A Player's Perspective on Clemson game

[33jacket]

Average passes per game was about 34 per game last two years at Temple....

Was disappointed. There are many under and bubble, rpo type passes in his O and we didn’t see squat. Which means to me its an issue at qb and who he played.

Can the great unknown do it? No idea

Can the anointed one? Maybe stands a better chance than uncle rico it seems.

But what we ran vs clemson was no mans land offense. Not good enough or true enough to be an option team. And lame at a spread.

Cant go on much longer. Its also too easy to stop

Run YOUR offense, tweak it, dont overthink the personnel piece and lets get going. There will be lumps and mistakes.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Hmmm. It seems that the posters who were calling all offseason for a run-heavy offense are now mad that's what they got in game 1. Bet they would have been mad if we slung it 35 times, too.

I understand why we did what we did last week, even though I didn't like it. We are actually going to have recruits in attendance this week, so it's a lot more important to see more of the new offense this week. If it looks like last week, you bet I will join the chorus of complaints.

By the way, the "one" recruit who badmouthed our offense on twitter is a guy who decided months ago he ain't coming here.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Was disappointed. There are many under and bubble, rpo type passes in his O and we didn’t see squat. Which means to me its an issue at qb and who he played.

Can the great unknown do it? No idea

Can the anointed one? Maybe stands a better chance than uncle rico it seems.

But what we ran vs clemson was no mans land offense. Not good enough or true enough to be an option team. And lame at a spread.

Cant go on much longer. Its also too easy to stop

Run YOUR offense, tweak it, dont overthink the personnel piece and lets get going. There will be lumps and mistakes.

Exactly. What we saw Thursday didn't fit the narrative or the Spring game showing or what we were led to believe was happening fall camp, all of which set up expectations. Btw, the spring game was played with the current roster of qb's. (Not directed at 33, btw.)

 

[gtg936g]

Have any of you watched a temple game from last year or any other games led by the OC.

So you guys are not upset at truth stretching on bringing back the 10 win seasonS for branding purposes, but you are upset that he streatch the truth on passing?

I don’t recall anyone saying air raid... but I do remember seeing going from flex bone spread to all wide receivers in shot gun in the spring game... and that’s were the message started.

You got shot gun. You got a more traditional offense. You got more passesing. How often did CPJ pass 20 times?

What you really want is 10 plus wins a season.... and beating uga and keeping up with uga. Dig into what is really going to take to make this a reality and by the way... it has little to do with passing 40 or 30 or 20 or 10 times a game.

I am not upset at the style of offense we saw at all. I just don’t like how the coaches pretend the spread is something other than a different take on an option offense. I wish they would just embrace what it is, or do something different if they are philosophically opposed to the option.

If you look at really good offensive coaches like Leach, Spurrier, CPJ, etc. they embrace the offense they run and don’t pretend it is something it’s not. I just have a problem with branding yourself as getting away from the option then implementing the spread.

Just a pet peeve of mine I suppose and I don’t know how you are supposed to be good at something if you don’t embrace what it is.

 

[Pointer]

Here are our QB lines from the Clemson game
1) Tobias Oliver: 9.5 QBR, 3/9, 2 INT, 2.8 y-p-carry
2) Lucas Johnson, 4.3 QBR, 0/2, 1.0 ypc
3) James Graham, 48.5 QBR, 4/7, 3.8 ypc

#3 has earned the right (IMHO) to a lot more playing time.

#3 played against Clemson's 3rd string as well, so it may be a bit inflated there. Looked better than the others doing it, have to admit though.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

#3 played against Clemson's 3rd string as well, so it may be a bit inflated there. Looked better than the others doing it, have to admit though.

We already covered that - maybe on another thread. Their 11 players that were in when Graham came in included regular starters, 6 4-stars, and many high 3-stars (5.7 on Rivals). The defense he played against was rated higher than our starters.

 

[iceeater1969]

Even though we didnt pass as much as i woukd like, i understand that it may take some time for ol/ qb/ wr to be proficient. Hope we gradually up to speed as we keep playing youngvguys (true freshmen got lots of snaps). Saw on replay that Cottrell made good block on blitz so Graham could pass to brown.

I think we will do very well on all teams this week.

 

[Pointer]

We already covered that - maybe on another thread. Their 11 players that were in when Graham came in included regular starters, 6 4-stars, and many high 3-stars (5.7 on Rivals). The defense he played against was rated higher than our starters.

It also maybe a case of some players show up more during a game more so than practice. I think Qua Searcy at A-back was this type of player early in his career.

 

[bobongo]

Now you will be accused of being a hater too.

He already has.

But as for me, I'm giving a mulligan for the Clemson game. It's just the truth to say we were badly outmatched. Maybe we should have done something different, but I'm giving the coaches the benefit of the doubt. It was only one game, and it was Clemson.

Anxious to see what happens on O this week. And "anxious" is the word. We'll see what happens.

