ESPN's ACC blog hates our defense

[dressedcheeseside]

CPJ has been asked this over and over and he always says the scout team O's job is to show scheme looks, not replicate game speed and opponent talent levels. I'm sure having better athletes on your scout team helps but that's part of the challenge at GT. We typically do not sign college ready players. Some are, but most have to develop physically a good deal.

This problem, like our poor offensive production last year, is multi-factorial. We like to try and find one big issue that we can blame and be done with it. It's not that easy. There's a bunch of problems that all contribute to the lack of production. Some can be attributed to staff, but some are hurdles that are built in to the difficulties of recruiting at a school like GT.

There's also the fact that offense is much easier to scheme around talent deficiencies than defense. If you don't have talent on D, you're pretty much screwed.

I also think too many of us overlook the fact that our guys have a huge academic commitment that takes away time and energy from football development. At most other schools, it's football 90% of time/energy - school 10%. At GT it's at least 50/50. That has a huge impact on performance.

 

[hwdgeplague]

This right here. The maturity required from our SAs to juggle two highly demanding priorities is impressive.

 

[33jacket]

LOL. You might want to search for posts from me which mention Roof. I was thinking Roof was trolling Paul in 2013 or that his D signals had been hacked.

My position is that our D has been plagued with enough unexpected attrition, injury, etc for me to not completely sign off on blaming Roof on the one hand, and that we have still had enough talent to have expected better results on the other.

You've shouted so much chowder about our O that I tend to discount your posts about our D.

Really? What about our O other than the OL needs and small scheme tweaks i think we need. Maybe i have a fuzzy memory. I cant think of more than that. Our o is decent, but my position on it is coming from a bplus to a A. Where the d standpoint is coming from a F to D to a Cplus to b minus. There is a frame of reference needed. But if there was more than that about our O from me then i have a bad memory clearly we struggle in recruiting too but that isnt solely on the O. In general i have backed the o i believe.

 

[AE 87]

Really? What about our O other than the OL needs and small scheme tweaks i think we need. Maybe i have a fuzzy memory. I cant think of more than that. Our o is decent, but my position on it is coming from a bplus to a A. Where the d standpoint is coming from a F to D to a Cplus to b minus. There is a frame of reference needed. But if there was more than that about our O from me then i have a bad memory clearly we struggle in recruiting too but that isnt solely on the O. In general i have backed the o i believe.

It's no big deal, a lingering impression from a couple years ago. You do you.

 

[33jacket]

It's no big deal, a lingering impression from a couple years ago. You do you.

I do do I