3-3-5 is going to stay.

[Harvey Specter]

Gonna have to use this gem again...

And on the other side of the spectrum.

Repeat after me: "The coach is always right. Any failures or shortcomings in the organization are not his fault; ever. If he did make some mistakes in the past, he has undoubtedly learned from them. He realizes what a great situation he is in at Arizona, and after trying life on the other side - he appreciates where he is and is not going to give up a good thing again."

I admitted that it was a knee jerk reaction, and a hypothetical. But one that was based off of direct quotes he made on how he plans to handle this process/ transition, and what he is looking to do.

That's the thing about a spectrum though - there may be extremes like the ones you posit, but there's also a whole lot in the middle and people don't necessarily (or even typically) fall to an extreme.

Absolutely correct. The 'wait and see' approach is the only way we can judge the effectiveness for any moves.

The 2 extremes relate to those with speculative views. I have a view of how I would like to see him handle this transition. If he goes the way I hope he does, I will readily praise it.

The smoke signals tell me he is not going to - but I could certainly be reading them wrong.

[azpenguin]

No one knows. Alternatively, he could keep the 3-3-5 but go with a much more aggressive, attacking version. Part of the problem with the defense this year was the conservative way they were used. Rush three, keep 8 back. I'm guessing Casteel wasn't comfortable with his DBs and wanted as much coverage as possible, but if you don't get to the QB and he's got lots of time, your defense will not be able to cover forever and you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They were much more aggressive in the USC and Utah games and it showed. They got to Travis Wilson in key moments and they knocked Kessler around a lot; you could see him getting up off the turf more than once shaking his head. If you play 3-3-5 you have to gamble up front and let your corners take their chances. The other big problem was they weren't creating turnovers like in years past. I'd rather see the defense pin their ears back and get burned occasionally than sit back and wait to see what happens, and my guess is the RR would rather see them attack as well.

[catgrad97]

I agree with the "wait and see" approach--I'm just wondering where the most successful version of the 3-3-5 has been in the last decade and who has been running it.

If it is Osia Lewis and he ends up coming here, great. But nobody's even dreaming that's going to raise our program's profile one iota.

Same formation but just attacking more? How is that going to attract more recruits?

None of the talk coming from either RichRod's or any fan's camp even implies a commitment to a next-level defense.

Between 70th and 100th seems to be about the best we're told to hope for. Unless we're prepared for another full-scale program investment like the one we did in our facilities when RichRod was hired, shouldn't we aim a little bit higher--at least to get a proper return on the investments already made?

It just seems like I'll be sitting here in another five years or so and talking about how the Arizona AD finally moved the football offices to the NEZ and replaced century-old grass with turf for one Pac-12 South championship and a handful of eight-win seasons, only to be starting all over again with another staff.

[Harvey Specter]

I agree with the "wait and see" approach--I'm just wondering where the most successful version of the 3-3-5 has been in the last decade and who has been running it.

If it is Osia Lewis and he ends up coming here, great. But nobody's even dreaming that's going to raise our program's profile one iota.

Same formation but just attacking more? How is that going to attract more recruits?

None of the talk coming from either RichRod's or any fan's camp even implies a commitment to a next-level defense.

Between 70th and 100th seems to be about the best we're told to hope for. Unless we're prepared for another full-scale program investment like the one we did in our facilities when RichRod was hired, shouldn't we aim a little bit higher--at least to get a proper return on the investments already made?

It just seems like I'll be sitting here in another five years or so and talking about how the Arizona AD finally moved the football offices to the NEZ and replaced century-old grass with turf for one Pac-12 South championship and a handful of eight-win seasons, only to be starting all over again with another staff.

Lewis is simply the DL coach on that defense... I am sure he has learned some things from Rocky Long, but it is not like we'd be bringing in the guy headlining that D. Which is in the Mountain West.

[Chicat]

I think those hoping for a defense ranked right around the mid-point (70ish) are also looking at the fact that with our offense that will mean a lot more wins, and that with more wins come better recruits on both sides of the ball which will push our defensive ranking even higher.

To have a defense ranked in the top-30, I think we'd need to run a different offense. Our offense produces way too many quick scores and quick punts to ever allow a defense to be truly elite with how much they are on the field.

And I wholeheartedly agree with Penguin. I have less of a problem with the 3-3-5 than I have with the way it was run. With Scooby last year you saw a lot more blitzes and pressure from the linebackers, which is what made it successful. With Scooby and Turituri out, we had guys filling in who would be safeties in other programs and they nearly always fell back into coverage which gave QBs the time to let WRs get open, and gave RBs big wide running lanes. Get back to attacking and I don't really care what formation you line up in.

[cordera89]

No one knows. Alternatively, he could keep the 3-3-5 but go with a much more aggressive, attacking version. Part of the problem with the defense this year was the conservative way they were used. Rush three, keep 8 back. I'm guessing Casteel wasn't comfortable with his DBs and wanted as much coverage as possible, but if you don't get to the QB and he's got lots of time, your defense will not be able to cover forever and you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They were much more aggressive in the USC and Utah games and it showed. They got to Travis Wilson in key moments and they knocked Kessler around a lot; you could see him getting up off the turf more than once shaking his head. If you play 3-3-5 you have to gamble up front and let your corners take their chances. The other big problem was they weren't creating turnovers like in years past. I'd rather see the defense pin their ears back and get burned occasionally than sit back and wait to see what happens, and my guess is the RR would rather see them attack as well.

