Auburn's Option v. Tech's Option

[Randy Carson]

Wow. Is that what an run-first, option offense is supposed to look like?

Okay, so apart from the four- and five-star athletes executing it, what is difference between Auburn's option and ours?

And for you TO haters, who must have been bored out of your minds watching Auburn's Tre Mason grind out 195 yards in a cloud of dust, how many times late in the game did you hear Brent Musberger (commenting on the fact that FSU's no. 8, Jernigan, was on the sideline) talking about how Auburn was running up the middle to set up the run to the outside? Or that as the linebackers moved up to stop the run in the middle, the pass over the top was opening up? Does any of this sound familiar to Tech fans? The dive sets up the pitch and the throw over the middle.

Now, if only we could DO it like Auburn does it. It looks to me like the Jimmy's and Joe's matter a lot.

 

[Js-showman]

From my layman's perspective...

1. They run it more out of the shotgun.
2. They have a 'feature' back, rather than spreading the ball around. This makes a huge difference in recruiting 4 and 5 star running backs out of HS.
3. They don't seem to have nearly as complex blocking schemes without all of the cut blocks that we do.
4. They seem to be less reliant on the 'timing' of blocks in their system as we are, with guys having to get to the second level and take out certain defensive players to open up lanes. See #3.
5. They have more of a passing threat than we do and their system takes advantage of a QBs run/pass game more effectively than ours.
6. I would think that their system would be much easier to learn than ours. It looks much simpler. The QB's option reads seem to be easier and less complicated and it seems like it would take less time to master than ours.
7. Seems less reliant on receivers blocking down-field. See #2.
8.. They can incorporate the no-huddle much more effectively. In fact, we don't use it at all. You saw what impact it had on the FSU defense. They were completely gassed at the end of the game.
9. Because they can change up the pace and have more balance between the run-pass, they can play from behind more effectively than we can.

Their system was fun to watch, is obviously very effective at the BCS level and is appealing to 4 and 5 star athletes.
It wasn't their offense that lost the game, it was their defense.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

They block! Seriously. They actually run fewer plays than we do. Just more looks, better backs, and better linemen. Could you imagine Mason as our feature back? Hope Custis becomes that type of back.

 

[IronJacket7]

From my layman's perspective...

1. They run it more out of the shotgun.
2. They have a 'feature' back, rather than spreading the ball around. This makes a huge difference in recruiting 4 and 5 star running backs out of HS.
3. They don't seem to have nearly as complex blocking schemes without all of the cut blocks that we do.
4. They seem to be less reliant on the 'timing' of blocks in their system as we are, with guys having to get to the second level and take out certain defensive players to open up lanes. See #3.
5. They have more of a passing threat than we do and their system takes advantage of a QBs run/pass game more effectively than ours.
6. I would think that their system would be much easier to learn than ours. It looks much simpler. The QB's option reads seem to be easier and less complicated and it seems like it would take less time to master than ours.
7. Seems less reliant on receivers blocking down-field. See #2.
8.. They can incorporate the no-huddle much more effectively. In fact, we don't use it at all. You saw what impact it had on the FSU defense. They were completely gassed at the end of the game.
9. Because they can change up the pace and have more balance between the run-pass, they can play from behind more effectively than we can.

Their system was fun to watch, is obviously very effective at the BCS level and is appealing to 4 and 5 star athletes.
It wasn't their offense that lost the game, it was their defense.

Thank you for posting this. +1

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If you put Marshall and Mason on last year's team, we score just as many points on FSU in the ACCCG that Auburn put up last night. Give us their OL, too, and we score another 2 td's. It's Jimmies and Joes not x's and o's. Also, I doubt it has much to do with scheme as it does all the advantages of being Auburn when it comes to recruiting the blue chip players.

 

[33jacket]

From my layman's perspective...

1. They run it more out of the shotgun.
2. They have a 'feature' back, rather than spreading the ball around. This makes a huge difference in recruiting 4 and 5 star running backs out of HS.
3. They don't seem to have nearly as complex blocking schemes without all of the cut blocks that we do.
4. They seem to be less reliant on the 'timing' of blocks in their system as we are, with guys having to get to the second level and take out certain defensive players to open up lanes. See #3.
5. They have more of a passing threat than we do and their system takes advantage of a QBs run/pass game more effectively than ours.
6. I would think that their system would be much easier to learn than ours. It looks much simpler. The QB's option reads seem to be easier and less complicated and it seems like it would take less time to master than ours.
7. Seems less reliant on receivers blocking down-field. See #2.
8.. They can incorporate the no-huddle much more effectively. In fact, we don't use it at all. You saw what impact it had on the FSU defense. They were completely gassed at the end of the game.
9. Because they can change up the pace and have more balance between the run-pass, they can play from behind more effectively than we can.

