B Back

[alaguy]

First--I like the offense as I like run/option pffense BUT-- a bit like a Maserati-it runs great SOMETIMES- but simple things can stop it--(like a dirty air filter) OR a 5 yd penalty on 2/3rd down-we need 3-4 run yds on every play given that this Off has proven to be VERY erratic on passing. And the closer to the goal the worse it gets as the DBs can't be stretched as far on passing threat..
Someone said the def can dictate our plays--all you have to do to see that happening is to look at the QB carries some key games the last few seasons and the AVG Yards per play--QB- 2.1,A backs- 6.2,Bbacks- 4.6 .Of course this goes with the erratic passing making the system unpleasant to some.

Also,as to play calling by messenger--I would love to know how many blown plays were made by the "messenger" from PJ as he is hurriedly told the play and pushed onto the field by PJ.
Now did he say -" Regular,trips right,delay spin left , on 3 OR was different? hmmmm

 

[Ash]

Are you watching the same games I am? If we're talking only about last year you've got the order wrong. Rocket/Dive, throw once or twice, miss on third and long. Punt.

But that's because we couldn't put together a decent 30/midline to save our lives. Fairly sure we've all had enough thinking on why that happened.

Wrinkles are cool when you use them as a strategic response. That's not where we were last year. If anything, CPJ does a huge amount of innovating, but won't keep at something new that's getting blown apart. It's funny to me that a lot of people stridently argue that CPJ is too stubborn because he won't run into the ground with a new idea that isn't working. Some thoughts:

Maybe I got the order wrong but the song is the same.
Because of our formation (No TE and seemingly only 2 pass routes ) we get one dimensional real fast. Stuff the dive, and we are going to the outside. String that out a few times and tell your DBs to expect a burner down the sideline. I'm not saying this is all because of CPJ, maybe our players were not making plays, but it seems like teams have figured out a way to back us into a corner. Our scheme is supposed to give us an edge, not limit us.

Of course, execution solves everything. I believe if we execute we put ourselves in a position to win against anyone. But there is a way to play us and CPJ, and teams are doing it to success.

 

[nodawgs]

This is a cool problem. First of all, I don't know coming in the number of distinct encodings you are using, so I have to collect what you say every play and note the number of different signifiers as well as their frequency. I'll get the formation pretty fast purely based on frequency. Then I probably start working on a form of contact analysis, since plays and keys have a relationship with how often they get used together. I'd probably need to work this out before hand, using analysis of tape of your previous games if I'm especially studious. The idea is that you're likely to use certain modifications or adjustments with certain plays more often than others. Even better, I have the ability to change what you call to some extent. If the DC starts inducing a certain adjustment, etc. I can falsify my hypothesis in one play. That's a really powerful tool because now I'm using statistical analysis to guide guesses and crossing off possibilities.

I bet a midshipman or three sitting on the bench can get at least the formations and most tags by halftime. If they have buddies with TI-89's or laptops behind them I bet they get the calls too.

Also, the dummy call would give me the most trouble if you have as many dummy calls as play calls and you call them in more or less the same proportions that you call plays. If the noise looks a lot like signal, it's a lot harder to filter.

If you can get the defensive players to memorize a bunch of jibberish (3-10 plays worth per series) while carrying out their assignments and making tackles, they may have a chance. Like I said, by the time the play is called out, we are lining up in the formation, so doesn't really matter if they know that. It's so hectic and fast paced that it's difficult for the defense to register what's going on, decipher and relay. Now if the offense is using the play clock and going in turtle mode, it will be a little more possible.

As for game to game, I won't trot out the same base formation in any 2-3 consecutive games. We will change tags, and chart our own tendencies based on down and distance, hash marks etc as DCoordinators already do this. One week we may line up mostly in the I Formation, then come out in 5 wide the next week. It just depends on what the best way to attack the defense we are playing that week is.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the signals we used getting stolen, but this is a pretty good conversation!

 

[AE 87]

The stats that are available have FCS and Syracuse stats in them, so that doesn't tell the real story of consistency. Those great rushing stats have still not gotten us over the .500 Mark against FBS teams and especially vs Va Tech, Miami, Clemson, and UGA.

You might enjoy looking at footballoutsiders.com for some opponent-adjusted stats, with no FCS nor garbage time (no stats from the last 2/3 of Syr game).

I discussed some of those stats in a thread on "Great Offensive Scheme." Here are some more, SnPplus, a stat that measures play success, needed yards rather than absolute yards, and pts per play:
Year ... Measure ... Rank
2008 ...... 109.1 ........ 41
2009 ...... 119.0 ........ 21
2010 ...... 104.2 ........ 61
2011 ...... 121.4 ........ 15
2012 ...... 119.4 ........ 13
2013 ...... 118.1 ........ 21

 

[nodawgs]

You might enjoy looking at footballoutsiders.com for some opponent-adjusted stats, with no FCS nor garbage time (no stats from the last 2/3 of Syr game).