 

[first&ten]

I too was disappointed in the offense, but Clemson had us out gunned , out maned , better 2nd & 3rd string players.It didn't matter what kind of offense Tech ran , Clemson had a world class team and and made Tech look weak. Next game will tell us more about what we got!

 

[gtg936g]

Was disappointed. There are many under and bubble, rpo type passes in his O and we didn’t see squat. Which means to me its an issue at qb and who he played.

Can the great unknown do it? No idea

Can the anointed one? Maybe stands a better chance than uncle rico it seems.

But what we ran vs clemson was no mans land offense. Not good enough or true enough to be an option team. And lame at a spread.

Cant go on much longer. Its also too easy to stop

Run YOUR offense, tweak it, dont overthink the personnel piece and lets get going. There will be lumps and mistakes.

Exactly! I would think any of our QBs could throw a screen, but maybe I am assuming too much. I don’t think Dave P gave our guys much of a chance with the play calling. You can’t give Clemson a numbers advantage to go along with a talent advantage.

 

[jchens_GT]

Some classic week 1 overreacting here. We finally got to see GT play a college football game, and I’m as tempted as anyone to want to draw a lot of sweeping conclusions from it. I want to see what happens over the next 3 weeks. I had hoped the offense would “look” better (whatever that means), and I was also surprised by a few things. However, I do want to give the staff the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what patterns develop.

 

[Novajacket]

Curious what would most of you call Fridge’s offense? He was multiple too, with option and passing. Was he not committed to an offense? Is Riley and Oklahoma air raid? Spread? What about AZ cardinals? Are they a high school offense?

 

[GoGATech]

By the way, the "one" recruit who badmouthed our offense on twitter is a guy who decided months ago he ain't coming here.

Who did that anyway? I never saw it.

 

[ncjacket79]

I am not upset at the style of offense we saw at all. I just don’t like how the coaches pretend the spread is something other than a different take on an option offense. I wish they would just embrace what it is, or do something different if they are philosophically opposed to the option.

If you look at really good offensive coaches like Leach, Spurrier, CPJ, etc. they embrace the offense they run and don’t pretend it is something it’s not. I just have a problem with branding yourself as getting away from the option then implementing the spread.

Just a pet peeve of mine I suppose and I don’t know how you are supposed to be good at something if you don’t embrace what it is.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s as if you haven’t listened to any interviews.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Who did that anyway? I never saw it.

Downs. Since deleted

 

[gtg936g]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s as if you haven’t listened to any interviews.

I am saying that CGC and Dave P have repeatedly said they want to be balanced on offense. They have also called the offense a Pro Style offense instead of just saying it is a spread offense. They are trying to distance themselves from the triple option while installing another option based offense under a different brand/label. They have given fans/recruits the illusion that this offense is designed to be balanced. The spread is a run first offense. Clemson can “force” their version to be balanced because of the talent they have. If they want to throw it and they create a mismatch on defense because of their talent then they can be successful throwing it regardless of how the other team lines up. Most of the run/pass plays in a spread work based on the correct read by the QB. The defense dictates whether the play is a run or pass based on how they line up. So, the precept that the offense is somehow designed to be balanced is a fallacy.

 

[jojatk]

People tend to believe what they see over what somebody is telling them. We better come out slingin' it Saturday or there's gonna be repercussions in both recruiting and fanboy hype.

I’m one of those very excited about our new coaching staff (of course I am also a fan of CPJ). I think I understand some of the rationale for the offense we ran against Clemson. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed we didn’t open it up until late in the game with Graham in. It’s a fact that we had an opportunity to show a new style and we didn’t do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smokey_wasp]

I am saying that CGC and Dave P have repeatedly said they want to be balanced on offense. They have also called the offense a Pro Style offense instead of just saying it is a spread offense. They are trying to distance themselves from the triple option while installing another option based offense under a different brand/label. They have given fans/recruits the illusion that this offense is designed to be balanced. The spread is a run first offense. Clemson can “force” their version to be balanced because of the talent they have. If they want to throw it and they create a mismatch on defense because of their talent then they can be successful throwing it regardless of how the other team lines up. Most of the run/pass plays in a spread work based on the correct read by the QB. The defense dictates whether the play is a run or pass based on how they line up. So, the precept that the offense is somehow designed to be balanced is a fallacy.

You are getting too hung up on nomenclature. "Spread/pro style" just means "not our old offense". We could run any number of things and still call it that.

 

[gtg936g]

You are getting too hung up on nomenclature. "Spread/pro style" just means "not our old offense". We could run any number of things and still call it that.

Maybe so. Like I said it is just a pet peeve of mine. I don’t have a problem being run heavy or pass heavy. I think you just take what the D gives you unless you have a really talented player that creates a mismatch. I thought the scripted plays we ran in the first series were a good plan, but I would like to have seen some screen plays or a quick pitch to the edge when Clemson sold out to stop the run game.