Game 8 #UNCvsGT Postgame

[stinger78]

We need linebackers so bad!!

Yes, but we also need DL, specifically DT. I watched the replay last night focusing on DL play. Our interior DL got turned on just about every play. Several times I saw a DT in a 2-tech get turned in by the G while the DE on his side bull rushed the C gap. No double team. Massive hole, big gain. If the DE is going to bull rush outside the T, the DT has got to hold two gaps, A and B. It takes a stalwart chap to do so, but it must be done or you get a hole. In such cases one would expect a LB to fill, but too often he was not there. If the DT is getting turned with no double, the C is likely loose hunting LB.

Another issue I saw was zero penetration by the 3-tech. He’s usually your penetrator, but we got precious little.

We need DL help badly, IMO.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This. So much this. (Along with everything else he said.)

I’m a marketing guy. And one of the most important strategies I’ve employed over the years: sell a movement, not a product.

• Sell horseback riding - not a saddle.
• Sell freedom and adventure - not an SUV.
• Sell DIY home improvement - not a hardware store.
• Sell human togetherness - not fizzy soda water.
• Sell creativity - not a computer.

You get the idea (& probably recognize a few of the companies I just referenced).

Point being, when you sell your market, and not just your individual product, you do something important: you expand the size of your market, and you align yourself with that very thing you just sold.

So when more people than ever before think of wanting to change the faucets in their house themselves rather than call a plumber, they think of Home Depot. When people think of wanting to get out of the city in their car, they think of Jeep.

And they like those brands because of that association.

For years, the SEC did this (with the help of the talking heads at ESPN). And they had several “cheerleaders” like Finebaum pick up the mantle, and keep promoting the narrative. Until it was commonly accepted that the SEC “just means more,” and therefore TV should pay them millions more than other conferences. It became a self-licking ice cream cone.

I fully agree with what Brent Key said. Hell, when everyone else in the country was sh!tying on the Coastal as being the weakest part of the ACC “because we didn’t have a Clemson or an FSU,” I always said it was the other way around. The parity of the Coastal made it one of the best divisions in college football. It made for exciting games where anything could happen - AND the teams were good enough to go out and knock off a lot of our-of-conference foes. So I couldn’t see the logic in saying this side of the conference was weak, because it wasn’t lopsided. That was a fallacy, more often than not.

Now that Coastal Chaos has spread to the entire ACC (and now that Tech is an obvious lead agent of said chaos), I’m stoked to hear Brent Key calling it out. For us lately it hasn’t been the prettiest set of wins. But it has been damned exciting. And same goes for all the other games in the conference lately. You never know what you’re going to get when you turn on an ACC game - but you know it will be exciting, with players playing hard.

We need more people spreading that narrative. I hope to see other coaches (& analysts) pick that up. Because it’s true. And selling that movement is a great way to right the (incorrect) presumption that the ACC is a “lesser” conference than 2 others who field 1-2 good teams (who don’t play anyone of consequence) and a rabble of associated teams who don’t do much.

(Long post, sorry. I geek out on this, and was glad - and pleasantly surprised - to see it. Smart move by Key.)

We are on the coast where a massive party takes place every year for the Ga-Fl game. I tried to explaining to my wife that watching uga beating one of the weakest teams in the country was one of the least interesting things you could do with the weekend even with the drinking and those fans rarely know the joy of a team winning an exciting close game against a strong superior opponent.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Yes, but we also need DL, specifically DT. I watched the replay last night focusing on DL play. Our interior DL got turned on just about every play. Several times I saw a DT in a 2-tech get turned in by the G while the DE on his side bull rushed the C gap. No double team. Massive hole, big gain. If the DE is going to bull rush outside the T, the DT has got to hold two gaps, A and B. It takes a stalwart chap to do so, but it must be done or you get a hole. In such cases one would expect a LB to fill, but too often he was not there. If the DT is getting turned with no double, the C is likely loose hunting LB.

Another issue I saw was zero penetration by the 3-tech. He’s usually your penetrator, but we got precious little.

We need DL help badly, IMO.

The win was incredible...but some of the defensive calls/scheme/execution is still gnawing at me. We can't expect to rush for 250 yards in the 4th quarter in future games.

This one play in particular had me baffled.

We had just scored our first touchdown to pull within 7 and of course let UNC march down the field. They're 1st and goal on the 7 and....what are we doing here?

