow some "bubbles" that can be ran on, same with any other defensive scheme. But it's made up for with the assumption that the stunting and blitzing inheret with the scheme will cause loss of yardage plays.

    Against power teams the key is to rotate players, and splay the Spur/Bandit (SS types) closer to the line. Same thing, you bank on getting the power running team off schedule by causing loss of yardage plays through blitzing.

    Anything would be better than the back alley abortion that we called a defense the last half of the season.
    Bama has ran the 3-3 at times as well. Great post man!

  32. #32
    MisterX's Avatar
    Posts
    216
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK

    If they are truly going to a 3-4, the coaches need to spend some time with Dick LeBeau and pick his brain.

  33. #33
    I would welcome this. I've wondered if this is the direction we would go for sometime. Jordan Phillips is a massive man to fill the middle and new commits Kerrick Huggins and Charles Walker are considered "athletic" tackles that could play DE in the 3 man from. Would also create a place for Marquis Anderson who is a lighter tackle we have on the roster. We also have two beefy MLB on the roster in Favors and Lindley. With Phillips Favors, Lindley or Shannon in the middle, I think that solves the run stopping problem. We still need to get a pass rush from the the outside backer. Don't know if Grissom or Onuahu are capable of playing OLB in that scheme. Or maybe they stick with Shannon in the middle and Favor and or Lindley move to the outside?

    On the other hand I don't know if lifelong 4-3 guys can just say "Hey, we should switch to a 3-4" and know how to run it. Mike better spend the summer at Dick LeBeau or Kirby Smart/Nick Saban's house.
    The following users like this post: Dr Sleep


  34. #34
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    6,749
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by srburkhart View Post
    I would welcome this. I've wondered if this is the direction we would go for sometime. Jordan Phillips is a massive man to fill the middle and new commits Kerrick Huggins and Charles Walker are considered "athletic" tackles that could play DE in the 3 man from. Would also create a place for Marquis Anderson who is a lighter tackle we have on the roster. We also have two beefy MLB on the roster in Favors and Lindley. With Phillips Favors, Lindley or Shannon in the middle, I think that solves the run stopping problem. We still need to get a pass rush from the the outside backer. Don't know if Grissom or Onuahu are capable of playing OLB in that scheme. Or maybe they stick with Shannon in the middle and Favor and or Lindley move to the outside?

    On the other hand I don't know if lifelong 4-3 guys can just say "Hey, we should switch to a 3-4" and know how to run it. Mike better spend the summer at Dick LeBeau or Kirby Smart/Nick Saban's house.
    Don't forget Jordan Wade, Torrea Peterson in that list.

    I also doubt (or have my doubts) about Kerrick Huggins getting in. I do think that Quincy Russel gets in though. I DO hope that Huggins gets in.

  35. #35
    Redhawk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,384
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Denver, CO

    Well, considering that last year it seemed like we were playing a 2-1-8 scheme, a 3-4 would work. However, I'd expect that of the 4 linebackers at least 1 if not 2 will be converted DB's. So really it would be a 3-2-6 dime.

  36. #36
    Originally Posted by Redhawk View Post
    Well, considering that last year it seemed like we were playing a 2-1-8 scheme, a 3-4 would work. However, I'd expect that of the 4 linebackers at least 1 if not 2 will be converted DB's. So really it would be a 3-2-6 dime.
    Finding and developing 4 LBs would be hard considering how weak our LB core was this year, but it is college ball and heavy turnover is expected, plus the position changes you and others suggested. I do not like the 3-2-6 stuff. 5 guys in the box is good for only a Hail Mary pass defense as it can be run on so easily, QB scrambles for big gains, no pass rush so it can be beaten with the pass too. It has fail all over it, and we have mountains of proof of its fail over the last two season.

  37. #37
    Originally Posted by Dr Sleep View Post
    Finding and developing 4 LBs would be hard considering how weak our LB core was this year, but it is college ball and heavy turnover is expected, plus the position changes you and others suggested. I do not like the 3-2-6 stuff. 5 guys in the box is good for only a Hail Mary pass defense as it can be run on so easily, QB scrambles for big gains, no pass rush so it can be beaten with the pass too. It has fail all over it, and we have mountains of proof of its fail over the last two season.
    Finding 4 LBs isn't hard as long as you just keep letting them play and develop them instead of just playing 1 LB at a time like we did last year.
    The following users like this post: Dr Sleep


  38. #38
    If we ran that we would have a hard time recruiting any quality d linemen.....hell we have a hard time with it now..so I guess run that ****!

  39. #39
    Originally Posted by m2thakizzle View Post
    If we ran that we would have a hard time recruiting any quality d linemen.....hell we have a hard time with it now..so I guess run that ****!
    Alabama is having such a hard time finding quality defensive linemen.

  40. #40
    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    Alabama is having such a hard time finding quality defensive linemen.
    Alabama 1. Wins NC 3 outta 4 years and 2. pays more than OU can for those DL's.

  41. #41
    OU was playing for a national championship 3 times in a 5 years span also. It's about developing and putting players in the right position. We haven't done that at OU for most of the last 8 years

  42. #42

    OKC Thunder

    The 4-3 is outdated IMO. I think we need to make a change to a 3-4.

    The way we tackled this year, it doesn't matter what scheme we play.

    Step 1. Recruit more defensive talent

    Step 2. Recruit more defensive talent

  43. #43
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,840
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by OUInformant View Post
    The 4-3 is outdated IMO. I think we need to make a change to a 3-4.

    The way we tackled this year, it doesn't matter what scheme we play.

    Step 1. Recruit more defensive talent

    Step 2. Recruit more defensive talent
    Step 3. Steal some recruits from South Dakota State University.

  44. #44
    We are seeing more and more mobile QB's every year. Just something to think about when changing up defensive philosophy.

  45. #45
    Turk's Avatar
    Posts
    6,059
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    BFE,OK

    Apparently...this is going to happen.

  46. #46
    Originally Posted by huntinsooner View Post
    Rumor is that the coaches have talked about switching to a 3-4 front on defense this year. Being in the Big 12 running a 3-3-5 would also be good with all the passing offenses.

    What's your thoughts on the possible switch up? ND and BAMA both have had success with it.
    Arizona ran the 3-3-5 last year and their defense was absolutely horrible. West Virginia ran the 3-3-5 in the Big East and had a horrible defense also.

  47. #47
    Originally Posted by Turk View Post
    Apparently...this is going to happen.
    2007 WVU ran the 3-3-5 and was a top 10 defense. MSU in late nineties under Dunn ran a very successful odd stack, same for Charlie Strong at USCe. There are plenty of examples of successful odd stacks.

  48. #48
    With the LB's we have , we should try running a 9-1-1 Defense.
    The following users like this post: sOUltrain65


  49. #49
    In high school, re ran a 7-diamond defense: 7 down linemen, a middle backer, two corners, and a safety. Not recommending it, but it was fun.

  50. #50
    Turk's Avatar
    Posts
    6,059
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    BFE,OK

    Re: 3-4 Defense or 3-3-5 Defense

    Originally Posted by eddyjizza View Post
    2007 WVU ran the 3-3-5 and was a top 10 defense. MSU in late nineties under Dunn ran a very successful odd stack, same for Charlie Strong at USCe. There are plenty of examples of successful odd stacks.
    I'm all for it. Was just pointing out that it appears to be a definite thing.

    Fvckin it live via tapatalk dos

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2013, 01:13 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 26th, 2012, 04:40 PM
  3. TT Defense
    By sooner68 in forum Owen Field
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: October 5th, 2012, 01:34 AM

Tags for this Thread