5 Games in: Observations

[Scubapro]

He beat Notre Dame in South Bend and Auburn at Auburn.

Notre Dame was awful that year...and the outcome was tenuous due to Chan playing for field goals...It should have been out of reach by half time.

 

[RonJohn]

It was my understanding they didn't have letters to sign.

Where did you hear or read that? The only things I remember are from the players saying they were going to wait to see how they get along with the new staff. The coaches can't say anything publicly, so there aren't any statements from them. If they weren't sent papers, the players could have said those things to make it appear that it was their decision, but I haven't seen or read anything other than their comments in December.

 

[RonJohn]

Double Post

 

[bke1984]

Notre Dame was awful that year...and the outcome was tenuous due to Chan playing for field goals...It should have been out of reach by half time.

Maybe, but I want to say it was the worst home loss in Notre Dame history at the time. Could be wrong, but I remember something like that being a big talking point. Should give credit where it’s due...

 

[Scubapro]

Maybe, but I want to say it was the worst home loss in Notre Dame history at the time. Could be wrong, but I remember something like that being a big talking point. Should give credit where it’s due...

Not saying it wasn’t a fun win...but it was against a bad team

 

[InsideLB]

As Boomer and several others have said it's all about the trenches.

How teams project in the trenches (experience, depth, playmakers) is how teams are projected to finish. Even before losing Minihan, Lee, Cooper, Morgan, and Brandon Adams we projected very poorly in the trenches on both sides of the ball. We just don't have the horses.

A lot of folks are bitching about our OC but how the hell can you tell when your already highly suspect OL is then devastated with injuries? Truthfully, I am actually surprised we've made the offensive progress we've made. It's pretty much smoke and mirrors right now. Ibeeballin posted some good offensive analysis of what we have been trying to do and it makes sense. We are trying to make up for our deficiencies.

On defense we have had--for years now--precious few DL who consistently win 1-on-1 battles. So you are going to get torched on 3rd down. You can't leave a decent QB and set of receivers with that much time and expect otherwise. We have some ingredients on the DL but they just need a lot more experience and development, and overall we are lacking depth. Recruiting here is key and DL recruiting so far for me is one area of our current recruiting class that still needs a lot of work.

We just need more war daddies to develop physically, develop into playmakers, and we need depth so we can rotate, stay fresh, and plug in when the injury bug bites.

I think our kids are working their tails off but they are just young and there are not enough of them. On top of that they are having to learn new schemes on both sides of the ball, and in many cases were not recruited for those schemes (i.e. don't have the traditional physical attributes). That's the reality.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Great post......but my concern is that we will NOT get the superior lineman......we may get lineman equal to a duke or UNC, which will lead us to 6-6 or 7-5 seasons....i.e nothing special when we are doing the same thing everyone else is.

My concerns exactly - if we are fortunate, a Chan-redo starting with year 3-4. Again, if we are fortunate. Even with the improved recruits that CPJ inherited, I don't believe anyone would have taken that group, using an "NFL based" offense, to anything greater than the Coastal championship.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Kind of interesting. Go on Rivals and take a look at our 2020 class. Take a look at each O linemen and D lineman and look at where there offers are coming from. a couple have UGA and one has Auburn, but for the most part they are G5 Lineman. Now I am not saying that they aren't good and maybe overlooked, or that they can't be coached up. I am just saying we are not our there trying to get big boy recruits from Clemson, UGA etc.

Which makes it really no different than previous regimes, so far. I realize they need more than 1 year, but so far, the hype about the class greatly outweighs the reality of the class, especially on the O and D lines.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Anyone that thinks recruiting will be great after three sub .500 seasons is nuts

I tend to agree, Animal. Most kids will not buy into a "vision" without something tangible to assist them in believing the vision.

Also, many on here believe the kids are all about early playing time, and I agree that some of them do listen to that argument, but it also means that they will play a lot of plays before they have went through college strength and conditioning, which increases their likelihood of injuries. Many of the top programs are selling the depth they have to limit the number of plays for their best players, which they sell as reducing the chance of injuries, but still allows them their dream of the NFL. I just don't see how GT can get to DL and OL depth to allow for rotations that limit total number of plays for the elite guys. If we get one or two, they will be on the field until they fall out or get injured. We have to have MORE than just 1 or 2.