We just don't have a DE on the open side of the field. Our last DL on that side is Makius Scott who gets double teamed, it looks like both of our DE's are on the short side of the field??? And both LBs and one safety are close enough they could hold hands. Why? If we're overloading one side of the line with DE's shouldn't an LB step up to cover contain on the edge? The result of this play was the LB took a poor pursuit angle, got blocked by an OL, and LaMiles Brooks was the only person who could even attempt a tackle at the goal line and it's a quick TD for UNC. Whaaatttt.

Really need to clean up all the confusion right before snap

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yes, but we also need DL, specifically DT. I watched the replay last night focusing on DL play. Our interior DL got turned on just about every play. Several times I saw a DT in a 2-tech get turned in by the G while the DE on his side bull rushed the C gap. No double team. Massive hole, big gain. If the DE is going to bull rush outside the T, the DT has got to hold two gaps, A and B. It takes a stalwart chap to do so, but it must be done or you get a hole. In such cases one would expect a LB to fill, but too often he was not there. If the DT is getting turned with no double, the C is likely loose hunting LB.

Another issue I saw was zero penetration by the 3-tech. He’s usually your penetrator, but we got precious little.

We need DL help badly, IMO.

Hate to say it, but I felt like I’ve seen this all season.

It’s why I alluded to some issues in another post saying that just having big DTs doesn’t mean they’re good. Getting knocked back when they try to bull rush on pass plays or getting turned out of the lane on running plays is a frequent sight. Couple that with LBs who overcommitted to the wrong gap or got lost in the wash, and you just hold your breath waiting to see if the secondary can trip someone up before they take it to the house.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The win was incredible...but some of the defensive calls/scheme/execution is still gnawing at me. We can't expect to rush for 250 yards in the 4th quarter in future games.

This one play in particular had me baffled.
View attachment 15002

We had just scored our first touchdown to pull within 7 and of course let UNC march down the field. They're 1st and goal on the 7 and....what are we doing here?

We just don't have a DE on the open side of the field. Our last DL on that side is Makius Scott who gets double teamed, it looks like both of our DE's are on the short side of the field??? And both LBs and one safety are close enough they could hold hands. Why? If we're overloading one side of the line with DE's shouldn't an LB step up to cover contain on the edge? The result of this play was the LB took a poor pursuit angle, got blocked by an OL, and LaMiles Brooks was the only person who could even attempt a tackle at the goal line and it's a quick TD for UNC. Whaaatttt.

Really need to clean up all the confusion right before snap

Yes, it looks alarming but it’s not always how it seems. Several things can be happening.

You can line up in a way that makes the defense look soft in a given zone but you are disguising where the defenders are going to flow when the ball is snapped. This can work sometimes against a team that has a history of audibles when presented certain “opportunities.”

Related to this is offensive game tendencies. The defense may know that a given team runs X play 80% of the time in this situation and is lined up accordingly.

Sometimes a defense getting pushed around may present a lesser of two evils formation because they have a major weakness in an area that is most likely exploited near the goal line.

Lastly, all it takes is one player being out of place for the correct scheme to become a disaster.

I’ve seen this look before, not just with Tech, and even with some pro teams. Frankly, it alarms me every time I see it but I suspect there is more going on than meets the eye.

 

[stinger78]

Hate to say it, but I felt like I’ve seen this all season.

It’s why I alluded to some issues in another post saying that just having big DTs doesn’t mean they’re good. Getting knocked back when they try to bull rush on pass plays or getting turned out of the lane on running plays is a frequent sight. Couple that with LBs who overcommitted to the wrong gap or got lost in the wash, and you just hold your breath waiting to see if the secondary can trip someone up before they take it to the house.

It's the reason I don't think we have the personnel to be running a 4-2. We only have two LB back there many plays, or at best a nickel back, to fill that gap. I think we might be better with a 3-3, though I hate that alignment. However, we have to have 5 guys who can cover in the pass-happy O's we see so much today that run empty backfield sets so often.

Another item I've noticed is our CBs sometimes tend to turn too quickly (IMPO) out of their backpedal. That makes them vulnerable to the quick turn in routes that are completed routinely against us. It seems to me, that masks a speed issue.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It's the reason I don't think we have the personnel to be running a 4-2. We only have two LB back there many plays, or at best a nickel back, to fill that gap. I think we might be better with a 3-3, though I hate that alignment. However, we have to have 5 guys who can cover in the pass-happy O's we see so much today that run empty backfield sets so often.

