Advantages or Disadvantages of our current scheme vs a spread passing scheme (think Leach, Gundy etc

[Eric]

[quothe=AE 87, post: 15455, member: 195"]This. I think the speculation of all of a sudden recruiting better because of scheme change is wishful thinking.[/quote]

It would help some but not as much as people make it out to.

We get hammered on the trail pretty good for our scheme.

 

[collegeballfan]

Changing offenses helping with recruiting?

Doubt it. Going back to Bobby Ross we have had 5 coaches and 5 different offensive systems and recruiting has been about the same.

A new coach who is a super recruiter, say a Mark Richt type, would probably help. We can probably get Urban Meyer for 6 - 7 million a year.

But for whatever the reason, Tech has not had a solid recruiter/head coach since Bobby Dodd. So, the question begs, is it the recruiter or the institution? And we have beat that horse dead already.

Looking at the records, Johnson is the all time #4 coach in winning percentage behind Heisman, Dodd and O'Leary.

I have no idea where this leads except to more of the same without drastic changes.

 

[daBuzz]

I agree with everything you typed.
However there is another disadvantage.
Lack of physicality
None of these teams have won big yet, and I believe thats partly do to a lack of being physical. Once these teams play a dominant defense they typically get shut down.

Goal line plays out the shotgun just seem silly to me. Now if there's a way you can implement physicality to that kind of offense, you cooking with greese.

With that said, I love Baylor's offense and I would take Phillip Montgomery over CPJ in a heartbeat.

Seriously? Florida won 3 national championships running a spread option. Ohio State won one running a spread option in 2002. Texas won a national championship running a spread option with Vince Young. Auburn won one with Cam Newton running the spread option.

 

[daBuzz]

Remember that we were mediocre or worse running a pro-style in the past too.

1990 says hello.

 

[ATL1]

Seriously? Florida won 3 national championships running a spread option. Ohio State won one running a spread option in 2002. Texas won a national championship running a spread option with Vince Young. Auburn won one with Cam Newton running the spread option.

Did you read the initial post??

 

[collegeballfan]

Ken Sugiura in the online ajc has an interesting column including a look at GT and Clem recruiting from 209 to 2013. I tried to copy it here but it did not copy correctly.

 

[daBuzz]

Did you read the initial post??

I sure did. Did you read the part of the poster's comment that I bolded? The part where he said "None of these teams have won big yet"?
That's the part to which I was responding.

 

[gtdrew]

I think it might be possible to recruit a little better in a new situation. I think kids are drawn to a flashier system, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they're kids. I think one thing this current system has going for it is that in general, the kids who are here want to be here because they understand the value of a GT diploma and want a chance to play competitive football. Switching to a flashier system would, in my opinion, open a whole new hornets' nest of kids who come here thinking they're going to be racking up millions of yards, then they get their first survey of calc test back and they start asking for transfer applications. What the AD has to decide is if he's willing to put a new coach in not only the tough situation of giving an air raid or pro style coach a roster full of option kids, THEN handcuff him further with the admissions restrictions that comes w being @ GT. I am hearing that there are going to be some more "considerations" given to the football admissions process by the Hill, as Bobinski seems MUCH more willing to fight that battle than that limp fish D-Rad, so we'll see what happens. 2014 looks like a real solid recruiting year, and 2015 could be even better, so I'm inclined to give the current administration one more year, but something's gotta change soon...

 

[ATL1]

Makes sense. Forgetting X's and O's for a minute, I can't think of any air raid offense that took comparable talent to GT and was consistently successful. Texas Tech had one or two above average years. I believe UNC is close to the same style with Fedora, and that hasn't proven anything.

UNC usually is slightly ahead of us in recruiting rankings if you choose to believe them. I doubt an air raid style would yield better recruiting results than what UNC has been getting. So ultimately I don't think we'd be better off.

Even if the question was about a regular shotgun based spread offense, I'd look at WVU as the model during the Rich Rod days. They were loaded with talent and had moments of success, however that was accomplished with no admission standards and it was run at a time when fewer teams ran the offense. I highly doubt we could recreate the success they had then at this point in time.

I agree. I more run oriented spread would probably work better (ie) Rich Rod, Myer, & Kelly. It's funny but CPJ supposed to have air raid principles in his offense, I just have never seen it manifest itself onto the field.

We could easily run the plays Auburn & BYU run.

 

[awbuzz]

"Remember that we were mediocre or worse running a pro-style in the past too."

1990 says hello.

... and I remember that wonderful year well. How'd we do in the years proceeding and since...

Point still is that recruiting feeds on itself. Get coaches that can recruit and you get the players. (won't get into the "talent" pool on campus vs. off campus in Atlanta, degrees available, admission requirements, etc. that cause us to pass on various recruits or have them pass on GT.)

 

[daBuzz]

"Remember that we were mediocre or worse running a pro-style in the past too."


... and I remember that wonderful year well. How'd we do in the years proceeding and since...

Point still is that recruiting feeds on itself. Get coaches that can recruit and you get the players. (won't get into the "talent" pool on campus vs. off campus in Atlanta, degrees available, admission requirements, etc. that cause us to pass on various recruits or have them pass on GT.)