That plan can also backfire on RR if he intend to go with that approach. Have any DC fully successful of making 335 legit in Power 5 conference. Even if he did try to make aggressive approach it will backfired on him. He need to move away from the 335 and run another scheme. It isn't going help him in recruiting if he plan on keeping it.

[catgrad97]

I agree with the "wait and see" approach--I'm just wondering where the most successful version of the 3-3-5 has been in the last decade and who has been running it.

If it is Osia Lewis and he ends up coming here, great. But nobody's even dreaming that's going to raise our program's profile one iota.

Same formation but just attacking more? How is that going to attract more recruits?

None of the talk coming from either RichRod's or any fan's camp even implies a commitment to a next-level defense.

Between 70th and 100th seems to be about the best we're told to hope for. Unless we're prepared for another full-scale program investment like the one we did in our facilities when RichRod was hired, shouldn't we aim a little bit higher--at least to get a proper return on the investments already made?

It just seems like I'll be sitting here in another five years or so and talking about how the Arizona AD finally moved the football offices to the NEZ and replaced century-old grass with turf for one Pac-12 South championship and a handful of eight-win seasons, only to be starting all over again with another staff.

Lewis is simply the DL coach on that defense... I am sure he has learned some things from Rocky Long, but it is not like we'd be bringing in the guy headlining that D. Which is in the Mountain West.

True on both counts. That makes me wonder how much knowledge of our "new" defense, whatever it ends up being, our ultimate DC will have.

It's just difficult for me to be more optimistic than the notion that RichRod would rather have a defense he can manage rather than a defense that's any better.

[chiefzona]

Some people are whiffing on this. Jeff Casteel is the best conductor of the 3-3-5, ever. He ran it better than anyone has as a PRIMARY scheme. No one can run it better. Now, he had 4 years to recruit for it and run it here at Arizona. The scheme and the recruiting did not work. We all saw that. The 3-3-5 Odd Stack does not belong in the PAC 12 as a primary defensive scheme because not only will it still fail, no one is going to run it better than Casteel and recruiting hiccups are not going to change. The offense is still hurry up and those big uglies on the line have to work hard. It's not changing. Osia Lewis is not going to come in and run it any better. RR isn't going to run it any better either. So scrap the damn project and start over.

[Scummy Dick Douglas]

http://www.andthevalleyshook.com/2016/1 ... e-football

Thought you guys might be interested in that. Play with the chart a bit to see how the PAC 12 defensive coaching staffs ranked according to their pay. I found the numbers for the SEC to be pretty interesting as well. Alabama scored well, (no shock there), but was surprised by how poorly LSU and Auburn ranked.

[azcat49]

Good stuff SDD, right at the bottom are we. 1.4M annually for a bottom third defense 4 years running.

[ANGCatFan]

I don't know what goes in RR head right now. But when you fired two defense assistant in Casteel and Kirl, Things seem to move in the right direction of improving the defense. Now I was reading an article of Gimino on what RR has idea of improving the defense. This part is just unacceptable:

Casteel ran a 3-3-5 "odd-stack" base defense, which was easy to criticize because it's different.

"People say, 'Well, the 3-3-5 didn't work.' Well, it has worked,'" Rodriguez said

Now a lot of people can say it didn't work in the four years, But in his eye it work in the four years?

RR is going to screw this once in life chance to improve the defense.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/3090 ... as-defense" target="_blank

I think the entire thread was started on a faulty premise. Coach Rod has never said he plans to keep the 3-3-5 odd stack. What he said in the media interview is open to interpretation and I think this is the part that caused the most concern from the Gimino interview:

"People say, 'Well, the 3-3-5 didn't work.' Well, it has worked,'" Rodriguez said.

"But nobody plays just one front. It's not like, magically, we'll play a 4-3 and we'll be better. No. I mean, when you get certain guys injured, I don't care what scheme you're in, you're going to struggle. Our coaches did a good job with their scheme and they put our players, a lot of times, in the right spot.

"But am I going to evaluate the scheme? You bet. The same way I evaluate the offensive scheme. But to say we'll fix the defense by changing scheme, that's not the case."

Coach Rod is certainly defending his coaches (and his close friends for 15 years +) and defending the scheme, but that is not the same as saying he plans to continue to run the 3-3-5.

What do we know from the article? Not much. Coach Rod has kept it pretty vague which gives him and the new DC room to build their new "Arizona defense".

"I'm not necessarily looking for a 'guru scheme guy' to come in," he said. "I'm looking for some people to help me create the environment we want defensively, but I'm going to give them the parameters that I want them to establish and use.

"I'm going to let them meet with the other staff, and they will come up with what I call the 'Arizona defense.' It may be similar to some things we've in the past, but it's probably going to be unique in some way or form."

