Couple of observations during a GT-less Saturday

[ATL1]

Avoiding any conversation regarding the quality of coaching, your assertion GT has the talent to be in CFB playoff conversation is just pre-season babbling up again. We all had rose petal and fairy godmother thoughts in August. Fact is we have no running game, no WRs, no blocking and no defense. Throw in special teams and you start to get the picture. One might argue we should have been better -- and I wouldn't dispute that for a second -- but to suggest that much better is just pixie dust scatterings. We are what the record says.

If you don't have the talent (which I don't believe) then it still falls on coaching. These are the players he recruited.
This team was predicted to win the coastal. 7 returning starters on D. 4 returning starters on OLine. Returning QB.
Either way the record falls on the coach. Injuries happen can't accept that excuse.

 

[stinger 1957]

I would guess we will have another good year when CPJ needs to renew his contract.

 

[redmule]

And yet, we are one play away from beating UNC's best team in a generation, one play away from beating Pitt and Uva, one KO return away from beating Duke on the road. UNC and Pitt gave us no turnovers while we gave them a couple each IIRC. We also lost the TO battle to Duke and Uva. Some on this board downplayed last year's success because we were one play away from losing to GSU, uga, and VT and our defense got several lucky bounce turnovers. I'm not crazy enough to say that we are anywhere near as good as last year, but if we don't get that ridiculously lucky fumble call against GSU late in the 4th, last year probably would have looked a lot more like this year. Lots of injuries and youth means more busted plays, more turnovers, and more losses for all programs all the time.

Tech football has mystified and amazed me (both good and bad) many times in the 50+ years I have been a fan. Going from not being able to win an ACC game to a MNC in 15 months for example. Finding new and creative ways to give games to uga in the 4th qtr. Seeing highly ranked (for us) HS players not make the travel squad while walk-ons become all ACC. But nothing, nothing has mystified me as much as watching the widely acclaimed best OL in the country last year become swiss cheese this year with the replacement of one player by perhaps the best OL recruit we've had this century. We should retire Shaq Mason's jersey as he must have been the best player to ever wear a Tech uniform. I think most of our golden predictions for this year were based on the assumption that Shaq Mason while good was still just an ordinary mortal and not some sort of OL god that infused all around him with super strength. Anything approaching 4/5ths of last year's OL performance, even 3/5ths, and I think we're playing Clemson again in December. Given Tech's history, losing three OL starters this year means next year's OL will eat lightning and crap thunder.

During Clemson/FSU the other night, the announcers talked about how successful they have been in the ACC. Not counting the games they have played against each other, each had only lost one ACC game in the last three years. Guess who those two losses were to. Tech football always surprises. That's why I keep coming back.

 

[Lee]

Interesting that you open with Navy's dismantling of a ranked and unbeaten Memphis team, then segue into the "why don't we pass the ball?" column. If you are a fan of TOP -- I think it is worthless unless your defense can step up, and Navy's did and ours doesn't -- that went to Navy 37-23. Plays something like 75 to 60. Navy got 372 yards rushing, about 450 yards total offense, and hung 42 points on that had been talked about as "being left out of" the final four.

Navy threw the ball five times. One was the beauty that defines GT's passing philosophy: suck the safeties up, run a switch route, and go over the top 75 yards for a TD. And the Aback caught the ball somewhere out in Idaho with his biggest problem being he might stumble on his way to the EZ. One might argue our offense this season has been dreadful, because it has been. Both real time and in comparison to years past, particularly 2014. But passing? We talking about passing? The difference in going down with the Titanic or the Hindenburg. Until this team fixes its run game, no matter what the cause of its demise, Tech is going to be ordinary at best. And if it does, and if 2016 is a "normal" year for injuries, it is going to be awesome. While running the ball.

I don't know about Matt E, but if he is thinking along the same lines as I do in terms of the short/quick passing attack, it is not to be a focal point of our offense. I would like to see this implemented for days (or seasons) when we can not get our traditional offense going. Just as something to back the defense off a little bit to give our guys some breathing room to execute the O.

When the TO is humming like it was last year, I love watching it. It is a thing of beauty. I actually enjoy following the wrong guy because Justin has done such a good job with the mesh. The thing is, it's not going to be that way if this year is any sort of indicator. I would love to see us have something we can go to when we can't get the bread and butter rolling and adding a few quick hitting passes seems very reasonable to me.

I know we run a lot of option routes, but with a bunch of young guys, they may not do the right thing all of the time. It takes time for them and Justin to see the same thing. This is what made Smelter and JT's chemistry so good. As much as I'd love to have Waller this year as well, him and Justin didn't have that same chemistry which was evident in the FSU game last year.

I know we run some crossing patterns with abacks (usually successfully if we throw it to them), but I would love to see us implement some little hitch routes when they are in zone or smash routes when they are in man (most likely being covered by a lb).

