- Messages
- 3,281
It was almost surreal to watch us line up against an offense that has so many similar features to our own. If I gained an appreciation for anything, it is how our scheme, or maybe I should say Wofford's, takes away your aggressiveness and forces you to stay home, read, or possibly even run away from the ball and be doing the right thing. Our guys appeared not to be themselves. In fact, I would say they weren't even using some of the aggressive tactics I saw in scrimmages this fall camp. Obviously, we felt we had the upper hand and didn't need to take chances. CTR was proved to be right in the end.
Although our schemes were very similar on offense, each DC chose to defend them in very different ways. Where Wofford stacked the middle with 9 players inside 9 yards of depth and within the tackle box in an effort to take away the dive and force us to make decisions and get the ball to the edge, GT did the exact opposite. We played our safeties much deeper, used 4 along the line instead of 5, and floated a nickel and a safety (at times) into the flats, well outside the box and gave a little cushion with the corners. This alignment resulted in having 6 or 7 players in the box most of the time. It seemed we wanted to shut down the edge and stay behind the guys on the boundary eliminating any chance of them hitting a big play. We, pretty overtly, tried to funnel them into the middle of the field. I would say we got exactly what you would expect with this alignment. When you think about it, Wofford got the vast majority of their yards right up the gut. They had little success on the edge or deep down field. Obviously, we won't be able to play this way against most teams. On to the position groups:
DL - I am sorry but I remain worried. Without the support from behind (the thin box) our guys up front were not really able to CONTROL things on the inside. Gotsis fared poorly against the double teams, which happened fairly often. When he was one - on - one he usually made an impact on the play, but he was far from dominant. If you ask me Green is the only guy we have in there with a legit burst off the ball, violent hands, and the ability to penetrate with low leverage. He was pretty disruptive in there shucking OLs with relative frequency, but when he was out it was a different story. Gamble, Gotsis, and Green rotated on even terms from what I could see. Gamble managed to knock a ball loose and make a couple tackles, but their OL was able to get a lot of movement out of him. Run fits aren't easy when one of the guys up front is getting pushed into the next zip code. When you focus on him alone, you can see a lot, and to be truthful, it isn't great. He is just one of those guys that looks good standing in his uniform, but when put into action, he really doesn't know where his weight is and consequently can't get leverage. His use of hands is substandard for a guy who plays that much. We need better. I guess it tells you where Kallon is at the moment if he can't take at least some time from Gamble. There was some decent stuff happening at DE, but with the O they run, they were unblocked a lot anyway and they were forced to read at the point of attack. I was satisfied with how they played their role but it is hard to discern how they will fare against a conventional attack. Merriweather showed me something as did Freeman, but they both seem like they are a year away from being the kind of players we ultimately need. Rook-Chungong can use his hands some and he is pretty active. I am concerned because I don't really see a pass rusher in the bunch. Maybe they were so surprised by the pass that it affected their move off the snap.
LB - these guys had a tough game. I feel for them because they couldn't play aggressively and they were left essentially alone (2 of them) in the middle to handle a lot of space. CTR was asking a lot of them in this alignment IMHO. I think having to read took some of the starch out of them in the tackling department. It wasn't really noteworthy. They were often 1/4 step late and just enough so that they weren't in good enough position to put a hat on a guy. Lots of grabbing and not much hitting. Give the Wofford QB credit though, he made this happen by running the offense so well.
DB - didn't have to cover much, so it was all about run support and filling assignments. If there are props to go around, I would say that we never blew an assignment badly that I could see. Pitch guys were never left alone for a big run out or that kind of thing. Tackling wasn't that great with this group either. IMHO we let them FINISH too many runs with extra yards. I want to give you specific reports on individual players, but there isn't that much to say. I think the Austin kids play really really hard. I'll say that much. They are tough little guys.