Their system was fun to watch, is obviously very effective at the BCS level and is appealing to 4 and 5 star athletes.
It wasn't their offense that lost the game, it was their defense.

Perfect breakdown. They use a zone scheme that does not rely on timing but patience. If you notice their runs dont hit as fast to the los but to me are more effective. Its much simpler to learn. And tempo and sideline signs are key. The coaches tell them how to run the option based on the d alignment. We rely on qb checks.

 

[Kevin93]

From what I heard they really only have like 4-5 running plays but they have so many options from each play which helps out.

 

[ATL1]

Malzahn is great at taking his players and adjusting his offense to put them in a better position to succeed.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Malzahn is great at taking his players and adjusting his offense to put them in a better position to succeed.

I'd say he's great at using the talent that Auburn is able to attract. Do you honestly think that if we substituted their players into our scheme we don't do the same exact thing?

 

[UgaBlows]

If that had been GT with their athletes we would have put a death march on them at the end of the game ftw

 

[LibertyTurns]

I think everyone really knows what our problem is. Put those players on CPJ's team and you win the crystal football.

We/he/they need to figure it out. I am certain it's one of those 3 that can fix football at GT.

 

[Animal02]

From my layman's perspective...

1. They run it more out of the shotgun.
2. They have a 'feature' back, rather than spreading the ball around. This makes a huge difference in recruiting 4 and 5 star running backs out of HS.
3. They don't seem to have nearly as complex blocking schemes without all of the cut blocks that we do.
4. They seem to be less reliant on the 'timing' of blocks in their system as we are, with guys having to get to the second level and take out certain defensive players to open up lanes. See #3.
5. They have more of a passing threat than we do and their system takes advantage of a QBs run/pass game more effectively than ours.
6. I would think that their system would be much easier to learn than ours. It looks much simpler. The QB's option reads seem to be easier and less complicated and it seems like it would take less time to master than ours.
7. Seems less reliant on receivers blocking down-field. See #2.
8.. They can incorporate the no-huddle much more effectively. In fact, we don't use it at all. You saw what impact it had on the FSU defense. They were completely gassed at the end of the game.
9. Because they can change up the pace and have more balance between the run-pass, they can play from behind more effectively than we can.

Their system was fun to watch, is obviously very effective at the BCS level and is appealing to 4 and 5 star athletes.
It wasn't their offense that lost the game, it was their defense.

I think many of your points relate back to a step up in athletic ability from what Tech has.

 

[daBuzz]

I'd say he's great at using the talent that Auburn is able to attract. Do you honestly think that if we substituted their players into our scheme we don't do the same exact thing?

For one, I honestly don't.

 

[33jacket]

I'd say he's great at using the talent that Auburn is able to attract. Do you honestly think that if we substituted their players into our scheme we don't do the same exact thing?

I dont think their line could execute our cut scheme. I really dont. They are too big. Its why we have to cut less to get power blocking if we want bigger linemen.

Now i totally agree at the skill positions. If we had mason their wr and qb we would be a ten win team. We could use some of their OL but not all of it. They zone, you dont see nearly as much movement downfield second level assignment blocking and then cut off of it like you do with our scheme.

So i am half and half. If we start doing more zone and drive then i totally agree. But as is their line would physically struggle, and i think we need to tweak our pass blocking schemes.

 

[Animal02]

I dont think their line could execute our cut scheme. I really dont. They are too big. Its why we have to cut less to get power blocking if we want bigger linemen.

Now i totally agree at the skill positions. If we had mason their wr and qb we would be a ten win team. We could use some of their OL but not all of it. They zone, you dont see nearly as much movement downfield second level assignment blocking and then cut off of it like you do with our scheme.

So i am half and half. If we start doing more zone and drive then i totally agree. But as is their line would physically struggle, and i think we need to tweak our pass blocking schemes.

Hell, if we would have had a QB with his head and heart in the game we would have won 9-10 this season.

 

[babuka]

If you put Marshall and Mason on last year's team, we score just as many points on FSU in the ACCCG that Auburn put up last night. Give us their OL, too, and we score another 2 td's. It's Jimmies and Joes not x's and o's. Also, I doubt it has much to do with scheme as it does all the advantages of being Auburn when it comes to recruiting the blue chip players.