Hard to know what that means. Because of Coach Rod's long association with the 3-3-5 he certainly could be planning to resurrect it with a new coordinator and better recruiter, but he also could ( and should ) be going in a new direction based on the the scheme's lack of results at UM and Arizona.

I'm firmly in the wait and see camp. Storm the castle now if you want, but I plan to sit back and wait to see if the doctor is actually planning to bring the monster back to life before I join any mob.

I am dumbfounded. He sure sounds like a micro-manager with a gi-normous ego to me. You would think he would have learned by now that his insistence in meddling with the defense for his last 7 years coaching is the one constant. Aside from the fact that they all sucked.

So he's hiring the open assistant roles for the new DC? No respectable DC is going to come in and be RR's prison b*tch... so I now expect a puppet so Rich Rod can play Geppetto.

And if things don't work out? No worries... It'll all be on the puppet. "The plan I laid out was sound; the problem is they failed to execute it properly". Of course that is the problem, Rich... after all, 'the 3-3-5 has worked'. Not in a major conference in the last decade, but let's not split hairs.

Un-fucking-believable. If this goes down the way his comments suggest, and this move should not buy him any extra time. The performance of the D next year is on him. The D struggles and drags the team down with it, and his seat should be boiling.

Harvey, I'm not sure if it is your passion for Arizona football or some personal issue with the head coach, but you are jumping to a lot of wild conclusions.

The article does not say Coach Rod is hiring the new staff for his DC, it says he will be interviewing for the open positions. I'll be shocked if he doesn't hire the DC first and then work with him to hire the next position. Are you recommending that we should fire Caponi and Addae (2 young guys who are considered top recruiters) so the new DC can pick his entire staff?

I don't know personally what Coach Rod is like as a boss, but the comments and loyalty of his staff over the past 4 years don't support your rantings.

What I do know is what he is like on the practice field. At practice Coach Rod runs the offense. He is behind the QBs on almost every play and most of his discussion is with the QBs and the other coaches unless someone does something really stupid. On the practice field Casteel ran the defense and there was never a sign of him being micro-managed by the head coach.

I hope Coach Rod is more involved with the defense until the new DC proves himself. But more involved does not necessarily mean he is automatically a micro-managing, gi-nourmous egoed Gepetto.

Finally, Chiefzona. I agree with you that Casteel is the best 3-3-5 coordinator, period, dot. It is one of the big reasons I don't think we will be running the 3-3-5 as our base defense under the new coordinator. Why fire the master and then bring in a nobody to replace him?

What I don't get is you throwing in the towel on Arizona football under Rich Rodriquez?

Normal HCs hire a DC and let him hire his people. Especially an offensive-minded HC. RR does not know defense. I think that's been proven. So, if he is going to meddle then he is going to get a DC that isn't big time or doesn't care and that's not good IMO. He already has position hires and the new DC will be micromanaged. So, I'm not even excited or have any sense of wonder in who he hires. It really won't matter IMO. I'm just wondering who the next HC will be.

Despite the problems, we have had the best 4 year run in Arizona football history. Instead of giving up, I see this as a chance for Arizona football to improve.

I give Coach Rod a lot of credit for firing his long time friends and colleagues. He said it was the hardest decision he has had to make in his coaching career and I believe him.

The cynics think it was to save his job or to set himself up for a better job in the future. I think it is simpler. Coach Rod wants to win and to do that he needed to improve the Arizona defense.

[Scummy Dick Douglas]

Good stuff SDD, right at the bottom are we. 1.4M annually for a bottom third defense 4 years running.

http://www.andthevalleyshook.com/2015/1 ... 1450426485

It was linked in the other one, but here are the offensive numbers. Texas Tech gets the most bang for the buck on offense.

[azcat49]

I don't know what goes in RR head right now. But when you fired two defense assistant in Casteel and Kirl, Things seem to move in the right direction of improving the defense. Now I was reading an article of Gimino on what RR has idea of improving the defense. This part is just unacceptable:

Casteel ran a 3-3-5 "odd-stack" base defense, which was easy to criticize because it's different.

"People say, 'Well, the 3-3-5 didn't work.' Well, it has worked,'" Rodriguez said

Now a lot of people can say it didn't work in the four years, But in his eye it work in the four years?

RR is going to screw this once in life chance to improve the defense.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/3090 ... as-defense" target="_blank

I think the entire thread was started on a faulty premise. Coach Rod has never said he plans to keep the 3-3-5 odd stack. What he said in the media interview is open to interpretation and I think this is the part that caused the most concern from the Gimino interview:

"People say, 'Well, the 3-3-5 didn't work.' Well, it has worked,'" Rodriguez said.

"But nobody plays just one front. It's not like, magically, we'll play a 4-3 and we'll be better. No. I mean, when you get certain guys injured, I don't care what scheme you're in, you're going to struggle. Our coaches did a good job with their scheme and they put our players, a lot of times, in the right spot.

"But am I going to evaluate the scheme? You bet. The same way I evaluate the offensive scheme. But to say we'll fix the defense by changing scheme, that's not the case."