I discussed some of those stats in a thread on "Great Offensive Scheme." Here are some more, SnPplus, a stat that measures play success, needed yards rather than absolute yards, and pts per play:
Year ... Measure ... Rank
2008 ...... 109.1 ........ 41
2009 ...... 119.0 ........ 21
2010 ...... 104.2 ........ 61
2011 ...... 121.4 ........ 15
2012 ...... 119.4 ........ 13
2013 ...... 118.1 ........ 21

Dude stats can be twisted and isolated to argue either one of our points. It's a waste of time. Would you honestly rather have the 2012-2013 offenses over 2008-2009 offenses?

 

[AE 87]

Dude stats can be twisted and isolated to argue either one of our points. It's a waste of time. Would you honestly rather have the 2012-2013 offenses over 2008-2009 offenses?

How did I use, let alone misuse and twist stats? In your previous post, you suggested that the issue was fcs and Syr. I pointed you to a site that accounts for garbage time and does not count FCS. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

As I said, it is okay with me if you just come on here to share your feelings. You are sad that we have not won more games. You feel bad. You blame CPJ's offense. You may not have rational data to support your feelings, but feelings don't need to be rational. As I've told my woman, they are your feelings, and I won't say they are wrong.

 

[nodawgs]

How did I use, let alone misuse and twist stats? In your previous post, you suggested that the issue was fcs and Syr. I pointed you to a site that accounts for garbage time and does not count FCS. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

As I said, it is okay with me if you just come on here to share your feelings. You are sad that we have not won more games. You feel bad. You blame CPJ's offense. You may not have rational data to support your feelings, but feelings don't need to be rational. As I've told my woman, they are your feelings, and I won't say they are wrong.

So is our offense better now or in 08-09? Your stats say yes. Do you?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We scored 30+ points against 3 of the "big 4". I don't see how one could argue our offense was the problem in those games. The O sucked in the VT game, I'll grant you that, but that's one out of four.

 

[yellojello]

The perennial "O vs D" problem. It's never going to go away as long as CPJ is the coach. Of course, if we had someone else as coach, people would come up with a new problem. Football is a team game with O, D and ST contributing to wins and losses. In general, it's extremely hard to assign one unit as the singular cause for a victory or defeat. In the case of CPJ, it's easy to pick on his O, since it is an aberration. But that would be superficial analysis, at best and disingenuousness, at worst.

As for me, personally, I feel our O has more than held it's own. The only year, it was kind of close was last year. But even last year, our O was better than the D. It does not mean that the O can't improve, just that the D is a more pressing issue. We've made some strides. Hopefully we can keep the momentum going.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The perennial "O vs D" problem. It's never going to go away as long as CPJ is the coach. Of course, if we had someone else as coach, people would come up with a new problem. Football is a team game with O, D and ST contributing to wins and losses. In general, it's extremely hard to assign one unit as the singular cause for a victory or defeat. In the case of CPJ, it's easy to pick on his O, since it is an aberration. But that would be superficial analysis, at best and disingenuousness, at worst.

As for me, personally, I feel our O has more than held it's own. The only year, it was kind of close was last year. But even last year, our O was better than the D. It does not mean that the O can't improve, just that the D is a more pressing issue. We've made some strides. Hopefully we can keep the momentum going.

There's a bright side and reason for optimism that is born from this disparity. It is much easier to go from bad to average than it is go from good to great. If we can maintain "good" on offense while rising to "average" on defense, it just might be all we need to get over the hump in our close losses.

Also, a major contributing factor to our being bad on D has been addressed, the coordinator. We don't know if this will be a fix yet, but early returns are promising. Another contributing factor is a string of bad luck on D in recruiting, especially with Dlineman. Tuitt, Flowers, Jackson, just to name three, were all within our grasp but slipped away at the last minute. We are more than due for a little bit of good luck on that front. We also had some bad luck with injuries, some career ending and some highly rated guys not panning out. Luck tends to even out over the long haul. We are more than due for things to break our way for a change.

Two other changes in recruiting should be very positive as well: the added staff and unlimited exception policy.

Changes like the ones listed above typically do not yield immediate results on the field, they take time. That's why the "4 years is enough time" argument is flawed. Enough time has not yet passed for them to yield dividends.

 

[AE 87]

So is our offense better now or in 08-09? Your stats say yes. Do you?

It seems that you are responding only to the stats in this thread and not to the stats I discussed in the other thread to which I referred. I encourage you to find and read that thread.

The stats I provided in this thread focus on per play success. I think per drive success is more important. In that category, the yearly rankings differ. Also, there is the factor of heart, the ability to make plays when you have to, which defies statistical measure, imo.

To answer your question, I think our 2011 and 2012 offenses were better than our 2008 O, and that 2013 was comparable to 2008. I think our 2011 offense was compable to 2009, but the 2009 O was our best. It seems to me that this has more to do with personnel and execution than scheme.

 

[33jacket]

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.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

Can you write up a thesis on our D while your at it? The length of your post underscores the attention disparity our offense garners in respect to our defense when our defense is, by far, our biggest liability. This disparity is not of your making, of course, it's just a reality of GT board discussion, especially in the off season.