 

[AE 87]

Thanks for that. In no way do I think CGC is a bad coach. If you really watch what has been happening within 3 yards of the ball, you will understand all the nitpicking of the small stuff just doesn't matter in the greater context. I'm not going to comment on Lay, nor the rest of the line beyond what I have already said. The kids are playing hard, and mostly smart. That is all you can ask. The injuries along the OL obviously happened in a part of the roster we could least afford, so yes, it has mattered a great deal. With that said, even with zero injuries, we are still in a heap of trouble trying to run this offense with the personnel that started the year on the depth chart (excuse me ATL). I have zero doubt we would be way ahead of where we are now if we were still running the flex-bone on offense, merely because of the role of the OL, but none of that stuff matters now. We have chosen a path. We have to take it. On the bright side, anybody who says we aren't in a better position right now on defense really hasn't been watching. I really like what I see beyond the LOS. If you are unconvinced and want context, just consider a couple facts: we had the ball 13 times on offense and managed to run a total of 52 plays. For you non-math TECHIES that is an average of 4 plays per possession. You try playing defense against 100 hurry-up plays under those conditions and then talk to me. IMHO, if we could have sustained some drives, with or without points, to even up the TOP and total plays, we may have had a decent chance yesterday. We could have done a better job on third down defense obviously, but sustaining drives on O has value for the defense too. It was good to see us score some, but there was no consistency at all.

I appreciate your post and perspective, but I disagree somewhat with your comments about our D. I mean, I agree with your point about having to play D against 100 hurry-up plays, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story about our D. Here are our first half drives on D:

Drive 1: 8 plays stopped by a great play-design and execution interception by Owens
Drive 2: 15 plays ending in FG
Drive 3: 11 plays ending in Punt
Drive 4: 11 plays ending in TD
Drive 5: 3 plays ending in punt
Drive 6: 5 plays ending in TD​

It seems to me that when our D gives up drives of 8, 15, and 11 plays to start the game, it is sharing in the problem. For the non-math-techies, that's an average of just over 11 plays/drive to start the game.

To put this in context, so far this season, in all FBS games vs Pwr5 opponents, the average has been 5.1 plays/drive. While our offense has not helped our D by not being able to sustain drives, in the two intervening drives at the start of our last game, 4 plays and 7 plays, we averaged 5.5 plays/drive which is better than average.

As an aside, it may be (I haven't checked) that our offense did not spend as much actual time in our average of 5.5 plays/drive, thereby not giving our D a better than average break, but that would not be on our players.

Anyway, imo, when we look at the two TD's out of unc's last 3 drives, the fault lies as much with the D failing to get off the field faster as it does with our problems on O.

 

[GoldZ]

We have a history of frequently bringing in good OL among several coaching regimes. We also have a history of weak DL, especially interior war daddies, among several coaching regimes. 4 Battles/Perdonis/Richards/Ivorys, would transform our program.

 

[GoldZ]

By 4, I mean at the same time. People would be shocked at what this one change would mean.

 

[GTJake]

Great post, I agree entirely, history doesn't always have to repeat itself ... IMO, we will get the players.
I base this on what groundwork efforts CGC has done so far and the fact that I think he likes to recruit and he's good at it.

 

[Boomergump]

I appreciate your post and perspective, but I disagree somewhat with your comments about our D. I mean, I agree with your point about having to play D against 100 hurry-up plays, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story about our D. Here are our first half drives on D:

Drive 1: 8 plays stopped by a great play-design and execution interception by Owens
Drive 2: 15 plays ending in FG
Drive 3: 11 plays ending in Punt
Drive 4: 11 plays ending in TD
Drive 5: 3 plays ending in punt
Drive 6: 5 plays ending in TD​

It seems to me that when our D gives up drives of 8, 15, and 11 plays to start the game, it is sharing in the problem. For the non-math-techies, that's an average of just over 11 plays/drive to start the game.

