I'm a big fan of weaker teams abusing selective individual strengths as much as possible, but it's pretty situational.

Have a physically small team with handlers who are great at everything but hucking from a standstill?

Play a horizontal stack but set the stack 5-10 yards deeper than normal. This would normally hurt your ability to shoot deep from a standstill, but those are already low-percentage shots for you. The extra space will give your handlers room to eat up yards with strike cuts and give-go moves that will in turn give you power position for hucks to the probably fronted cutters as well as breakside looks.

Have a team that can match your opponents physically and isn't bad but you only really have 2-4 guys who can do it all?

If they're tall enough, you might want to run a numerator. Four "handlers" back and three "cutters" upfield, your game plan is to get the disc to the cutters and let them play 3v3 with the full field. This isn't a plan that keeps your whole team engaged, but if you've got a small number of studs this should allow them to score pretty efficiently against any person simply because the space they are attacking will be too large to defend with only three players.

Have a team that is smaller and less athletic than your opponents, and nobody on the team is particularly skilled at any position? You might be screwed. Or maybe you have two or three players who are really good at throwing blades or hammers.

If that's the case you can probably just play some weird junk defense and an offense that relies very heavily on blades/hammers (whatever you've got) and banks on the fact that if you are running it all the time your players will be better at throwing and reading those throws than your opponents who spend their time focusing on things like having a functioning reset system swinging the disc.

All of those examples are based on real teams I have encountered or played for. All of them are also very vulnerable to losing badly if the other team can stop your thing or if your top players have a bad game. They're also quite varied in their degree of convention. The first example is a totally conventional offense with one small tweak. The third has virtually nothing in common with a conventional offense.

Despite not being particularly fond of convention personally, I do have to admit that most conventions in ultimate arise because they are in fact good strategies and tactics. The more unconventional you go, the more likely you are going to lose badly. If you're significantly outmatched, it might be the only chance you have at winning.

Of course, this completely ignores the developmental effects of being on a conventional vs unconventional team. It's a lot easier to make a team if you are a hardworking player who can cut well, handle well, huck, break the mark, and make good decisions than it is if you can't do all of those things reliably but have a filthy hammer.