The same Jimmies and Joes that won 3 games last year?

Coaching matters and scheme does also. Auburn did look crisp and well coached. Too often, Tech looks undisciplined, and does not do the little things right. I still want CPJ to succeed at Tech, but how many times since he has been here has Tech been a team that done all the little things right (no false starts, smart special teams, good tackling, few to no blown coverages, few dropped passes, etc). Those things have to be addressed; it is one thing to get beat, it is another thing to beat yourself. It is odd that Marshall can learn the offense in fall training camp from scratch, but our QBs can't do it in 3-4 years. Heck even Tevin missed a lot of option reads as a 5th year senior. I think CPJ needs to come up with new ways for his QBs to get more reps during practice and meetings. But then again the QB's coach shouldn't be coaching the B-backs.

 

[daBuzz]

Hell, if we would have had a QB with his head and heart in the game we would have won 9-10 this season.

Please stop posting mistruths. You have no idea what was going on inside Vad Lee's mind.
From everything that has been told to me (and yes, some was by assistant coaches directly), Vad gave it everything he had. He wasn't sure the system was for him and he transferred, but to question the young man's "head and heart" is just wrong.

 

[Js-showman]

The same Jimmies and Joes that won 3 games last year?

Coaching matters and scheme does also. Auburn did look crisp and well coached. Too often, Tech looks undisciplined, and does not do the little things right. I still want CPJ to succeed at Tech, but how many times since he has been here has Tech been a team that done all the little things right (no false starts, smart special teams, good tackling, few to no blown coverages, few dropped passes, etc). Those things have to be addressed; it is one thing to get beat, it is another thing to beat yourself. It is odd that Marshall can learn the offense in fall training camp from scratch, but our QBs can't do it in 3-4 years. Heck even Tevin missed a lot of option reads as a 5th year senior. I think CPJ needs to come up with new ways for his QBs to get more reps during practice and meetings. But then again the QB's coach shouldn't be coaching the B-backs.

I concur with this. Same guys that sucked last year end up #2 in the BCS this year. It isn't just talent. Our scheme can work with the right guys, but even when we had good teams in 2008 and 2009, we were beating ourselves. We sucked against a far inferior UVA team when Groh was coaching there and almost got beat by Garner Webb. I am not even go to talk about the LSU game in the CFA bowl. In 2009, we looked horrible against Miami and collapsed against an inferior UGA team. We had as much or more talent than both that year. Even this year, I think the best game we played was in a losing effort against UGA and we went pass happy in that game compared to any other game in the CPJ era, save Duke (I think) in 2008 when Jaybo and BeyBey lit it up. Our offense is either feast or famine. We either look like a well oiled machine or a train wreck. We put up huge numbers against the likes of Kansas and Syracuse to only crap the bed against VT and Miami every year. Our system is very complex, takes a long time to learn it, is very one dimensional, is incapable of changing pace and is hard to recruit 4 and 5 star talent into it. We recruit receivers to block, not to spread the field. We recruit quarterbacks to be A and B backs instead of recruiting top notch running talent out of HS. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is coached that way. Our coach is stubborn and doesn't seem to want to adjust. We beat the crap out of Duke running the diamond and virtually dropped it for the rest of the year. Duke then wins the coastal and had Texas A&M on the ropes in the CFA. And we're better and more talented than them. Option offenses can and do work. But ours has become far too predictable and boring given the way we run it. I was hoping to see more of a UGA-like game against Ole Miss, but we went right back to the same formula that has gotten us into an annual 7-7 rut for the last 4 years. It's frustrating.

 

[Js-showman]

Please stop posting mistruths. You have no idea what was going on inside Vad Lee's mind.
From everything that has been told to me (and yes, some was by assistant coaches directly), Vad gave it everything he had. He wasn't sure the system was for him and he transferred, but to question the young man's "head and heart" is just wrong.

Something happened to Vad. He brought a fire, a spark and a quickness to the field in 2012 that he never showed in 2013. I don't know what it was, but I cannot help but to think he was coached to be part of a system that didn't fit him, rather than tweaking a system to fit his abilities. Kinda reminds me of Tebow. In the right system, he could be a winner, but he didn't fit the formula.

 

[DuckGT]

I'd say he's great at using the talent that Auburn is able to attract. Do you honestly think that if we substituted their players into our scheme we don't do the same exact thing?

How bout if we swapped Malzahn for CPJ, what do you think he could do with the players we currently have?