Again, I want to emphasize that I like our offense and think it gives us the best chance to succeed long term. I would just like to see some of these concepts implemented for when we can get it going offensively and/or can't protect well enough to let our other routes develope.

 

[alagold]

nice analysis. Actually, I have a second chicken and egg question aside from the pass/run issue (which is implied in your comments) - can our passing game be effective without a Waller, Smelter, DT, Calvin, Kelly Campbell type. Can it work with just typical college level receivers who will not get paid to play? Or will teams take a risk covering these type of guys one on one with CB's,freeing up more guys in run support?

good question--after watching us for 8 yrs ,my answer is NO it is VITAL to pull the safeties back or burn the 1 on 1DBs

 

[alagold]

And yet, we are one play away from beating UNC's best team in a generation, one play away from beating Pitt and Uva, one KO return away from beating Duke on the road. UNC and Pitt gave us no turnovers while we gave them a couple each IIRC. We also lost the TO battle to Duke and Uva. Some on this board downplayed last year's success because we were one play away from losing to GSU, uga, and VT and our defense got several lucky bounce turnovers. I'm not crazy enough to say that we are anywhere near as good as last year, but if we don't get that ridiculously lucky fumble call against GSU late in the 4th, last year probably would have looked a lot more like this year. Lots of injuries and youth means more busted plays, more turnovers, and more losses for all programs all the time.

Tech football has mystified and amazed me (both good and bad) many times in the 50+ years I have been a fan. Going from not being able to win an ACC game to a MNC in 15 months for example. Finding new and creative ways to give games to uga in the 4th qtr. Seeing highly ranked (for us) HS players not make the travel squad while walk-ons become all ACC. But nothing, nothing has mystified me as much as watching the widely acclaimed best OL in the country last year become swiss cheese this year with the replacement of one player by perhaps the best OL recruit we've had this century. We should retire Shaq Mason's jersey as he must have been the best player to ever wear a Tech uniform. I think most of our golden predictions for this year were based on the assumption that Shaq Mason while good was still just an ordinary mortal and not some sort of OL god that infused all around him with super strength. Anything approaching 4/5ths of last year's OL performance, even 3/5ths, and I think we're playing Clemson again in December. Given Tech's history, losing three OL starters this year means next year's OL will eat lightning and crap thunder.

During Clemson/FSU the other night, the announcers talked about how successful they have been in the ACC. Not counting the games they have played against each other, each had only lost one ACC game in the last three years. Guess who those two losses were to. Tech football always surprises. That's why I keep coming back.

Red,
After watching us run behind Shaq(to right) sometimes 70% of plays, you may be right.He is all-time player. otoh-I've watched Devine and he looked an ordinary soph--very blah.

 

[alagold]

1. It makes a huge difference running the TO when the quarterback is decisive and attacks the defense. I love JT, but watching Keenan Reynolds is night and day. Reynolds has a lot more reps in the offense and I'm sure that makes a difference. Hopefully JT will be hit during spring. I wonder if no contact during spring and summer made him a little timid and caused a potential step back in aggressiveness this season?

2. Love seeing teams throw short quick passes and screens. Clemson gashed FSU today and it didn't take tremendous pass blocking when the ball was out fast. Teams rarely go nickel on us unless it's 3rd and long, so it still baffles me why we don't spread the field every so often and throw WR screens/quick routes. It's not "what we do" but the occasional shift into a different formation would really keep the defenses honest.

3. Speaking of pass blocking, it was refreshing to see offensive lines in a 2 point stance ready to pass set and block on 3 and 6+. A lot of people have called for Sewak's head, which I don't disagree with, but this issue in particular is a PJ or triple option principle problem. Has anyone every asked PJ this question during a call in show? I'd assume he would say he wants the line in 3 point stances to make it look like run? I've seen multiple teams run draws and other run plays with their OL in this position today.

3. Teams need an emotional leader on the field. I loved watching Boulware for Clemson today. We seem to be missing fire on defense this year and it was apparent to me seeing a guy like this all jacked up. Am I missing something? Davis seemed to be a firey guy last year but I haven't seen it this year. This type of player has to help especially with young players. Hopefully a player like this will develop and we will play with more fire on D next year.

4. I keep thinking that we are light in the seat on the defensive line, but there are plenty of schools with 235-245 DE on the field. The difference is most of the other teams have guys with extreme length and an explosive first step. Maybe Simmons can develop into this type of player. I keep thinking Freeman is playing DE in a linebackers body.

Matt,
On #4 --we are one of the lightest/smallest DLs in D1--and really the whole def is light/small-----of course ,that has nothing to do with D Smith COMPLETELY whiffing on the tackle on uva TD run-in.

