We saw much of our new D last night

[upperdeck]

Clemson ran that 3-3-5 type front much of the game. it caused issues for LSU much of the game.. Of course Clemson has better athletes, but its the way to go for a team like us.

 

[corpjet]

The blitzing caused problems for a bit but Venables kept going back to the well too many times.

That plan works against a mid level team but not against a top 5 program with a Heisman QB.

The trend not only in college but the NFL is def going to a more hybrid/LBer/Athlete player that can stop the RPO......

With that said Im excited to see what our D can do next year, hopefully the mess we saw this year is cleaned up

 

[sutomcat]

Clemson ran that 3-3-5 type front much of the game. it caused issues for LSU much of the game.. Of course Clemson has better athletes, but its the way to go for a team like us.

Venables dabbles in it but he still has a convoy of 300 pound behemoths to play on the DL. It will be our base defense and I think you will see a lot more sophistication with our guy. San Diego State has been a lab on developing the 3-3-5 in its most sophisticated form.

 

[SmilinBob]

LSU's OL should get a lot of credit, they blocked the talented DL of Clemson straight up and forced Venables hand...that surprised me.

 

[Newhouser]

I think he blitzed too much. Clemson DB's were exposed a bit and left to fend for themselves.

 

[PAcuse]

They also ran a bunch of "3-1-7".
BUT they have the luxury of Simmons and Muse being MLB sized and playing like really good safeties as well.
I really liked the various looks you get out of the 3-3-5 and how easy it is to hide blitzes and coverage in it.

 

[hplare]

Love the idea of the 3 front, but it's vital to have the personnel for it. Shafer's okie wasn't exactly the same animal, but we often got burned because the secondary wasn't up to it. I don't think that's the case now, but I think we should be prepared to give it some time to come together. HCDB has been trying to beef people up to play in the ACC and now we may have to slim some down. No matter what, it's going to be fun

 

[upperdeck]

as Clemson showed even if you have the right pieces its still hard to stop the teams that are at the highest level.

but our goal should be to shut down the other 11 teams on our schedule and then have a shot when we play the big boy offenses. Even LSU might be a different animal if they dont have a really good QB and those teams dont always have that elite QB

There is only 1 elite offense in the ACC and the rest have peaks and valleys

getting pummeled by BC/Mary is something we need to stop, if you cant stop a top 10 offense thats fine because most teams wont, but you cant get blown out by teams with avg skill sets.

 

[Cuse12]

They looked gassed from blitzing so much I thought, the effectiveness went way down.

 

[upperdeck]

they really needed the offense to score, LSU was gassed early too but the offense picked them up

 

[Whitey23]

SDSU (Rocky Long) -->Iowa St -->Clemson

 

[007]

SDSU (Rocky Long) -->Iowa St -->Clemson

I have a feeling the 3-3-5, and variations thereof, will be an increasing trend in the college game. Similar to the growth of the no huddle spread offenses. It will be great to be somewhat ahead of this curve.

 

[Crusty]

Well, we beat the crap out of Halgerson's version at WV.
FHCDM seemed to own it.
Shafer's D was vulnerable to screens and the quick game and so is the 3-3-5 I think.
Still I would rather have either one instead of whatever it was we ran.

 

[OmahaCuse]

Scheme matters but talent wins. Talent is 90% of how good the D is 10% is scheme, IMO

 

[upperdeck]

I dont think its 90-10 or that clear cut.

when the talents are equal scheme matters more.
when you play clemson/lsu talent on offense you are in a pickle no matter what you run.

 

[TheCusian]

Scheme matters but talent wins. Talent is 90% of how good the D is 10% is scheme, IMO

I think the overall thought is probably right - but I think what we need to do (and have done) is to hire a guy who can make it 80% talent and 20% scheme.