That said, I think you have some good ideas, some we are already doing like the no huddle we saw in spring. Also, it appears coach is thinking about a TE with the signing of Klock. I'm also still scratching my head in the Brian Cook hire. CPJ must have made the hire with the idea of using his offensive mind in some way.

The offense has room to grow and improve, that is for sure. However, I firmly believe that will be achieved more through better execution (especially from the qb) of our base stuff. That will allow us to add wrinkles and those wrinkles will have more effect.

I guess you can say my idea of why we struggle against certain teams is different from yours. Mine is an execution standpoint while yours is a scheme one. I think we already have strategic answers for whatever the D is doing, we just haven't been able to execute them consistently with previous personnel. Well, now we have new personnel in many of those crucial spots, especially the most crucial. Just wish we had somebody new at RT, but that is what it is.

 

[nodawgs]

The stats I provided in this thread focus on per play success. I think per drive success is more important. In that category, the yearly rankings differ. Also, there is the factor of heart, the ability to make plays when you have to, which defies statistical measure, imo.

To answer your question, I think our 2011 and 2012 offenses were better than our 2008 O, and that 2013 was comparable to 2008. I think our 2011 offense was compable to 2009, but the 2009 O was our best. It seems to me that this has more to do with personnel and execution than scheme.

So you are picking and choosing stats that YOU deem more important. Check. Ironically, when it comes down to it, you don't even agree with what your stats say. Check. You just totally proved every point I was trying to make. Thank you sir!

 

[AE 87]

So you are picking and choosing stats that YOU deem more important. Check. Ironically, when it comes down to it, you don't even agree with what your stats say. Check. You just totally proved every point I was trying to make. Thank you sir!

OK, it seems you just want to react and engage emotionally rather than rationally. I did not intend to hurt your feelungs.

 

[33jacket]

Can you write up a thesis on our D while your at it? The length of your post underscores the attention disparity our offense garners in respect to our defense when our defense is, by far, our biggest liability. This disparity is not of your making, of course, it's just a reality of GT board discussion, especially in the off season.

That said, I think you have some good ideas, some we are already doing like the no huddle we saw in spring. Also, it appears coach is thinking about a TE with the signing of Klock. I'm also still scratching my head in the Brian Cook hire. CPJ must have made the hire with the idea of using his offensive mind in some way.

The offense has room to grow and improve, that is for sure. However, I firmly believe that will be achieved more through better execution (especially from the qb) of our base stuff. That will allow us to add wrinkles and those wrinkles will have more effect.

I guess you can say my idea of why we struggle against certain teams is different from yours. Mine is an execution standpoint while yours is a scheme one. I think we already have strategic answers for whatever the D is doing, we just haven't been able to execute them consistently with previous personnel. Well, now we have new personnel in many of those crucial spots, especially the most crucial. Just wish we had somebody new at RT, but that is what it is.

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.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

The thing about execution is that it is not done in a vacuum. The defenses we play against have a lot to say about how difficult it is to execute our game plan and most of it has to do with the individual matchups and not scheme. Sometimes it has a lot to do with scheme like when Syracuse came out and slow played us which was like Brer Fox throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch - it's just what we wanted.

By and large, the teams that gave us the most trouble had superior athletes and won key battle on the LOS and forced our qb out of his comfort zone and when that happened, everything went to hell in a handbasket. On the flipside, if and when we get some guys who can handle their man better, or a qb who can handle the pressure better, teams that sell out on the LOS are exposed and can be hurt big time.

 

[33jacket]

The thing about execution is that it is not done in a vacuum. The defenses we play against have a lot to say about how difficult it is to execute our game plan and most of it has to do with the individual matchups and not scheme. Sometimes it has a lot to do with scheme like when Syracuse came out and slow played us which was like Brer Fox throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch - it's just what we wanted.

By and large, the teams that gave us the most trouble had superior athletes and won key battle on the LOS and forced our qb out of his comfort zone and when that happened, everything went to hell in a handbasket. On the flipside, if and when we get some guys who can handle their man better, or a qb who can handle the pressure better, teams that sell out on the LOS are exposed and can be hurt big time.

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.

 

[augustabuzz]

C...

That said, I think you have some good ideas, some we are already doing like the no huddle we saw in spring. Also, it appears coach is thinking about a TE with the signing of Klock. I'm also still scratching my head in the Brian Cook hire. CPJ must have made the hire with the idea of using his offensive mind in some way.

The offense has room to grow and improve, that is for sure. However, I firmly believe that will be achieved more through better execution (especially from the qb) of our base stuff. That will allow us to add wrinkles and those wrinkles will have more effect. ...

Something is up with the hire of Brian Cook. We started recruiting larger frames on the OL at about the same time. Also, it will be interesting to see how Klock and future recruits with similar skills are used.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

I see your point and I'm not against tweaking the scheme. I'm just not on board with scrapping it altogether like some. I still think getting a qb under center who can make the reads and execute our base offense will go a long way with the talent we have now.