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

[GTYellowJacket12]

The main reason I was -and largely still am- a strong CPJ supporter is that given our current recruiting limitations (small fan base, limited curriculum, the hill, calculus requirement, male to female ratio, recruiting in SEC country, etc) CPJ's offensive system gives us the best chance of beating teams with superior talent. I believed that if our offense is executed properly from a blocking scheme standpoint (with proper in-game blocking adjustments), it can beat vastly superior defenses even if those defenses have time to prepare for it. However yesterday's game was yet another reminder that my initial reason for supporting CPJ's scheme might be faulty, that our offense -while virtually unstoppable with good, disciplined talent- cannot succeed against the more talented teams we play with the current talent we have and probably never will unless we radically (not marginally) improve the talent we recruit and such improvement will not take place unless fundamental changes are made in Tech's admission standards and curriculum.

So I would like to know what advantages or disadvantages we would gain from adopting a spread passing scheme modeled after those of Leach, Gundy, Holgorsen, Sumlin, etc. over our current scheme.

I see some advantages as:

- It is much more appealing to elite HS talent since it's much more aesthetically pleasing to watch and has fewer cut blocks, so the "cut block" and "boring offense" arguments can't be used to negative recruit against us

- It opens up a lot more running lanes for read option run plays as the opposing defense is playing nickel all game and only has 2 lb's in so we can take advantage of opposing secondary players lack of tackling ability (specially on one-on-one situations) considering almost every defense's worst tacklers are in the secondary

- It's more appealing to linemen as their blocking techniques are closer to those of the NFL (see earlier "cut blocking" argument)

- It's better equipped to come from behind and is capable of better executing a 2 minute offense

- Has a better run/pass ratio than our current offense so it remains more balanced despite its schematic unbalances

-It's more similar to NFL offenses than our current system (specialy considering how spread option concepts are shaping the pro game more and more each day)

I see only one disadvantage:

- Not dominating time of possession (although TOP is seen as less and less of an advantage in modern football)

What do you guys say?

 

[Eric]

Won't lie...when I first saw the thread title I thought "here we go again"...I was wrong. Good thread... you made some good points and I think this is a good topic to discuss.

 

[bat_082994]

Personally wouldn't mind switching to an offense like that. You can run it to where you can still take long amounts of time scoring

 

[collegeballfan]

No matter the scheme, if it is not blocked it will not work.

Curious that the defense is not under the microscope today. What was the score? 55 to 31 or something like that?

 

[Eric]

No matter the scheme, if it is not blocked it will not work.

Curious that the defense is not under the microscope today. What was the score? 55 to 31 or something like that?

For me it is more than this one game...the offense has been a concern in big games all year.

Im very disappointed with the defense as well but I don't think coaching was so much of a issue on that side. The defense has played pretty good the whole year and I'm not as worried about that area going forward.

 

[CuseJacket]

I'm a little confused by the question. Are you asking us to consider shotgun vs. under center, passing more vs. running more, or both? Mixing the two tradeoffs means there are more disadvantages to the suggested offensive shift than you list.

1) With a shotgun based spread the mesh point is farther from the LOS, which can lead to more negative plays. Forget the fact that yesterday seemed like a clinic in negative yardage plays from under center; that to me was an aberration under CPJ.

2) We're not very good at decision making nor execution. Maybe it's how the offense is taught, but in the areas where coaching is not an issue then expanding the playbook is not the answer to addressing decision making and execution.

3) If the plays are simpler maybe we can run more plays, but the tradeoff is the opponent's ease of preparation. The offense also is not unique since many more teams run it, so in theory that makes it easier to prepare for.

This is just a list without giving the topic much deep thought. I'm sure there are more counterarguments both ways. For the record I really don't have a personal opinion. Obviously the end goal for all of us is to get more W's.

 

[ATL1]

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.

 

[SoCal_GT_Fan]

No matter the scheme, if it is not blocked it will not work.

Curious that the defense is not under the microscope today. What was the score? 55 to 31 or something like that?

