if he can put his talent to work.

But your point about defensive tackle depth is serious. I wonder if they will switch some OL over or some incoming recruits. The Horns need at least four and possibly six or we’re skating on mighty thin ice like with the OL last year.

I would expect some move to shore that up.

Any candidates?

Thankfully, we’re not talking true freshman. Thomas, Scott and Wells are all red-shirt freshmen. Aaron Williams is the only true freshman.

Ishie is a junior. The Browns are sophomores and a little light to be safeties (Curtis, 178; Chykie 185) but at 6-1 each, have the height. If they should gain some weight, maybe so.

It shouldn’t be daring to develop good talent.

2004 Draft through the ‘08 Draft, Auburn had 11 players taken in the first 2 rounds, while Texas had 12. Hardly a meaningful difference. While their recruiting classes might not have as many “stars*”, their coaching staff consistently develops their players far better than most programs.

While Texas has had better recruits than Auburn, the fact that both teams have had fairly similar good track records as far as the draft is concerned shows that Auburn’s staff has done an excellent job developing talent.

Playing against several nationally ranked SEC teams with NFL prospects at QB, Auburn managed to be in the top 10 nationally each of the past 2 years on defense thanks to their pass defense.

I doubt anyone would make the argument that Texas, with its “superior players”, played a tougher schedule than Auburn (thereby offsetting). Therefore, Texas’ “superior” players combined with Muschamp’s stellar coaching should produce a dramatic defensive turnaround.

However, it’s probably not configured like the old 5-3 or 5-4. If Bowden is correct, then I suspect Muschamp will go after anything that works, particularly on OU. I’d bet he’s already watched that WVU film many times just to see what really screwed them up.

And that’s something I suspect Texas would never show until they run onto the Cotton Bowl.

This must be the time for the pre-planing phase against all our opponents, particularly OU, Mizzou, CU, Tech and A&M. They’ll need to cover it in some form in two-a-days for later reference and refinement. You just can’t spring this on a team the week before the game; you’ll never get the recognition and intuitive physical response.

I’d love to think that in Muschamp’s office is a big sign saying KILL OU. And to do that you must aggressively predate upon them, to hamstring them and force them out of their timing (esp. the faster and improved offensive version Stoops is trying to cook up). You must do this in the first quarter when they so prone to score with their blitzkrieg. Then you must have more adjustments for their ‘standard’ offense the second half.

When Muschamp pulls down the KILL OU sign, it says KILL A&M underneath. A little hyperbole is always useful in the right places.

If the 3-3-5 is really a sound defense and not some gimmick WVU invented to cover their lack of talent, it might make sense for us as you can effectively double your depth at DT.

The 3-3-5 (or 3-5-3 or 33 Stack) was invented in 1993 in Corvallis, Oregon, by the Oregon State defensive coaching staff. Among the coaches on that staff is current New Mexico head coach Rocky Long. If you watch UNM play, you’ll see a nice 3-3-5 scheme. Other teams who run it include West F’n Virginia, Tulsa, and (with the hiring of Joe Kines) Texas A&M. The 33 Stack is a sound defensive scheme that certainly doesn’t qualify as a gimmick.

You don’t need 5 linebackers to run a 33 Stack, you really just need 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 safety/LB hybrids, 2 CBs, and one badass FS/Rover. Don’t think of it as having 5 LBs on the field, think of it as having 3 extra safeties on the field, b/c that is essentially what they are.

Like any defensive scheme, the 3-3-5 does have its weaknesses. Some people claim it is weak against a power running game, but that really isn’t an issue unless they are on the field for a long time, allowing the offense to pound on them. Reality is, it takes a very skilled offensive line operating a solid track or zone scheme to defuse the shifting and stunting inherent in a 33 Stack defense. If you watched the whole 2008 Fiesta Bowl, you will notice that OU began to run the ball a little better in the second half as they adjusted to what WVU was doing.
The biggest weakness of the 33 Stack is that it is an inherently aggressive, gambling defense by nature, so it means you have to be willing to give up a big play or two sometimes. It is the nature of the beast. The upside is that this scheme is ideal for shutting down spread offenses, taking the pain to them, and matching them up, athlete for athlete, speed for speed.

Here is a look at a 3-5-3 alignment:

Generally, CBs cover #1, Dogs have #2, Bandits/Bats have #3 receivers. Usually, your two Ends and Nose will slant to cover gap assignments. Ends have either C or B gaps, Nose strong or weak A. Mike and Bandits will move to control gaps opposite the DL slant, so A gap for Mike, B or C for Bandits. Against the running game, Dogs and FS play contain, outside-in against power, inside-out against option.

I don’t know if you missed it, but Rice ran a 33 Stack against texas in 2006. They changed schemes again when Todd Graham (who learned the 33 Stack as a secondary coach at WVU) took the head coaching job at Tulsa after the season, though.

you’d just have ot recruit to it.

I’m a huge fan of the 33 Stack b/c of its versatility, but the 3-4 is right next to it in being able to defend just about any offense.

Actually, I think it is easier to move from the 4-3 to the 3-4 than the other way around. People may disagree with me on this, but I think you can take 3 4-3 DT-types and put them at DE-NT-DE in a 3-4 and be okay. Your 4-3 NG is used to drawing doubleteams just like a 3-4 NT does. If you have a NT and a DE in a 3-4 who both demand a doubleteam, you can pretty much dominate. The last great A&M defense (imo, the 2001 squad) had that in Ty Warren and Rocky Bernard.