How Good Can Bryan Nardo's Defense Be in the First Season?

I LOVE great defense in football, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how we perform this fall, Sure, there will be a game-time learning curve but, dang, this should be fun to watch! Go Pokes!

I'm really looking forward to see what we can do with this defense and with this group of players...

however....

I do not buy into the old adage that: Each level has it's maturity and football savvy and its speed, strength, and athletic ability. It evens out on either side of the ball at each level.

That may well hold true at the lower levels of football, like Div 2 and Div 3, but not at Div 1. Div 1 already has two levels 1-a and 1-aa, and I really don't think there is much you could do at lets say Buffalo to even out with what Bama or UGA or the buckeyes will bring on the other side... it just doesn't happen.

Same with the rest of the Div 1-a league, we saw that first hand with OSU/KState and/or UGA/TCU.... there was nothing going to happen in those games that would even it out.

That's why there are so many different schemes and alignments at the Div1 level, to try and get some edge where there was none before. No, it does not even out.

We're all hoping like heck that this gimmick defense will help to even it out, just a little bit, but even with this gimmick there will be those games and those mismatches that just will never even out at this level.

I also believe that it is easier to even things out with a gimmick offense than a gimmick defense... we're flip flopping the two this year, going away from a gimmick offense and to a gimmick defense.... who knows what the heck will happen...

What makes this defense a gimmick?

This isn't a "gimmick defense." The top 2 teams in the league ran it last year.

Also iowa states been running 3-3-5 for awhile and it's been very successful

You have to have an elite rover and nose tackle to make it work. We now have that.

RodeoPoke said:

---

I'm really looking forward to see what we can do with this defense and with this group of players...

however....

I do not buy into the old adage that: Each level has it's maturity and football savvy and its speed, strength, and athletic ability. It evens out on either side of the ball at each level.

That may well hold true at the lower levels of football, like Div 2 and Div 3, but not at Div 1. Div 1 already has two levels 1-a and 1-aa, and I really don't think there is much you could do at lets say Buffalo to even out with what Bama or UGA or the buckeyes will bring on the other side... it just doesn't happen.

Same with the rest of the Div 1-a league, we saw that first hand with OSU/KState and/or UGA/TCU.... there was nothing going to happen in those games that would even it out.

That's why there are so many different schemes and alignments at the Div1 level, to try and get some edge where there was none before. No, it does not even out.

We're all hoping like heck that this gimmick defense will help to even it out, just a little bit, but even with this gimmick there will be those games and those mismatches that just will never even out at this level.

I also believe that it is easier to even things out with a gimmick offense than a gimmick defense... we're flip flopping the two this year, going away from a gimmick offense and to a gimmick defense.... who knows what the heck will happen...

---

Football is football. Anyone thinking differently should probably shut their clam, because, by commenting, in essence you're just silently acknowledging - football is football.

CYalch said:

---

This isn't a "gimmick defense." The top 2 teams in the league ran it last year.

---

whatever.

NO NFL teams run it. NONE.

MOST of the other elite teams DO NOT run it. The big boys still run the 4-3, or maybe the 3-4, or some variant.

The 3-3-5 is "designed" to stop the spread offense, allegedly. sort of like the 4-2-5 nonsense.

If you have good beefy players then you can run the 4-3, or the 3-4.. if not, then you run the gimmick defense like the 4-2-5 or the 3-3-5.

Agree or disagree, I don't really care. It is a gimmicky defense, and it does not work well against the smash mouth offenses.

I think OSU should run a gimmicky defense because we cannot consistently get the caliber of player that we would need to run a traditional defense.

I'm not complaining, I'm just calling it what it is.

Knowles incorporated a lot of three man fronts his last couple of years here before he left for Ohio State!

We are not going to be in 3-3 stack for the whole game. We will rush 4+ on most 3rd downs. We are implementing a multiple 3-4 with 3-3-5 players. It's a 3-4 with one LB being a pash rusher that can still cover (Collin) and one being a rover safety (Kendal) + the two traditional inside backers.

CYalch said:

---

We are not going to be in 3-3 stack for the whole game. We will rush 4+ on most 3rd downs. We are implementing a multiple 3-4 with 3-3-5 players. It's a 3-4 with one LB being a pash rusher that can still cover (Collin) and one being a rover safety (Kendal) + the two traditional inside backers.

---

thank you for providing a more detailed explanation of gimmick..... most other coaches simply call that blitzing from varying spots in the backfield. my goodness folks.

I'm anxious to see it, I hope it helps us. I am for gimmick, not against it, at OSU.

I would also prefer that we go back to air raid, and drop all pretense of trying to run the ball, we win more games that way. Maybe getting back to the Les Miles offense or the Bob Simmons swinging gate will help us, I simply think we typically don't have the type of personnel needed to run a standard offense or defense.

but... we're fixing to find out

Robert Allen said:

---

In this day and time the three-man or odd man front is not a gimmick. I do believe, and Oklahoma State is keeping some four-man front material for situations, that you have to be versatile. That is where they are going on offense from being straight spread and zone run game to being versatile and having some under center, power or gap scheme run with an in-line tight end and fullback and a quarterback under center and being able to also use play-action passing concepts.