Starting field position for the Clemson O didn't help our defense much:
Clemson 35, GT 49, Clem 41, Clem 48, Clem 34, Clem 22, GT 37, Clem 15, Clem 29, GT44, Clem 25, GT34, Clem 33, and Clem 16.

With field position like that (especially the opening 4 series, that's an average position of starting at the Clemson 45 yd line), a potent offense led by Boyd, and a good kicker to boot, we were doomed from the start.

You can blame the defense, but the offense and the special teams didn't help the defense either with the fielding miscues and the inability to advance the ball much in the 1st half.

 

[collegeballfan]

Without looking up the scores I would say that except for UGA 2008, Clemson twice in 2009, and the VT upset at Dodd, Tech under Johnson has won few "big" games. Primarily due to the inability to block and the inability to stop the other team. And this is a pattern that has preceded Johnson by decades.
And over the decades Tech coaches have run various and sundry offenses. All with the same result, just over .500 winning percentage.

The problem is that VT, Clemson, UGA, Miami and FSU recruit better players year in and year out.

 

[AE 87]

We have faced 3 Ds from the top 15 in ESPNs Extra Points Added, Defense: VPI, BYU, and CU. Our struggle against them has led you to conclude that we should consider changing our scheme. Is that correct?

Clemson has faced one such D. They scored only 7 until garbage time. Should they consider changing offensive scheme, too?

 

[Ramblin Wrecker]

Unless you are 100% satisfied with your current situation, you should always be open to discussing other options. I don't think anyone is suggesting we overhaul our offensive philosophy tomorrow.

 

[GTonTop88]

I believe an offense like that wouldn't be that hard to transfer to with the players we have now. I like having a different scheme other than a typical pro-style, with our recruiting challenges.

 

[awbuzz]

Without looking up the scores I would say that except for UGA 2008, Clemson twice in 2009, and the VT upset at Dodd, Tech under Johnson has won few "big" games. Primarily due to the inability to block and the inability to stop the other team. And this is a pattern that has preceded Johnson by decades.
And over the decades Tech coaches have run various and sundry offenses. All with the same result, just over .500 winning percentage.

The problem is that VT, Clemson, UGA, Miami and FSU recruit better players year in and year out.

This IS the fundumental reason - the Jimmies and Joes DO make the difference (talking about physical abilities). Until GT has a jock major it's going to be tought to get all the big boys needed to perform like a Top 25 team year in and year out in football. Too often when we line up against the 5 teams mentioned we are samller and slower. That's just oo much to overcome on a regular basis.

As to the OP - I don't think the current scheme is the REAL problem. So change for change sake won't do it.

 

[awbuzz]

We have faced 3 Ds from the top 15 in ESPNs Extra Points Added, Defense: VPI, BYU, and CU. Our struggle against them has led you to conclude that we should consider changing our scheme. Is that correct?

Clemson has faced one such D. They scored only 7 until garbage time. Should they consider changing offensive scheme, too?

But that FACT isn't as much fun and doesn't lend itself to what they desire...

 

[awbuzz]

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

 

[GTYellowJacket12]

I'm a little confused by the question. Are you asking us to consider shotgun vs. under center, passing more vs. running more, or both? Mixing the two tradeoffs means there are more disadvantages to the suggested offensive shift than you list.

1) With a shotgun based spread the mesh point is farther from the LOS, which can lead to more negative plays. Forget the fact that yesterday seemed like a clinic in negative yardage plays from under center; that to me was an aberration under CPJ.

2) We're not very good at decision making nor execution. Maybe it's how the offense is taught, but in the areas where coaching is not an issue then expanding the playbook is not the answer to addressing decision making and execution.

3) If the plays are simpler maybe we can run more plays, but the tradeoff is the opponent's ease of preparation. The offense also is not unique since many more teams run it, so in theory that makes it easier to prepare for.

This is just a list without giving the topic much deep thought. I'm sure there are more counterarguments both ways. For the record I really don't have a personal opinion. Obviously the end goal for all of us is to get more W's.

