B Back

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
So for me we will never get those guys consistent enough to do what you say in the last paragraph at tech. Which is why i believe the scheme needs tweaking (just like paul now allows 2pt for the OT which he didnt his first 2 years). Its just a differing of opinion on what to correct. Teams lesser or equal talent like cuse we dont have a problem with. Paul has had 6 years to match the talent on the OL to compete with the bigger boys and in general we have been missing alot lately. So now for me its scheme tweak.

Taking that line of reasoning a bit further, at some point you jettison scheme not because it is flawed, but because you can not recruit players that are sufficiently skilled at executing it. GT is nowhere near that point yet on offense. Considering that the triple option is considered to not have the personnel demands of other systems (a debatable point, I suppose), it is difficult to know what scheme one would switch to for greater success.

Tweaks can be good, but they need to be confined to a limited well defined scope addressing a specific problem. Start making changes willy nilly and you'll wind up worse off than before.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
My opinion, for the record, is we don't concentrate enough on diversifying our attack. We don't utilize many positions like we could, such as the WR position. We also don't diversify our blocking schemes enough, the guys have the mental capacity to handle more/tweaks to what we do without getting away from our core. Our offense is extremely effective when it works, like any offense.

I think our offense is also less resilient than other offenses to stuff like penalties, and plays for negative yards. Stats can't show this or they can but it would be one hell of a study, but we all see when we get behind the chains it feels like no hope, our ability to convert a 2nd and 15 seems to be far worse than teams who have different schemes. Now all offenses dont' do well in these scenarios, for sure, i mean you are behind the chains. So duh! But IMO our offense is less capable of coming back to move the chains from these scenarios than a Clemson would be etc. To me, this is a function of scheme. Not personnel. The scheme has a distinct advantage, but also just as big of a distinct disadvantage. Where some other schemes have a semi advantage, but not as big a disadvantage either. In other words our spread is much larger from my veiwpoint.

I believe a way to cure this is to do what we do, but diversify a bit more. Part of that is a better and more complex passing attack that uses more of the route tree and 3-4 WR sets. Part of that is a better screen game (a QBs best friend). How many times do we see the D just tee off on our OL in rushing the QB, and we have no hope to block??? What is better to neutralize an aggressive pass rusher than a good screen game? This fits GREAT to what we do. We rarely use it. We have two types of screens....it can be more...we can run WR bubble screens, BB and AB screens we have seen in spots, but we need to run more versions of it. Finally I would like to see a true TE instead of a WR tight to the line. We can do this too...and not change the scheme much, and add a over the middle passing attack with a 6-6 person not 5-7. This again, helps the QB and passing game to be MORE effective when you need it.

Am I looking for 50/50 pass and run yards. Nope. Am I saying change the scheme, nope. I am saying we can ADD A TON to the current scheme to diversify it, not get away from what we do, and be even THAT much more effective. I also believe it will help against recovering from penalties and negative plays more than we can now.

And the best part is we can do all this from our same formations. Almost every thing I suggest above, does not require a new formation. It requires different personnel packages, and someone who is good in the passing game to sit down with paul and design a better passing attack. Checks to the TE. Checks to the slot, x,y,z route combos and rubs. A slant game we can check to when the d is in an alignment we can exploit...none of this requires us to do anything different other than to have that play in the satchel....

Other ideas:
- everyone in modern football signals plays in. Can teams steal them? Yes, but 95% of the teams don't have this problem because they are well conceived. If it was so easy to steal then why does the NFL use em and belichik had to tape em? Its not easy to steal. So that is a bad excuse. I like this concept as it allows for use to hurryup.
- Use hurryup on first downs and good gains. It neutralizes the defense in personnel, playcalling and ability to line up. A huge advantage for our offense.
Well, everything you add, like more complex route running etc, takes practice time away from other stuff. So I am only for it insomuch as it not killing our execution of our bread and butter plays. One part of your post that I strongly agree with is the addition of a better screen game. I can't tell you how many times on film I have seen all 6 or 7 blitzing defenders past the OL and BB heading towards the QB, where all the BB had to do was turn around and he could have taken a dump off for about 30 yards. We apparently don't like to turn around and become a safety valve. Those kinds of things shouldn't be that hard to implement without committing a ton of practice time.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Its way to easy to blame execution. Anyone can do that. The question needing to be asked is the scheme putting the players in the easiest spot to in fact execute. As an example leaving a BB one on one to block a teams best DE in pass protection is not putting your players in the best spot to succeed. Yet we do it. Alot. And it gets defeated alot. This is like me asking a 5-9 Wr to execute fades in the endzone or jump balls. He will fail. So is it execution or strategy. Execution is far to easy to blame.

Looking at some of our strategies is the issue for me. I question em and think small tweaks can pay big dividends.

Defense is a bit simpler. U flat out need athletes. We need to improve there. I can post a d concept but for me i want to see athletes first improved then we can look at scheme. One thing i can already say is roof could do quicker adjustments. We wait until half. We also dont rotate some players just for a snap enough. I also think he calls a conservative backend while not manufacturing pressure enough. I would like to see a few more zone blitzes added and line lb twists. In other words we dont have the premium athletes on the dl period so we need to be more creative with attacking gaps and keeping the o guessing. We line up and play way too simply at times. Look at the uga tape u will see it. A smart aggressive d is what works at tech. Yes its a bit of a gamble but i would like us to attack a bit more than we do.
You hit the nail on the head! Offensive systems have evolved specifically for that reason. You put your players in the best situation to succeed. Our pass protection is a perfect example of not evolving to put your players in the best position to succeed.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
You hit the nail on the head! Offensive systems have evolved specifically for that reason. You put your players in the best situation to succeed. Our pass protection is a perfect example of not evolving to put your players in the best position to succeed.
Yet we have one of the highest 3rd down conversion %'s in college football. (#4 in the nation) Sure we have a hard time with 3rd and long, but who doesn't. The trick is staying out of those situations and apparently, we do that better than the vast majority of teams. I'd say our scheme has a lot to do with that.

Another interesting stat I didn't know about was td percentage in the redzone. GT has the second highest td percentage in the redzone in college football. We score a td a whopping 81.6% of the time we get in the redzone.
 

jeffgt14

We Don't? Suck
Messages
5,507
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
Do what we do and execute it to perfection. That's my belief on how we'll get better.
I agree. Adding all these new wrinkles into our offense just makes it more complex than it already is. We lose when we turn the ball over too much. That was your 2009 magic everyone’s looking for.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
I wish we could have kept Tenuta when CPJ took over. I think they would have been a great compliment to each other scheme wise. Didn't happen though so onward and upward. I'm real happy with Roof. I've always thought a lot higher of him (as a coach) than many other Tech fans. I would like to see a bit more risk taking on blitzes though. Tenuta got burned a few times, Matt Ryan comes to mind but he burned more teams than just ours, but by and large he had the best D's I've seen on the flats.
 
Top