To put this in context, so far this season, in all FBS games vs Pwr5 opponents, the average has been 5.1 plays/drive. While our offense has not helped our D by not being able to sustain drives, in the two intervening drives at the start of our last game, 4 plays and 7 plays, we averaged 5.5 plays/drive which is better than average.

As an aside, it may be (I haven't checked) that our offense did not spend as much actual time in our average of 5.5 plays/drive, thereby not giving our D a better than average break, but that would not be on our players.

Anyway, imo, when we look at the two TD's out of unc's last 3 drives, the fault lies as much with the D failing to get off the field faster as it does with our problems on O.

If our offense sustains some drives and our defense does nothing different, at the very least, there will be fewer of those long drives against that take place. That alone will matter. Additionally, longer breaks help a defense for many reasons. Not only is there more rest, but opposing offenses don't get in as much of a rhythm. I agree with the majority of your point though, our D needs to control their destiny better by getting off the field on third down.

 

[GTjunkie]

Notre Dame was awful that year...and the outcome was tenuous due to Chan playing for field goals...It should have been out of reach by half time.

Yep, should've been a 56-3 type score, but Chan loved kicking FG's.

 

[GTFLETCH]

I certainly concur with your analysis. However isn't it the solution to most winning football teams. If you don't have lineman, D and O you generally can't win. We are missing 5 starters from last year due to injury and people leaving. We are missing a Big D starter due to death. What I worry about is there is this belief we can go out here and out recruit our neighbors. We have never proven that we can. I think we can get some O lineman that better fit what we need but history has proven that we will have a deficiency on the D line.

Spot On!

 

[AE 87]

If our offense sustains some drives and our defense does nothing different, at the very least, there will be fewer of those long drives against that take place. That alone will matter. Additionally, longer breaks help a defense for many reasons. Not only is there more rest, but opposing offenses don't get in as much of a rhythm. I agree with the majority of your point though, our D needs to control their destiny better by getting off the field on third down.

Again, I agree with the theory. I simply dispute with its application in our game.

We have not been a good defensive team this year, imo. I thought we had improved to the average D which we were hoping CPJ could field, but I don't think that's the case. If we had done better in the first few drives vs unc, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

I also think we forget the ~3 times unc got a wr a couple steps past our db only to overthrow him. That game could have been much worse.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Again, I agree with the theory. I simply dispute with its application in our game.

We have not been a good defensive team this year, imo. I thought we had improved to the average D which we were hoping CPJ could field, but I don't think that's the case. If we had done better in the first few drives vs unc, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

I also think we forget the ~3 times unc got a wr a couple steps past our db only to overthrow him. That game could have been much worse.

I agree with this, and I just don't think defensive coaches can do "magic" when the front 7 is low on size, low on speed, and low on depth. If we are going to improve, the recruiting for the front 7 on D must make a major stride forward in these areas. Even if we improve, that won't be enough to best the top 10's or the world without superior coaching on both sides.

 

[AE 87]

I agree with this, and I just don't think defensive coaches can do "magic" when the front 7 is low on size, low on speed, and low on depth. If we are going to improve, the recruiting for the front 7 on D must make a major stride forward in these areas. Even if we improve, that won't be enough to best the top 10's or the world without superior coaching on both sides.

I think our talent is at least top 50, but say top 65.

In my opinion expecting top 10 performance from top 65 talent is magic. Expecting top 65 performance from top 65 talent is not.

Expecting top 45 performance from top 65 talent is where GT coaching needs to be, imo, so that when we get top 30 talent we can compete with the top 10.

 

[pbrown520]

I think our talent is at least top 50, but say top 65.

In my opinion expecting top 10 performance from top 65 talent is magic. Expecting top 65 performance from top 65 talent is not.

Expecting top 45 performance from top 65 talent is where GT coaching needs to be, imo, so that when we get top 30 talent we can compete with the top 10.

I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that at least schematically I like what we are trying to do on defense. We are trying to be aggressive and hard hitting.

I will say that if you watch the UNC game again, the defense was absolutely bailed out in the first half by drops. It was not really lack of pass rush either, they were just beat and beat badly and then the UNC receiver dropped it. Happened on the first drive of the game - no reason to be tired then.