Coach Rod is certainly defending his coaches (and his close friends for 15 years +) and defending the scheme, but that is not the same as saying he plans to continue to run the 3-3-5.

What do we know from the article? Not much. Coach Rod has kept it pretty vague which gives him and the new DC room to build their new "Arizona defense".

"I'm not necessarily looking for a 'guru scheme guy' to come in," he said. "I'm looking for some people to help me create the environment we want defensively, but I'm going to give them the parameters that I want them to establish and use.

"I'm going to let them meet with the other staff, and they will come up with what I call the 'Arizona defense.' It may be similar to some things we've in the past, but it's probably going to be unique in some way or form."

Hard to know what that means. Because of Coach Rod's long association with the 3-3-5 he certainly could be planning to resurrect it with a new coordinator and better recruiter, but he also could ( and should ) be going in a new direction based on the the scheme's lack of results at UM and Arizona.

I'm firmly in the wait and see camp. Storm the castle now if you want, but I plan to sit back and wait to see if the doctor is actually planning to bring the monster back to life before I join any mob.

I am dumbfounded. He sure sounds like a micro-manager with a gi-normous ego to me. You would think he would have learned by now that his insistence in meddling with the defense for his last 7 years coaching is the one constant. Aside from the fact that they all sucked.

So he's hiring the open assistant roles for the new DC? No respectable DC is going to come in and be RR's prison b*tch... so I now expect a puppet so Rich Rod can play Geppetto.

And if things don't work out? No worries... It'll all be on the puppet. "The plan I laid out was sound; the problem is they failed to execute it properly". Of course that is the problem, Rich... after all, 'the 3-3-5 has worked'. Not in a major conference in the last decade, but let's not split hairs.

Un-fucking-believable. If this goes down the way his comments suggest, and this move should not buy him any extra time. The performance of the D next year is on him. The D struggles and drags the team down with it, and his seat should be boiling.

Harvey, I'm not sure if it is your passion for Arizona football or some personal issue with the head coach, but you are jumping to a lot of wild conclusions.

The article does not say Coach Rod is hiring the new staff for his DC, it says he will be interviewing for the open positions. I'll be shocked if he doesn't hire the DC first and then work with him to hire the next position. Are you recommending that we should fire Caponi and Addae (2 young guys who are considered top recruiters) so the new DC can pick his entire staff?

I don't know personally what Coach Rod is like as a boss, but the comments and loyalty of his staff over the past 4 years don't support your rantings.

What I do know is what he is like on the practice field. At practice Coach Rod runs the offense. He is behind the QBs on almost every play and most of his discussion is with the QBs and the other coaches unless someone does something really stupid. On the practice field Casteel ran the defense and there was never a sign of him being micro-managed by the head coach.

I hope Coach Rod is more involved with the defense until the new DC proves himself. But more involved does not necessarily mean he is automatically a micro-managing, gi-nourmous egoed Gepetto.

Finally, Chiefzona. I agree with you that Casteel is the best 3-3-5 coordinator, period, dot. It is one of the big reasons I don't think we will be running the 3-3-5 as our base defense under the new coordinator. Why fire the master and then bring in a nobody to replace him?

What I don't get is you throwing in the towel on Arizona football under Rich Rodriquez?

Normal HCs hire a DC and let him hire his people. Especially an offensive-minded HC. RR does not know defense. I think that's been proven. So, if he is going to meddle then he is going to get a DC that isn't big time or doesn't care and that's not good IMO. He already has position hires and the new DC will be micromanaged. So, I'm not even excited or have any sense of wonder in who he hires. It really won't matter IMO. I'm just wondering who the next HC will be.

Despite the problems, we have had the best 4 year run in Arizona football history. Instead of giving up, I see this as a chance for Arizona football to improve.

I give Coach Rod a lot of credit for firing his long time friends and colleagues. He said it was the hardest decision he has had to make in his coaching career and I believe him.

The cynics think it was to save his job or to set himself up for a better job in the future. I think it is simpler. Coach Rod wants to win and to do that he needed to improve the Arizona defense.

Lots of good stuff here Ang. Well done my friend

[RazorsEdgeAZ]

I would expect RR to call new "Arizona Defense" something different but only a hybrid of the 3-3-5. Would be strong headwinds if he actually called it the same scheme. Tweak it, call it something new and innovative.

I imagine that the DC pool for AZ limited because RR had already promoted Addae before letting Casteel go. And that Caponi still on staff. Since RR usually always has more Offensive assistants than defensive (includes RR and Ragel for TE's) seems clear new hires will have to double up somewhere.

Well established DC's will try to stay away from that. Not being able to have full control. RR saying he will be more involved doesn't help in luring a well established DC who is used to not full control, but more than RR has been willing to provide historically. Plus, DC's know full well RR's offensive heavy philosophy. So do we.

RR has for a long-time had "his guys" and his schemes because I fully believe RR wants and needs that control to ensure his offensive recruiting and resources will stay intact. What I've been writing fow awhile is part of reason for "tweeners". Athletic and versatile. Also ability to recruit heavier on offensive side of ball (resources) to make sure the Offensive pace and efficiency stays fed. Offense has always been the way for RR to win games. Also where you can have walk-ons and Tweeners on D-Line (role they play) and have more range (atheletes, versatility) to interchange and swap out defense players to offense players and vice versa. Safeties to LBs etc. Same with QB's, collect them heavier than most programs (resources) and convert them to TE's or WR's if needed.

