Auburn's Option v. Tech's Option

[IronJacket7]

Leggett is also a 4 star on ESPN just fyi...

 

[IronJacket7]

Jmo here but one of the reasons that we don't lure more 4-5 star rbs to this offense is they have to be unselfish. Most top level RB recruits want to be the "feature" back in the offense. In our offense, we really have 4 backs (AB, AB, BB, QB) splitting their carries with one another. That's not counting the backups.

 

[IronJacket7]

Example:

Vad Lee had the most for us with 182 carries on the season. David Sims was second with 161.

Tre Mason at Auburn had the most for his team with 317 carries on the season.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Example:

Vad Lee had the most for us with 182 carries on the season. David Sims was second with 161.

Tre Mason at Auburn had the most for his team with 317 carries on the season.

Excellent point.

 

[jeagt]

Example:

Vad Lee had the most for us with 182 carries on the season. David Sims was second with 161.

Tre Mason at Auburn had the most for his team with 317 carries on the season.

I think it would better to compare the number of carries Ant and JD got as well as the combo of sims/laskey instad of sims by himself. Those two split time because neither of them was as good as JD or Ant. While were on the subject I see lots of posts about needing/wanting another dwyer for the offense but not as not much about Ant. JD was a once a decade back according to the recruiting services' as well as how he panned out on the field. Ant fits more in line with other running backs we've had over the years going back to gailey and oleary. If Custis or Leggett turn out to be the same caliber as Ant will be just fine at that position.

 

[IronJacket7]

I think it would better to compare the number of carries Ant and JD got as well as the combo of sims/laskey instad of sims by himself. Those two split time because neither of them was as good as JD or Ant. While were on the subject I see lots of posts about needing/wanting another dwyer for the offense but not as not much about Ant. JD was a once a decade back according to the recruiting services' as well as how he panned out on the field. Ant fits more in line with other running backs we've had over the years going back to gailey and oleary. If Custis or Leggett turn out to be the same caliber as Ant will be just fine at that position.

We could do those numbers also. But this offense is about sharing the wealth in regards to running. Not giving the ball to 1 feature back 90% of the time. Not saying we can't land those guys because we can. But they have to be somewhat unselfish.

 

[yellojello]

A couple of comments:

We have attracted 4 - 5 star RBs to run this offense: for instance, Custis last year and Leggett this year. I don't buy the idea that we can't get good RBs to come to Tech; we've done it. Admittedly, a lot of that has been with players who weren't highly ranked in high school, but fit extremely well with our scheme (Orwin Smith springs to mind). I think the main problem has been a combination of Tech's admission standards and the limited curriculum.

The second has to do with an unspoken assumption here that I question: that we are not doing as well as we would wish because our O limits who we can recruit. Here's a natural experiment we've been running on just that question. Our O is unusual, but our D isn't. We've run pretty much the same kind of Ds over the last few years that the pros and other colleges do. If the O was chasing players off because the pros and other colleges don't run it, then we'd expect the average ranking for the D recruits to be higher, if everything else was equal (and it is). I don't have the time to do an analysis of this (feel free), but I don't think it's necessary. I can't recall any big breakouts in D recruiting; the players we get over there are about the same rank as those we get on O. This suggests another variable in the mix and I think I id'd it above: Tech's admission standards and its limited curriculum.

That is probably not going to change substantially. I conclude as I have before: that, given our pretty good record over the last few years, we are running a program that is getting the maximum out of the players we can get into Tech.

I did the breakdown on GTSportstalk, both for the Chan years and the PJ year (until 2011). Split both the CPJ and Chan era by offensive and defensive recruits. As you predicted, there was no such correlation. According to the services, we've pretty much been getting pretty similar ranked recruits.

 

[Boomergump]

techman78: Yes, the penalties and other problems killed us. I have a different slant on all the penalties and lack of effectiveness at times during the season.

I believe it was the VT game where we had 9+ false starts and offensive penalties. As I watched the game, it seemed obvious to me that some were on purpose. I know many do not think this could happen, but it has many, many times to teams over the years who are trying to show the coach that they run the show and not him. It generally happens when many of the starters think another player (mostly quarterbacks) should be playing instead of the one the coach has in the game. I have seen the same thing on defense when the defensive players are not happy with the coach. It was as obvious to me during the Gailey years when some of the players were not happy when removed the Chaplain (Catholic) of the team and replaced him with a Baptist Chaplain. The first Tech/Georgia game under Gailey appeared to be thrown by some of the players. One player in particular on defense (I still remember his name, but will not call it) missed just about every tackle, and he was regarded as the best of our defensive backs. It was obvious he did it on purpose.

The Fresno State bowl game was another indication that the players lost that game on purpose. If you can ever get these two games and watch them again, you will surely see the lack of effort by disgruntled players. So, it has happened at Tech, and it has happened at many schools. I am convinced it happened in the VT game and no one can change my mind on it. I tend to watch a game from a coaching standpoint and the effectiveness of the game as it is played rather than being a obsessing over certain players during a game. That game was also the turning point of the season for the team. If it is only a couple of players, then the solution is simple, bench them and send in subs. If it is a lot of players then it takes a different solution.

Were the players wrong in being upset? Yes and no. Yes, they have a right to be upset over certain things, but they must as a team approach the coach and try to work these things out with the Head Coach. No, they should never provide less than there absolute best in any game. They are cheating the school and fans who pay for their education when they do these things. If a player/or players cannot reach agreement with the coach, then they should quit and move on. The coach would then be forced to play substitutes. This would still have its effects; the coach would struggle over the wins and losses which would probably rectify the problem anyway if the fans and boosters don't back him. The substitutes would then get a chance to play and would be very happy to do so. In the final analysis, the team would do just as well playing without disgruntled players and an unbending coach. The results would be the same, but the players would have done the honest thing of just leaving the team.