The answer is having versatilty and also having something that you can hang your hat on, something you can depend on.

---

but the 3-3-5 IS A GIMMICK. This is our base. Sure teams change up alignments based on situation, but this is our base. I get it, we mostly play against gimmick offenses, so this should help. It is not going to stop an Ohio State lining up and running our asses over.

Three man front is common in COLLEGE (and HS) if you don't have enough beef players up front; but that's the 3-4 normally. We've run that too. and the silly 4-2-5 gimmick.

NONE OF THE TOP TEAMS USE THIS. They don't have to use gimmicks, they have the beef. They can stop the play at the line, and not 5-10 yards down field.

"versatile" is simply the new "code word" for undermanned and still needing to make a play.

versatile... yeah, that's it, we're versatile now. ROTFLMAO

If you can't fix the weakness, then change the terminology to disguise the weakness. OMG.

We can't get pressure on the QB with our front 4, so we're going to be "versatile".... LOL

Robert Allen said:

---

Actually, in the modern football world with a three-man front you end up being as beefy, maybe more beefy than a traditional four-man front. An NFL four-man front is two 300 plus defensive tackles and and a pair of 270-290 pound defensive ends. Maybe a lighter swift edge rusher for pass rush packages.

A college four-man front is two 290 plus defensive tackles and two 250-270 pound defensive ends, maybe a 240-pound edge rusher like a Collin Oliver at one end.

The recipe upfront for this three-man front is a monster nose tackle like Kirkland that is 330-340-pounds, sometimes more. Your defensive ends in this are generally 275 plus. A guy like Oliver moves back to linebacker as a potential rusher, drop, multiple weapon.

---

yes, I know how the gimmick is supposed to work. I'm an anxious to see it. Hope Kirkland is all that is being lumped upon him, and more.

If you can't recruit the beef you need up front, then you use the kids you can get, like LBs, when you can't get enough beef or adequate LB play, then you try to use more Safety's or CBs that you are able to recruit.

Our recruiting has not been up to par, and this is best we can come up with to try and compensate for developmental players.

Believe me, I get it.

thank you.

Robert Allen said:

---

I would correct you. Regardless of recruiting, and Oklahoma State has always had to either find interior defensive linemen under a rock or develop them. Right now they are not totally built roster-wise for the odd man, really more suited for four-man, but head coach wants this scheme. It fits what you are seeing. To quote you earlier if you go to a Big Ten style offense then you will have to adjust, particularly to the tight ends they use. The tight ends in use in the Big 12, Sanders at Texas, Wiley at TCU, the guys OU uses are not power tight ends, but jumbo receivers, so you don't need that big five or good size seven technique. You need a swift LB or a multiple safety to match up.

It is not gimmick, it is match-up defense. In this league it is 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 schemes.

Pretty soon and we are starting a trend maybe on offense, then people will need to go back to 4-3-4 or 5-2-4 schemes.

Oh and thank you!

---

yes, that is exactly what I said, it's supposed to work well against spread offenses, which is what we face a lot of in this league. It's not so good against traditional power offenses. You use the word salad term "match up", I use the traditional term, gimmick.

and I sincerely appreciate your opinions, and admire what you do on a daily basis to provide use fans with content and with a platform to discuss OSU.

Thank you for all that you do for us fans.

I think you're misunderstanding what gimmick means

When did Veruca Salt join? Good Lord.

Robert Allen said:

---

I thank you all.

---

Just like baseball Robert, if you are strong at catcher, short stop/second base and at the center field position, up the middle, you have a chance to be very successful defensively!!!

petrifiedagg said:

---

You have to have an elite rover and nose tackle to make it work. We now have that.

---

Your leader at the linebacker position is extremely important as well because he will call for any shifts that need to be made!!!

Cali would argue with a rock

He would too that's the funny thing.

Pokes4158 said:

---

He would too that's the funny thing.

---

Who's "he"?

Seems to me a lot of semantics being argued. The objective is always to find schemes/alignments that will work at the present time to get the most wins possible. When Royal at UT and Switzer at OU pushed the wishbone, it wasn't the normal offense, but for years it worked well. When Lavell Edwards, Mumme and Leach pushed the air raid it wasn't the normal offense, but for years now it's affected college and now even pro offenses as a successful attack. No one today refer to those changes as gimmicky, but they were at a time until more broadly accepted. Same with our new defense, if it works great. If it spreads more and more, it simply becomes an oft used strategy/formation. I'm personally glad Gundy's willing to adapt and change some. What we all want is to see success, whatever it's called or looks like.

Good stuff, thanks for the comparison of past stats. Looking forward to this year.