 

[Matt E]

Matt,
On #4 --we are one of the lightest/smallest DLs in D1--and really the whole def is light/small-----of course ,that has nothing to do with D Smith COMPLETELY whiffing on the tackle on uva TD run-in.

The weight isn't as big of a deal as the length. We have a bunch of 6-1 to 6-3 guys at DE. It's ok the be light when you have explosiveness and rangy athletic ends.

 

[iceeater1969]

nice analysis. Actually, I have a second chicken and egg question aside from the pass/run issue (which is implied in your comments) - can our passing game be effective without a Waller, Smelter, DT, Calvin, Kelly Campbell type. Can it work with just typical college level receivers who will not get paid to play? Or will teams take a risk covering these type of guys one on one with CB's,freeing up more guys in run support?

The unc game we were on left hash and had WR on far right w cb in single but not press coverage. Also bs was split wide 10 yds on right hash and safety was 8 yards left of him. They totally disrespected the pass. We had no pass play for that coverage.



So the third chicken or egg is "if we do not take advantage of that situation with a average WR s why would he come to gt?"
We need to get lucky - which happens over a long time when un seen talent watered with good coaching and hard work.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

And then you watch these teams that have the capabilities that you mention and they line up in shotgun on 4th and 1 and struggle to make the line of scrimmage.

This!

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I would guess we will have another good year when CPJ needs to renew his contract.

This vies for biggest bull post of the year and I should probably be ashamed for even recognizing it.

 

[B Lifsey]

This vies for biggest bull post of the year and I should probably be ashamed for even recognizing it.

I was thinking he should be put on a one year contract cycle

 

[RonJohn]

This whole thread reminds me of the mutts complaining about Bobo. They complained that Bobo was ok, but he would make a bad call at important times in big games and lose the game. They thought that if it wasn't for Bobo, that they would have the same offense, but make the right call at those moments. Well, they don't have Bobo and their offense is no longer one of the top offenses in the SEC.

Ken did a report before the Notre Dame game in which he analyzed film of the Tulane game. He found many plays in which GT missed blocks. In one play, the mike linebacker was missed. Skov was able to gain something like 7 yards even with the LB free. Ken's report basically said that when facing better players, those missed blocks would blow up the plays. Well, we have faced better players and missed those blocks. The result is that our offense hasn't worked. In the Pitt game, many complained about passing on the first two plays of the second half. CPJ said on the radio that the receiver that should have been targeted was wide open. The reason the play didn't work was that JT didn't have time to throw the ball. The offensive line was supposed to be gap blocking, which wouldn't allow a lot of time but should prevent any immediate pressure in the backfield. However, two to three defensive linemen had straight lines to JT. TO plays rely on 9 players being blocked or moved out by the receivers, and the remaining two players being optioned. We have constantly had three, four, or five unblocked linemen, linebackers, or defensive backs in the backfield. The QB cannot read an option if there are too many players to option. A typical play this year is: The linebacker that is to be optioned plus a lineman are open coming at the BB. QB holds the ball and moves to the outside. A DB comes directly at the QB, but a linebacker is between QB and AB and a CB is on the AB. In that situation, the QB has not options. He can't give to the BB, he can't pitch to the AB, and he can't keep the ball. JT has been trying to change direction and reverse to the other side, but he runs into the LB who was supposed to be optioned and looses more yards.

We are not having problems running the ball because teams are concentrating on the run. We are having problems running the ball because we are not good at fundamentals. IF we could block, we could run the TO. IF we could block, we could complete short, medium, or long passes. UNTIL we start blocking, we will not be able to run ANY kind of offense. Until we are good at fundamentals, any kind of play that we dream up on a forum(quick slants, quick outs, quick screens, long slants, long outs, reverses, etc) will not work.

 

[Boomergump]

I know there is a correlation between us having a good effective passing attack and having an excellent overall offense. I am NOT sure which is the chicken or the egg. Obviously having an effective rushing attack makes our kind of passing game easier. It also helps to have NFL WR's like Smelter/Waller (2014) or Thomas (2009) which are the only two times we have really had effective passing attacks.

But, not having an effective passing attack sure slows us down offensively. To wit:

In 2010, we had 9 games with QBR under 115, and we went 3-6 in those games. We went 3-1 in other games.
In 2011, we had 5 games with a QBR under 115. We want 1-4 in those games. We went 7-1 in games where our QBR was over 100.
In 2012, we had 3 games with a QBR under 115. We went 0-3 in those games, and 7-4 in all other games
in 2013, we had 6 games with a QBR below 115, and went 1-5 in those games. We went 6-1 in all other games.
In 2014 we had 3 games with a QBR under 115 and we went 2-1 in those games, going 9-2 in all other games.

So, overall, we have gone 7-19 in games where our QBR was below 115, and we have gone 32-9 in games where our QBR is over 115. This season we rank #118 out of 128 teams in Raw QBR.