Tough to get an established DC to come into that Offense heavy philosophy. Afraid they'll never get the resources needed to be strong defensive team. Majority goes toward offense. But that's RR and that's what he sells. He doesn't hide it. Why Casteel around for so long. He went along and supported that offensive philosophy. That's why the 3-3-5 focuses on Turnovers, sacks and TFL's (supposed to) to work. Bend, don't break. Defense needs athletes and versatility (and smaller sized - tweeners) to keep up with RR's fast pace offense lack or need for time of possession. Stay on the field longer, rotate in due to number of plays defense generally plays. Conditioning, speed and lots of defensive plays. Easier to accomplish with smaller sized players. Not everywhere, but some positions. Get a turnover when you can and try to stop them in RZ. Not all the time, just enough times to keep the AZ offense rested while you're bending not breaking and ability for AZ offense to play fast whole game. Get the Offense to the 4th quarter where their conditioning will win.

Nothing new, WV and Michigan fans all saw this and expressed it. I don't expect RR to share a lot more of his Offensive resource needs. Offense is what he's known for. No secret to that.

[Harvey Specter]

Despite the problems, we have had the best 4 year run in Arizona football history

No, we haven't... and it is this type of talk track that makes my blood boil.

Artifically inflated results because of more games, weaker scheduling, and a ridiculously low bar for bowl qualification (because of a diluted pool) does not the best 4 year run in our history make. It does a dis-service to the accomplishments of some of our past regimes at the expense of propping up our current HC.

As always, plenty of valid comments in your complete response... I respect your opinions even if I disagree with them. It might be argued as the most successful 4-year start to any coaching regime.

These past 4 years have included the 3rd best season in the PAC era, along with 2 mediocre ones and 1 poor one. Applying a curve for it being the first 4 years of a new staff upgrades is fair and upgrades it slightly, but not to the degree your statement above suggests, IMO.

[Harvey Specter]

I would expect RR to call new "Arizona Defense" something different but only a hybrid of the 3-3-5. Would be strong headwinds if he actually called it the same scheme. Tweak it, call it something new and innovative.

I imagine that the DC pool for AZ limited because RR had already promoted Addae before letting Casteel go. And that Caponi still on staff. Since RR usually always has more Offensive assistants than defensive (includes RR and Ragel for TE's) seems clear new hires will have to double up somewhere.

Well established DC's will try to stay away from that. Not being able to have full control. RR saying he will be more involved doesn't help in luring a well established DC who is used to not full control, but more than RR has been willing to provide historically. Plus, DC's know full well RR's offensive heavy philosophy. So do we.

RR has for a long-time had "his guys" and his schemes because I fully believe RR wants and needs that control to ensure his offensive recruiting and resources will stay intact. What I've been writing fow awhile is part of reason for "tweeners". Athletic and versatile. Also ability to recruit heavier on offensive side of ball (resources) to make sure the Offensive pace and efficiency stays fed. Offense has always been the way for RR to win games. Also where you can have walk-ons and Tweeners on D-Line (role they play) and have more range (atheletes, versatility) to interchange and swap out defense players to offense players and vice versa. Safeties to LBs etc. Same with QB's, collect them heavier than most programs (resources) and convert them to TE's or WR's if needed.

Tough to get an established DC to come into that Offense heavy philosophy. Afraid they'll never get the resources needed to be strong defensive team. Majority goes toward offense. But that's RR and that's what he sells. He doesn't hide it. Why Casteel around for so long. He went along and supported that offensive philosophy. That's why the 3-3-5 focuses on Turnovers, sacks and TFL's (supposed to) to work. Bend, don't break. Defense needs athletes and versatility (and smaller sized - tweeners) to keep up with RR's fast pace offense lack or need for time of possession. Stay on the field longer, rotate in due to number of plays defense generally plays. Get a turnover when you can and try to stop them in RZ. Not all the time, just enough times to keep the AZ offense rested while you're bending not breaking and ability for AZ offense to play fast whole game. Get the Offense to the 4th quarter where their conditioning will win.

Nothing new, WV and Michigan fans all saw this and expressed it. I don't expect RR to share a lot more of his Offensive resource needs. Offense is what he's known for. No secret to that.

Agree with all of this.

[Chicat]

Harvey, I'm glad you acknowledged that Ang had plenty of valid comments in his complete response, but I'm a little disappointed you only addressed that one minor one.

Ang illustrated and illuminated many of my thoughts as well, and far better than I ever could. If anyone has any substantive disagreements with them, I'd love to hear the other side of the coin.

[wyo-cat]

Despite the problems, we have had the best 4 year run in Arizona football history

No, we haven't... and it is this type of talk track that makes my blood boil.

Artifically inflated results because of more games, weaker scheduling, and a ridiculously low bar for bowl qualification (because of a diluted pool) does not the best 4 year run in our history make. It does a dis-service to the accomplishments of some of our past regimes at the expense of propping up our current HC.