Good points and I concur wholeheartedly!

 

[ATL1]

Having watched them all season I'm all in on Baylor's offense.
They have the best version of the spread I've witnessed. Great balance between power runs and vertical passing.
**Broken Record** Phillip Montgomery should be strongly considered for Tech.

 

[CuseJacket]

I think it might be possible to recruit a little better in a new situation. I think kids are drawn to a flashier system, not because it's the right thing to do, but because they're kids. I think one thing this current system has going for it is that in general, the kids who are here want to be here because they understand the value of a GT diploma and want a chance to play competitive football. Switching to a flashier system would, in my opinion, open a whole new hornets' nest of kids who come here thinking they're going to be racking up millions of yards, then they get their first survey of calc test back and they start asking for transfer applications. What the AD has to decide is if he's willing to put a new coach in not only the tough situation of giving an air raid or pro style coach a roster full of option kids, THEN handcuff him further with the admissions restrictions that comes w being @ GT. I am hearing that there are going to be some more "considerations" given to the football admissions process by the Hill, as Bobinski seems MUCH more willing to fight that battle than that limp fish D-Rad, so we'll see what happens. 2014 looks like a real solid recruiting year, and 2015 could be even better, so I'm inclined to give the current administration one more year, but something's gotta change soon...

Can you share what you've heard specifically and from who?

 

[gtdrew]

No. Not yet. That's how sources stop being sources. I imagine we might all know soon enough...

 

[GTYellowJacket12]

Having watched them all season I'm all in on Baylor's offense.
They have the best version of the spread I've witnessed. Great balance between power runs and vertical passing.
**Broken Record** Phillip Montgomery should be strongly considered for Tech.

It would be interesting to see Baylor go up against a physical front seven team like Stanford or Bama since Baylor's line is about 20 lbs heavier per man than Oregon's so they might just do what the ducks failed to do vs Auburn and Stanford (twice) and prove that not all spread offenses crumble against elite D lines.

As for our current offense I'm not off the wagon yet, specially since all of our biggest rivals next year will be breaking in new QB's (UM, VPI, Clemson and Ugag) and we should be more experienced. However that extra 3 million we'll get from Bowl revenues (happens if FSU and Clemson play BCS Bowls) combined with CPJ's lower buyout next year might make it easier for Bobinski to make a change if we don't get results.

 

[johncu]

Great thread. I prefer the flexbone spread option because, like others have mentioned, it is much more conducive to power running and is much more efficient in short yardage while still getting tons of big plays. I also like that it is unique, because I think it's foolish to think that we will beat more talented teams by doing the same thing they are doing.

That said, I've got two issues with our current scheme:

1) Lack of a passing game. It's not that the scheme prevents us from passing, but for some reason we are awful at it. I'm not sure how much is related to the scheme, how much is related to lack of practice passing, or how much is related to the players, but we have GOT to be able to capitalize on passing opportunities to make this scheme truly viable.

2) Negative effects on recruiting. I really have no way of knowing how much of an actual effect our scheme has on recruiting, but we can't afford to handicap ourselves much more. I don't know what to think about this one, or if going to another unique scheme would really be any better.

IMO if we fix EITHER issue, the other could soon fix itself. I've had faith that PJ would fix it, but he's had a lot of time. I really like the guy, but I think he gets one more year to AT LEAST show a positive trend in recruiting and on the field product or we will be forced to move on. If that does happen, I would be willing to go in pretty much any direction except pro-style.

 

[John]

I was doing some research for a different thread and put together these figures on passing efficiency from the NCAA stats page. Not surprisingly, our passing efficiency isn't that great this year.

Last year was a tough year just because we had the lead in the fourth quarter against #16 VT, Miami, and #15 Clemson then squandered the opportunities away.

GT Passing Efficiency National Rank in Last 10 Years
2013: #84 (so far)
2012: #35
2011: #14
2010: #113
2009: #12
2008: #92
2007: #108
2006: #82
2005: #109
2004: #101
2003: #96

 

[AE 87]

I question whether switching schemes will dramatically improve recruiting. However, our present scheme helps us on both sides of the ball. By running and controlling the clock, we shorten the game for our D so that we can do more with less depth.

 

[bat_082994]

I was doing some research for a different thread and put together these figures on passing efficiency from the NCAA stats page. Not surprisingly, our passing efficiency isn't that great this year.

Last year was a tough year just because we had the lead in the fourth quarter against #16 VT, Miami, and #15 Clemson then squandered the opportunities away.

GT Passing Efficiency National Rank in Last 10 Years
2013: #84 (so far)
2012: #35
2011: #14
2010: #113
2009: #12
2008: #92
2007: #108
2006: #82
2005: #109
2004: #101
2003: #96

I'm completely clueless as to how passing efficiency is calculated, but I'm gonna assume that the years we are in the teens we were good in this category

 

[collegeballfan]

GT Passing Efficiency National Rank in Last 10 Years
2013: #84 (so far)
2012: #35
2011: #14
2010: #113
2009: #12
2008: #92
2007: #108
2006: #82
2005: #109
2004: #101
2003: #96

So we averaged 99 the last 5 years of Gailey and have averaged 58 the 6 years of Johnson? Is this correct?