Sorry for any confusion, I was talking about the advantages/disadvantages of our current system vs a 3 or 4 WR shotgun air raid attack (You can download some playbooks here http://www.footballxos.com/free-football-playbooks/offense-playbooks/air-raid-offense/ including mike leach's) and not just the tactical in game advantages but also advantages in terms of recruiting and preparation.

The rest of my post is just about how I came to consider the two systems, everyone knows that we will never recruit at the football factory level so in my eyes the challenge for us is to find the scheme that can best reduce the talent gap between us an our opponents thereby neutralizing their recruiting advantage. A scheme that capitalizes on the superior aggressiveness and athletic ability of our opponents defense and turn one of their main strengths into a weakness. I believe the triple option can do that (creating one on one opportunities on the edge for the pitch/keep or straight bback dive lanes) but after watching us fail year after year against the more physical teams (VPI, UM, LSU, Iowa, Ugag, Clemson) I am seriously doubting that we can ever have enough talent to allow the system to work so I'm considering a similar system that might achieve the parity I seek while at the same time attracting better talent.

An air raid spread passing offense can do that, since quick screens, slants, digs, etc out of 3 step drops freezes defenses and makes them reactive rather than proactive. Also if we use wider yard splits (like Texas Tech used to under Leach) we can considerably slow down linebacker blitzes (there will only be 2 of them since the defense is nickel), have clearly defined running lanes for inside read option runs, and also require less in-game blocking adjustments so we don't waste snaps -and possessions- figuring out which adjustments to make to get the offense running again when it gets stuffed.

In sum, I'm just trying to find out from others here (since the tone of this board is more serious/analytical) what advantages/disadvantages the two systems have to better be able to compare them.

 

[PowderSpringsJacket88]

Biggest "positive" about running the spread option (triple option) is that you average fewer turnovers on the ground but I am not so sure this year.

 

[CuseJacket]

Sorry for any confusion, I was talking about the advantages/disadvantages of our current system vs a 3 or 4 WR shotgun air raid attack (You can download some playbooks here http://www.footballxos.com/free-football-playbooks/offense-playbooks/air-raid-offense/ including mike leach's) and not just the tactical in game advantages but also advantages in terms of recruiting and preparation.

The rest of my post is just about how I came to consider the two systems, everyone knows that we will never recruit at the football factory level so in my eyes the challenge for us is to find the scheme that can best reduce the talent gap between us an our opponents thereby neutralizing their recruiting advantage. A scheme that capitalizes on the superior aggressiveness and athletic ability of our opponents defense and turn one of their main strengths into a weakness. I believe the triple option can do that (creating one on one opportunities on the edge for the pitch/keep or straight bback dive lanes) but after watching us fail year after year against the more physical teams (VPI, UM, LSU, Iowa, Ugag, Clemson) I am seriously doubting that we can ever have enough talent to allow the system to work so I'm considering a similar system that might achieve the parity I seek while at the same time attracting better talent.

An air raid spread passing offense can do that, since quick screens, slants, digs, etc out of 3 step drops freezes defenses and makes them reactive rather than proactive. Also if we use wider yard splits (like Texas Tech used to under Leach) we can considerably slow down linebacker blitzes (there will only be 2 of them since the defense is nickel), have clearly defined running lanes for inside read option runs, and also require less in-game blocking adjustments so we don't waste snaps -and possessions- figuring out which adjustments to make to get the offense running again when it gets stuffed.

In sum, I'm just trying to find out from others here (since the tone of this board is more serious/analytical) what advantages/disadvantages the two systems have to better be able to compare them.

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.

 

[AE 87]

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.

This. I think the speculation of all of a sudden recruiting better because of scheme change is wishful thinking.

 

[Ramblin Wrecker]

Agreed. It's a great point of discussion, but I find it hard to believe that there is a system that performs significantly better than others with average to above-average talent. If it did exist, I would think that it would be widely employed across the country, therefore removing its edge. Evidence seems to suggest that coaching matters, but so do the Jimmies and Joes.