As always, plenty of valid comments in your complete response... I respect your opinions even if I disagree with them. It might be argued as the most successful 4-year start to any coaching regime.

These past 4 years have included the 3rd best season in the PAC era, along with 2 mediocre ones and 1 poor one. Applying a curve for it being the first 4 years of a new staff upgrades it slightly, but not to the degree your statement above suggests, IMO.

Dude, remember the state of the program after the 2011 season.

The year before RR arrived we had a D ranked in the 100's and had lost nearly an entire season worth of games in a row to D1 competition. This program was a dumpster fire.

8,8,10 & 7 wins after that makes me very happy and this steak may not be the best four years, but it's pretty damn close I'd bet. I'll take it.

[Harvey Specter]

Harvey, I'm glad you acknowledged that Ang had plenty of valid comments in his complete response, but I'm a little disappointed you only addressed that one minor one.

Ang illustrated and illuminated many of my thoughts as well, and far better than I ever could. If anyone has any substantive disagreements with them, I'd love to hear the other side of the coin.

Fatigue is setting in... I have said my peace and I know plenty are tired of hearing it. I'll defer from further commentary until a DC is named, and if I come to my senses will refrain from further commentary until we see where things go from there. I should be more focused on BB anyway... 'Tis the season.

PS - For the record... I hope I am reading this wrong on both counts. A) who we hire and what scheme we run -and- B) if A is not, that it proves more successful than I expect it to be.

Peace.

[Chicat]

Harvey, I'm glad you acknowledged that Ang had plenty of valid comments in his complete response, but I'm a little disappointed you only addressed that one minor one.

Ang illustrated and illuminated many of my thoughts as well, and far better than I ever could. If anyone has any substantive disagreements with them, I'd love to hear the other side of the coin.

Fatigue is setting in... I have said my peace and I know plenty are tired of hearing it.

I'll defer from further commentary until a DC is named, and if I co e to my senses will refrain from further commentary at least until we see who is hired and where things go from there.

PS - For the record... I hope I am reading this wrong on both counts. A) who we hire and what scheme we run -and- B) if A is not, that it proves more successful than I expect it to.

Peace.

Understandable. Most of us want the best possible football program at UA, and we all realize defense is going to be at least 1/3 of the equation that gets us there. I'm sure once we do hire a DC and the scheme is announced or rumored, we'll have plenty more to talk about.

[azpenguin]

Dude, remember the state of the program after the 2011 season.

The year before RR arrived we had a D ranked in the 100's and had lost nearly an entire season worth of games in a row to D1 competition. This program was a dumpster fire.

8,8,10 & 7 wins after that makes me very happy and this steak may not be the best four years, but it's pretty damn close I'd bet. I'll take it.

Stanford. USC. Oregon. ASU. Oklahoma State. Oklahoma State again. Oregon again. Stanford again. USC again. Oregon State. (There was a win against NAU sprinkled in between the Oklahoma State games.) They gave up 395 points over that stretch. This was with a Stoops defense (to be fair that defense was decimated by injury as well in 2011 after The Great ACL Harvest of 2011 struck Arizona) and was just incomprehensible to watch.

[gronk4heisman]

Based on Rich Rod's interviews it sounds like this change had more to do with getting younger and more energetic on the recruiting trail than actual scheme. Which I am one that believes that talent is the bigger issue than scheme, though not a fan of the 3-3-5. You put our near misses the past few years Kahlil McKenzie and Jalen Tabor along with Kyle Kelly who moved to SDSU in the 3-3-5 and it instantly looks a lot better.

[chiefzona]

Arizona is 2-10 vs UCLA, USC, and ASU during Rich Rod's tenure and the 3-3-5. Not very good at all, but hey, as long as the easy 3 wins to start off and a pissant bowl is reached....wash, rinse, and repeat.

[whatisee]

Arizona is 2-10 vs UCLA, USC, and ASU during Rich Rod's tenure and the 3-3-5. Not very good at all, but hey, as long as the easy 3 wins to start off and a pissant bowl is reached....wash, rinse, and repeat.

Best 4 year span in program history. PAC12 South Championship, 4 or 5 strait bowls, 10 win season, Fiesta Bowl. Yep...we have it tough and the program is spiraling out of control.

[Merkin]

Larry Smith would have gone to 6 straight bowl games, 7 if you count his first 5-6 year.

Bowl games are not an indicator of best seasons anymore having 35 of them for 70 teams out of 125.

Smith could only play a Div IAA team once every 4 years too, not every year like now.

Smith beat ASU 5 straight times. Not afraid to play bigger programs, such as LSU, Notre Dame and so on.

BIG-GAME COACH

Larry Smith’s UA teams knocked off six top-10 teams during his tenure from 1980-86.

1980: Beat No. 2 UCLA 23-17

1981: Won at No. 1 USC 13-10

1982: Won at No. 9 Notre Dame 16-13.

1982: Beat No. 6 ASU 28-18, starting a nine-game unbeaten streak against the Devils.

1985: Beat No. 6 SMU 28-6.