All in all the results are about what we were scheming for. If we don't call the time outs at the end of H1 and let them run out the clock like they wanted to, the big run never happens and the flavor of the game changes along with the final results. They did what option teams do, make you look like you are shooting free throws with the wrong hand. Personally, I am writing this one off and I will withhold further judgement until our guys can play aggressively against a conventional offense. The soft belly we are looking at in the middle remains a huge concern for me. I hope to be proven wrong.
Although our schemes were very similar on offense, each DC chose to defend them in very different ways. Where Wofford stacked the middle with 9 players inside 9 yards of depth and within the tackle box in an effort to take away the dive and force us to make decisions and get the ball to the edge, GT did the exact opposite. We played our safeties much deeper, used 4 along the line instead of 5, and floated a nickel and a safety (at times) into the flats, well outside the box and gave a little cushion with the corners. This alignment resulted in having 6 or 7 players in the box most of the time. It seemed we wanted to shut down the edge and stay behind the guys on the boundary eliminating any chance of them hitting a big play. We, pretty overtly, tried to funnel them into the middle of the field. I would say we got exactly what you would expect with this alignment. When you think about it, Wofford got the vast majority of their yards right up the gut. They had little success on the edge or deep down field. Obviously, we won't be able to play this way against most teams. On to the position groups:
DL - I am sorry but I remain worried. Without the support from behind (the thin box) our guys up front were not really able to CONTROL things on the inside. Gotsis fared poorly against the double teams, which happened fairly often. When he was one - on - one he usually made an impact on the play, but he was far from dominant. If you ask me Green is the only guy we have in there with a legit burst off the ball, violent hands, and the ability to penetrate with low leverage. He was pretty disruptive in there shucking OLs with relative frequency, but when he was out it was a different story. Gamble, Gotsis, and Green rotated on even terms from what I could see. Gamble managed to knock a ball loose and make a couple tackles, but their OL was able to get a lot of movement out of him. Run fits aren't easy when one of the guys up front is getting pushed into the next zip code. When you focus on him alone, you can see a lot, and to be truthful, it isn't great. He is just one of those guys that looks good standing in his uniform, but when put into action, he really doesn't know where his weight is and consequently can't get leverage. His use of hands is substandard for a guy who plays that much. We need better. I guess it tells you where Kallon is at the moment if he can't take at least some time from Gamble. There was some decent stuff happening at DE, but with the O they run, they were unblocked a lot anyway and they were forced to read at the point of attack. I was satisfied with how they played their role but it is hard to discern how they will fare against a conventional attack. Merriweather showed me something as did Freeman, but they both seem like they are a year away from being the kind of players we ultimately need. Rook-Chungong can use his hands some and he is pretty active. I am concerned because I don't really see a pass rusher in the bunch. Maybe they were so surprised by the pass that it affected their move off the snap.
LB - these guys had a tough game. I feel for them because they couldn't play aggressively and they were left essentially alone (2 of them) in the middle to handle a lot of space. CTR was asking a lot of them in this alignment IMHO. I think having to read took some of the starch out of them in the tackling department. It wasn't really noteworthy. They were often 1/4 step late and just enough so that they weren't in good enough position to put a hat on a guy. Lots of grabbing and not much hitting. Give the Wofford QB credit though, he made this happen by running the offense so well.
DB - didn't have to cover much, so it was all about run support and filling assignments. If there are props to go around, I would say that we never blew an assignment badly that I could see. Pitch guys were never left alone for a big run out or that kind of thing. Tackling wasn't that great with this group either. IMHO we let them FINISH too many runs with extra yards. I want to give you specific reports on individual players, but there isn't that much to say. I think the Austin kids play really really hard. I'll say that much. They are tough little guys.
All in all the results are about what we were scheming for. If we don't call the time outs at the end of H1 and let them run out the clock like they wanted to, the big run never happens and the flavor of the game changes along with the final results. They did what option teams do, make you look like you are shooting free throws with the wrong hand. Personally, I am writing this one off and I will withhold further judgement until our guys can play aggressively against a conventional offense. The soft belly we are looking at in the middle remains a huge concern for me. I hope to be proven wrong.