So, chicken or egg, passing is an important element in our success.

Without a doubt those QBR numbers are meaningful. However, if I had to guess, I would bet those games with higher QBR numbers happened when we were running the football well. Most likely the lower QBR numbers happened when we HAD to throw a lot because we weren't able to run well. I am too lazy to look it up myself right now, but I feel pretty solid about that being true. Any knowledgable football fan understands that the run sets up the pass and the pass sets up the run. We just happen to be a run heavy offense. When that is the case, the passing game is likely to rise with the running tide more than the opposite.

With that said, I don't want to totally discount what you are saying. We are never going to strive for offensive balance, BUT we do need to be able to make teams PAY for overplaying the run. That is when we are most successful for sure. Last year's Orange Bowl was a great example of this. We ran well AND forced them to respect the pass too. They never really got up in our grill for fear of being burned over the top and died a sure and slow death as a result. On the flip side, against UVA last week, even though we gained the majority of our yards through the air, I am sure our QBR numbers weren't that good. Our run game was terrible and we were forced to pass. Would having better QBR numbers in that situation have helped us win? Maybe, but probably not as much as being able to run the football would have.

 

[jayparr]

And yet, we are one play away from beating UNC's best team in a generation, one play away from beating Pitt and Uva, one KO return away from beating Duke on the road. UNC and Pitt gave us no turnovers while we gave them a couple each IIRC. We also lost the TO battle to Duke and Uva. Some on this board downplayed last year's success because we were one play away from losing to GSU, uga, and VT and our defense got several lucky bounce turnovers. I'm not crazy enough to say that we are anywhere near as good as last year, but if we don't get that ridiculously lucky fumble call against GSU late in the 4th, last year probably would have looked a lot more like this year. Lots of injuries and youth means more busted plays, more turnovers, and more losses for all programs all the time.

Tech football has mystified and amazed me (both good and bad) many times in the 50+ years I have been a fan. Going from not being able to win an ACC game to a MNC in 15 months for example. Finding new and creative ways to give games to uga in the 4th qtr. Seeing highly ranked (for us) HS players not make the travel squad while walk-ons become all ACC. But nothing, nothing has mystified me as much as watching the widely acclaimed best OL in the country last year become swiss cheese this year with the replacement of one player by perhaps the best OL recruit we've had this century. We should retire Shaq Mason's jersey as he must have been the best player to ever wear a Tech uniform. I think most of our golden predictions for this year were based on the assumption that Shaq Mason while good was still just an ordinary mortal and not some sort of OL god that infused all around him with super strength. Anything approaching 4/5ths of last year's OL performance, even 3/5ths, and I think we're playing Clemson again in December. Given Tech's history, losing three OL starters this year means next year's OL will eat lightning and crap thunder.

During Clemson/FSU the other night, the announcers talked about how successful they have been in the ACC. Not counting the games they have played against each other, each had only lost one ACC game in the last three years. Guess who those two losses were to. Tech football always surprises. That's why I keep coming back.

Thanks, I needed that!!!

 

[ATL1]

Without a doubt those QBR numbers are meaningful. However, if I had to guess, I would bet those games with higher QBR numbers happened when we were running the football well. Most likely the lower QBR numbers happened when we HAD to throw a lot because we weren't able to run well. I am too lazy to look it up myself right now, but I feel pretty solid about that being true. Any knowledgable football fan understands that the run sets up the pass and the pass sets up the run. We just happen to be a run heavy offense. When that is the case, the passing game is likely to rise with the running tide more than the opposite.

With that said, I don't want to totally discount what you are saying. We are never going to strive for offensive balance, BUT we do need to be able to make teams PAY for overplaying the run. That is when we are most successful for sure. Last year's Orange Bowl was a great example of this. We ran well AND forced them to respect the pass too. They never really got up in our grill for fear of being burned over the top and died a sure and slow death as a result. On the flip side, against UVA last week, even though we gained the majority of our yards through the air, I am sure our QBR numbers weren't that good. Our run game was terrible and we were forced to pass. Would having better QBR numbers in that situation have helped us win? Maybe, but probably not as much as being able to run the football would have.

Clemson straight up gave GT the pass got burned 2 or 3 times but didn't stop doing what they were doing and that was to stop the option & run in general. That has been the blueprint for most of the year. Teams are willing to say beat us passing and GT can't.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Clemson straight up gave GT the pass got burned 2 or 3 times but didn't stop doing what they were doing and that was to stop the option & run in general. That has been the blueprint for most of the year. Teams are willing to say beat us passing and GT hasn't much.

FIFY

Clemson is also the #1 team in the land currently.

 

[ATL1]

Duke, Pitt, UVA??

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Those would be part of the "hasn't much".

 

[GTJake]

Yes, Navy looked real smooth and did not attempt a forward pass while I was watching (most of the second half).