1986: Downed No. 4 ASU 34-17.

[tgrumpy2]

Larry Smith would have gone to 6 straight bowl games, 7 if you count his first 5-6 year.

Bowl games are not an indicator of best seasons anymore having 35 of them for 70 teams out of 125.

Smith could only play a Div IAA team once every 4 years too, not every year like now.

Smith beat ASU 5 straight times. Not afraid to play bigger programs, such as LSU, Notre Dame and so on.

BIG-GAME COACH

Larry Smith’s UA teams knocked off six top-10 teams during his tenure from 1980-86.

1980: Beat No. 2 UCLA 23-17

1981: Won at No. 1 USC 13-10

1982: Won at No. 9 Notre Dame 16-13.

1982: Beat No. 6 ASU 28-18, starting a nine-game unbeaten streak against the Devils.

1985: Beat No. 6 SMU 28-6.

1986: Downed No. 4 ASU 34-17.

Larry Smith held this program together through some of its darkest hours after Tony Mason got us on probation. Smith also recruited the state very well and had great relationships with the high school coaches. He routinely held free coaching clinics and any coach in the state that had an X's or O's problem could call or come by and Smith's coaching staff would help them with it. Smith also encouraged walk ons and actually gave them a chance to be seen. Most people heap accolades on Tomey and for good reason but coach Smith was the man.

[whatisee]

Until one wins the Rose Bowl they're all just names on the coaching tree. Smith quit on us, so i don't understand the love for him. In fact he quit to take another job while we were on the rise. Much the same as Rich Rod almost did. One is a saint and one is a sinner

[illcat]

From the article:

"But nobody plays just one front. It's not like, magically, we'll play a 4-3 and we'll be better. No. I mean, when you get certain guys injured, I don't care what scheme you're in, you're going to struggle. Our coaches did a good job with their scheme and they put our players, a lot of times, in the right spot."

He's not wrong. If we were running a 3-4 last season, I doubt the results would have been different.

I'm no fan of the 3 3 5 but I do agree with TuiT just because you play another scheme doesn't guarantee better results. We as fans have to let it play out. Different coordinator maybe some improvement.

[cordera89]

From the article:

"But nobody plays just one front. It's not like, magically, we'll play a 4-3 and we'll be better. No. I mean, when you get certain guys injured, I don't care what scheme you're in, you're going to struggle. Our coaches did a good job with their scheme and they put our players, a lot of times, in the right spot."

He's not wrong. If we were running a 3-4 last season, I doubt the results would have been different.

I'm no fan of the 3 3 5 but I do agree with TuiT just because you play another scheme doesn't guarantee better results. We as fans have to let it play out. Different coordinator maybe some improvement.

What happen if it does give a better result that our defense started to play well in 4-3 or 3-4 scheme?

[azpenguin]

Larry Smith would have gone to 6 straight bowl games, 7 if you count his first 5-6 year.

Bowl games are not an indicator of best seasons anymore having 35 of them for 70 teams out of 125.

Smith could only play a Div IAA team once every 4 years too, not every year like now.

Smith beat ASU 5 straight times. Not afraid to play bigger programs, such as LSU, Notre Dame and so on.

BIG-GAME COACH

Larry Smith’s UA teams knocked off six top-10 teams during his tenure from 1980-86.

1980: Beat No. 2 UCLA 23-17

1981: Won at No. 1 USC 13-10

1982: Won at No. 9 Notre Dame 16-13.

1982: Beat No. 6 ASU 28-18, starting a nine-game unbeaten streak against the Devils.

1985: Beat No. 6 SMU 28-6.

1986: Downed No. 4 ASU 34-17.

Fair points, although he would have missed two bowl games due to NCAA probation. Smith won 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8 and 9 games over his seasons, and he's regarded as a hell of a coach (in my book as well.) He was beating teams OOC such as Cal State Fullerton, UTEP, Pacific, Long Beach State, Utah State, and lost to most of the P5 OOC competition he played. He also lost to Fresno State twice. Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Cal and Stanford were doormats more often than not.

RichRod has his share of top 10 wins as well. #9 USC in 2012, #5 Oregon in 2013, at #2 Oregon in 2014, and #10 Utah in 2015. He's won 8, 8, 10, and 7 (if you go without the bowls like Smith did, then it's 7, 7, 10 and 6, if you take out FCS except one since Smith could play a 1-AA team every four, then it's 6, 7, 9 and 5) in his first four years. The knock on him is scheduling, that he's only played one P5 OOC game (OK State in 2012, a team he beat convincingly) but in fairness to him that's not his fault. The first four years OOC schedule was not handled by him or Byrne. The Pac is a much stronger conference top to bottom than it ever was when Smith was here.

The point is not to knock down Smith or prop up RichRod - it's just difficult to compare across eras. Smith is seen as a great coach and RR is seen as a fair to middling coach but when you compare the resumes there's not that much difference.

[azgreg]

I don't think we get completely away from the 3-3-5, but I think it will be quite different.

[Merkin]

Larry Smith would have gone to 6 straight bowl games, 7 if you count his first 5-6 year.

Bowl games are not an indicator of best seasons anymore having 35 of them for 70 teams out of 125.

