Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Assistant Coaching changes in the off season ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 660309" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>I think this is both true and false.</p><p></p><p>It is true that the kinds of pass blocking schemes we are now learning to use are complicated. Our OL is getting better, but it will take awhile and, probably, some new players to see more efficient performance. I expect most of the present OL (+ injured players) will start next year and the year of game experience and new players will help. It is false when it comes to spread option blocking schemes. The single most complicated position on the team for the last 11 years was the OL. The reason for that is simple; blocking assignments would change on the fly during games for <em>the same play</em>. This made for some interesting work during the games themselves. Some here were always complaining about how Paul would bellyache about OL performance and then, predictably, blame Sewak. This was usually because of changes in blocking calls that OLs would miss during games.</p><p></p><p>Finally, it is completely false about stunting. First, we blocked pretty well against many stunts - especially against VT, btw - because stunting created option opportunities and, if repeated, were counterproductive. This had little to do with the complexity of the stunts or the quality of the D and everything to do with the scheme we were running. Did that stop opposing Ds from trying? Why, no. The stunts we faced were actually more complex then those we face now because the shifts took place right before the snap and were calculated to confuse the initial blocking assignments. Now that we are spending a lot of time pushing-and-dancing on OL it is <em>easier</em> to stunt, not harder. The reason some teams didn't stunt very much against the spread option was, again, because it creates option opportunities. The old adage is true; every play in the spread option except a straight dive was calculated to go for a long gain if correctly blocked. That meant that if you got caught in a stunt, you usually paid for it. Opposing Ds found ways to stunt anyway because that sometimes worked and, given the way the old O operated, you had to try to stop it before it got to 3rd and 3 or you might not stop it at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 660309, member: 265"] I think this is both true and false. It is true that the kinds of pass blocking schemes we are now learning to use are complicated. Our OL is getting better, but it will take awhile and, probably, some new players to see more efficient performance. I expect most of the present OL (+ injured players) will start next year and the year of game experience and new players will help. It is false when it comes to spread option blocking schemes. The single most complicated position on the team for the last 11 years was the OL. The reason for that is simple; blocking assignments would change on the fly during games for [I]the same play[/I]. This made for some interesting work during the games themselves. Some here were always complaining about how Paul would bellyache about OL performance and then, predictably, blame Sewak. This was usually because of changes in blocking calls that OLs would miss during games. Finally, it is completely false about stunting. First, we blocked pretty well against many stunts - especially against VT, btw - because stunting created option opportunities and, if repeated, were counterproductive. This had little to do with the complexity of the stunts or the quality of the D and everything to do with the scheme we were running. Did that stop opposing Ds from trying? Why, no. The stunts we faced were actually more complex then those we face now because the shifts took place right before the snap and were calculated to confuse the initial blocking assignments. Now that we are spending a lot of time pushing-and-dancing on OL it is [I]easier[/I] to stunt, not harder. The reason some teams didn't stunt very much against the spread option was, again, because it creates option opportunities. The old adage is true; every play in the spread option except a straight dive was calculated to go for a long gain if correctly blocked. That meant that if you got caught in a stunt, you usually paid for it. Opposing Ds found ways to stunt anyway because that sometimes worked and, given the way the old O operated, you had to try to stop it before it got to 3rd and 3 or you might not stop it at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Assistant Coaching changes in the off season ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top