I really don't know what to say about this. Those are some pretty strong accusations. I'll say this much. I have done some pretty stupid looking things on the field over the course of my career that could have elicited such a response from an observer, but I have absolutely never done anything but try my best at all times. Furthermore, in like 40 something years and multitudes of teams as a competitor, I have never seen one of my teammates do anything like this. I really hope you are wrong because that is some pretty disheartening stuff you are saying.

 

[Mack]

techman78: Yes, the penalties and other problems killed us. I have a different slant on all the penalties and lack of effectiveness at times during the season.

I believe it was the VT game where we had 9+ false starts and offensive penalties. As I watched the game, it seemed obvious to me that some were on purpose. I know many do not think this could happen, but it has many, many times to teams over the years who are trying to show the coach that they run the show and not him. It generally happens when many of the starters think another player (mostly quarterbacks) should be playing instead of the one the coach has in the game. I have seen the same thing on defense when the defensive players are not happy with the coach. It was as obvious to me during the Gailey years when some of the players were not happy when removed the Chaplain (Catholic) of the team and replaced him with a Baptist Chaplain. The first Tech/Georgia game under Gailey appeared to be thrown by some of the players. One player in particular on defense (I still remember his name, but will not call it) missed just about every tackle, and he was regarded as the best of our defensive backs. It was obvious he did it on purpose.

The Fresno State bowl game was another indication that the players lost that game on purpose. If you can ever get these two games and watch them again, you will surely see the lack of effort by disgruntled players. So, it has happened at Tech, and it has happened at many schools. I am convinced it happened in the VT game and no one can change my mind on it. I tend to watch a game from a coaching standpoint and the effectiveness of the game as it is played rather than being a obsessing over certain players during a game. That game was also the turning point of the season for the team. If it is only a couple of players, then the solution is simple, bench them and send in subs. If it is a lot of players then it takes a different solution.

Were the players wrong in being upset? Yes and no. Yes, they have a right to be upset over certain things, but they must as a team approach the coach and try to work these things out with the Head Coach. No, they should never provide less than there absolute best in any game. They are cheating the school and fans who pay for their education when they do these things. If a player/or players cannot reach agreement with the coach, then they should quit and move on. The coach would then be forced to play substitutes. This would still have its effects; the coach would struggle over the wins and losses which would probably rectify the problem anyway if the fans and boosters don't back him. The substitutes would then get a chance to play and would be very happy to do so. In the final analysis, the team would do just as well playing without disgruntled players and an unbending coach. The results would be the same, but the players would have done the honest thing of just leaving the team.

Yep it happens.....never will forget the Peach Bowl where players didnt want to go but AD said they would so.......they laid down first half and played second.Result was what they wanted and its bye bye Bud.

 

[Techster]

Jmo here but one of the reasons that we don't lure more 4-5 star rbs to this offense is they have to be unselfish. Most top level RB recruits want to be the "feature" back in the offense. In our offense, we really have 4 backs (AB, AB, BB, QB) splitting their carries with one another. That's not counting the backups.

Then how do you account for the 5 star RBs that are pretty much stacked on top of each other class after recruiting class that line up to play for Alabama and UGA? All those guys know they're not getting carries unless they can beat the 5 star recruit already there and coming in with them.

 

[IronJacket7]

Then how do you account for the 5 star RBs that are pretty much stacked on top of each other class after recruiting class that line up to play for Alabama and UGA? All those guys know they're not getting carries unless they can beat the 5 star recruit already there and coming in with them.

Because they won't always play second fiddle. And most upper level recruits don't mind competing either.

 

[Dustman]

So do we cut block on the line because it is easier and more effective for us? I love our offense except for the cut blocking on the LOS. Not arguing the legality. Can we be successful in our system without cut blocking on the LOS?

 

[Techster]

Because they won't always play second fiddle. And most upper level recruits don't mind competing either.

CPJ has shown that if a guy can play he'll get carries. Sims/Laskey splitting carries the past few seasons proves it. Also, CPJ's offense had 3 straight 1300 yard BBs who got most of the carries.

Just don't buy the whole "unselfish" thing regarding guys coming to play for us versus 'Bama and UGA. Guys that are selfish don't want to play second fiddle at all.

There may be other reasons why RBs don't like coming here, but being selfish or unselfish is a small part of it.

 

[Atomic Jacket]

I think being in the shotgun makes the pass threat more effective. The lack of a pass threat has hampered our offense.

 

[IronJacket7]

CPJ has shown that if a guy can play he'll get carries. Sims/Laskey splitting carries the past few seasons proves it. Also, CPJ's offense had 3 straight 1300 yard BBs who got most of the carries.

Just don't buy the whole "unselfish" thing regarding guys coming to play for us versus 'Bama and UGA. Guys that are selfish don't want to play second fiddle at all.

There may be other reasons why RBs don't like coming here, but being selfish or unselfish is a small part of it.

I agree it is not the only factor. But it is a factor. Our offense doesn't appeal to some recruits. It is what it is.

 

[Rock]

I think being in the shotgun makes the pass threat more effective. The lack of a pass threat has hampered our offense.

^^^ this!

 

[stylee]

One issue I had in coaching was some running backs' resistance to putting a hand in the dirt and being perceived as a "fullback." I worked hard to counter this image - explaining the high ypc average the starter would have, emphasizing the importance of the position to everyone on the team, flatly telling my running backs that the best ones would play BB and everyone would else would be moved to the less premier position of AB...

It's not everyone that's scared of it, but you do have to sell it to some guys