Smith could only play a Div IAA team once every 4 years too, not every year like now.

Smith beat ASU 5 straight times. Not afraid to play bigger programs, such as LSU, Notre Dame and so on.

BIG-GAME COACH

Larry Smith’s UA teams knocked off six top-10 teams during his tenure from 1980-86.

1980: Beat No. 2 UCLA 23-17

1981: Won at No. 1 USC 13-10

1982: Won at No. 9 Notre Dame 16-13.

1982: Beat No. 6 ASU 28-18, starting a nine-game unbeaten streak against the Devils.

1985: Beat No. 6 SMU 28-6.

1986: Downed No. 4 ASU 34-17.

Fair points, although he would have missed two bowl games due to NCAA probation. Smith won 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8 and 9 games over his seasons, and he's regarded as a hell of a coach (in my book as well.) He was beating teams OOC such as Cal State Fullerton, UTEP, Pacific, Long Beach State, Utah State, and lost to most of the P5 OOC competition he played. He also lost to Fresno State twice. Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Cal and Stanford were doormats more often than not.

RichRod has his share of top 10 wins as well. #9 USC in 2012, #5 Oregon in 2013, at #2 Oregon in 2014, and #10 Utah in 2015. He's won 8, 8, 10, and 7 (if you go without the bowls like Smith did, then it's 7, 7, 10 and 6, if you take out FCS except one since Smith could play a 1-AA team every four, then it's 6, 7, 9 and 5) in his first four years. The knock on him is scheduling, that he's only played one P5 OOC game (OK State in 2012, a team he beat convincingly) but in fairness to him that's not his fault. The first four years OOC schedule was not handled by him or Byrne. The Pac is a much stronger conference top to bottom than it ever was when Smith was here.

The point is not to knock down Smith or prop up RichRod - it's just difficult to compare across eras. Smith is seen as a great coach and RR is seen as a fair to middling coach but when you compare the resumes there's not that much difference.

Good points of course. just wanted to add that the Smith era only played 11 regular season games, in the RichRod era teams play 12 so need to take that into account also along with the additional bowl games and additional FCS games. So yes, quite difficult to compare across eras. Pop McKale had quite a few winning seasons!

I did believe Smith was really close to getting Arizona to the Rose Bowl. His leaving on the redeye to LAX without saying goodbye to the team, along with lying to the Tucson media is pretty unforgivable. But in all fairness, he might have stayed if the UA would have given him a long term contract, which was not allowed at the time due to ABOR rules, but Lute did stay. He also retired to Tucson and often helped the team out.

[azpenguin]

It's taken into account when you look at the second paragraph. Football was a different thing back then, since while the goal was to make a bowl you could consider the team having a successful season without making one. Smith was really close to a Rose Bowl, Tomey got closer, Stoops was a play away, and RichRod was pretty close himself last year (and had the Rose Bowl not been a semifinal the Cats may have gotten in.) I think Arizona has a really good chance of making one if RR stays.

[threenumberones]

So much for this awesome thread!

[azgreg]

Looks like cordera is right again. Oh wait................

[chiefzona]

Looks like cordera is right again. Oh wait................

Everyone on this board and all over Twitter and Beardown Natiom knew it was the 4-2-5 after Yates was hired.

[RazorsEdgeAZ]

I know I'm Old School and been AZ fan for long time...

But, I'm a little uncomfortable with new defensive hires (Williams especially) throwing out #DesertSwarm like a commodity. Yes, I'm over-thinking it, probably.

Nice to reference it, know its history and meaning for fans of AZ. But that defense and the reputation it gave AZ at the time was proven, established and earned.

Throwing it out couple times to brand and appeal to AZ fans, nice. Get on fans good side and all, but don't over do it. Either come up with your own or not, but if you're going to throw it out there like candy, why not take a snap first with your defense or earn it. Let's not coat-tail for marketing or self interests sake.

They have a long way to go to even come close to #DesertSwarm production. Likely never will with RR as head coach. I get it, you honor the past and all. The AZ traditions that sit firmly in AZ fans hearts. But don't align (YET) with such a great and honored AZ football tradition before you make you're first sack.

[Puerco]

Cosign.

Once or twice to signal your ambition, but more than that? Nope.

[3goggles]

I personally don't care they use it. I think they want this team to play with the same mind set. So if helps get our player and recruits jacked up about our defense then by all means use. They play of it and combine with the there new slogan like "Desert Savages"

[chiefzona]

I'm renaming the new defense to "The Haboob".

[azgreg]

Anything is better than "The Desert Sieve".

[azpenguin]

I'm renaming the new defense to "The Haboob".

Kicks up a bunch of dust in Tucson and then buries Tempe and Phoenix? I like it...

[Sid]

495536.jpg (19.38 KiB) Viewed 940 times

[Harvey Specter]

Anything is better than "The Desert Sieve".

I thought of it as Sonoran Swiss... as in cheese.

[Carcassdragger]

Went to a U of A-USC game at the coliseum back in the Tomey days. Of course we lost. As I was walking out I heard two USC douches call it "Desert Sperm".