Another item I've noticed is our CBs sometimes tend to turn too quickly (IMPO) out of their backpedal. That makes them vulnerable to the quick turn in routes that are completed routinely against us. It seems to me, that masks a speed issue.

On the secondary, it probably depends on whether it is a cover formation or man to man. We clearly are trying not to get beaten deep in either case and, as much as possible, keep the play in front of us.

Speed is an issue for 90% of the secondaries in the country. A lot of elite receivers only take a couple of steps to get to fourth gear and if you don’t turn early they will always be two steps ahead of you down the field.

 

[GTJake]

In my experiences, on run defense the DL are the pluggers and occupiers the LB's are the play-makers and the tacklers. I do agree pursuit angles and scheme are playing a role in this. In the photo above the man in motion creates a strong-side and shift in the defense, but the LB and Strong Safety should have compensated for that and quicker to reactive to the QB on the weak side.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We made this week’s (fake) top 25 of teams based only on this past week. Enjoy.

The College Football Clean-State Top 25: Oregon, Louisville Claim Week 9’s Top Spots

Where did Texas, Florida State and Georgia land in a poll that judges teams solely on their work this week

themessenger.com

Best line from the article:

"Sorry, I need to go sit down and think some more about how Georgia Tech dumped an entire game of rushing offense on UNC in one quarter."

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Great win but we all know we need to start completely over on defense. Our defensive coaches just are not getting it done. We had at least 3 times they snapped the ball with 4-5 of our defenders looking at the sidelines for the play call. How could our defensive coaches be unprepared for their hurry up in week 8?

Sure, we need better defensive players but the coaches are responsible for the system to get the play call in on time and for alignments. We are terrible at these two things. Scoring darn near 50 covers that up but we aren’t scoring 50 every game.

 

[GTJake]

Great win but we all know we need to start completely over on defense. Our defensive coaches just are not getting it done. We had at least 3 times they snapped the ball with 4-5 of our defenders looking at the sidelines for the play call. How could our defensive coaches be unprepared for their hurry up in week 8?

Sure, we need better defensive players but the coaches are responsible for the system to get the play call in on time and for alignments. We are terrible at these two things. Scoring darn near 50 covers that up but we aren’t scoring 50 every game.

IMO, Coach Key made a bad decision keeping Thacker and then was put in a mid-season dilemma. He could only put a bandaid on it until the off-season. We are just going to have to make-do until the situation is addressed after the season ends ...

 

[HurricaneJacket]

Best line from the article:

"Sorry, I need to go sit down and think some more about how Georgia Tech dumped an entire game of rushing offense on UNC in one quarter."

The best part is that while there were two chunk plays, that offense came from will and domination, not just popping off a handful of 30+ yd runs

 

[roadkill]

They’re both number 18. For the punt block, I think Wes Durham said “it was the other #18, Janneh”.

I’m not sure, though

Pretty sure it was Janneh. Ideal type for block attempts from the edge - speed and length.

 

[stinger78]

The win was incredible...but some of the defensive calls/scheme/execution is still gnawing at me. We can't expect to rush for 250 yards in the 4th quarter in future games.

This one play in particular had me baffled.
View attachment 15002

We had just scored our first touchdown to pull within 7 and of course let UNC march down the field. They're 1st and goal on the 7 and....what are we doing here?

We just don't have a DE on the open side of the field. Our last DL on that side is Makius Scott who gets double teamed, it looks like both of our DE's are on the short side of the field??? And both LBs and one safety are close enough they could hold hands. Why? If we're overloading one side of the line with DE's shouldn't an LB step up to cover contain on the edge? The result of this play was the LB took a poor pursuit angle, got blocked by an OL, and LaMiles Brooks was the only person who could even attempt a tackle at the goal line and it's a quick TD for UNC. Whaaatttt.

Really need to clean up all the confusion right before snap

So, you've marked how the play progresses. I think this might be a good example. UNC presented a 3 WR/1RB formation with the TE on the field side with the Z receiver and a slot receiver (in motion to the right) and the X receiver split to the boundary side. Pretty standard.

Our defensive pre-snap alignment seems to be an overload to the weak (boundary) side, with one DT in a 0-tech (maybe a 1-tech), most likely with 2-gap responsibility. Anyway, if you notice, the C is turning him already, or at least has him sealed off to the weak side (right). The double on the DE will seal him out of the play unless he fights through it. So, you have a T-G-C on a NT-DE with the assignment to seal them off right, or maybe their OT will chip the DE, to put him off balance, and head for the play side SAM LB.

On D, we have the play side SAM and the SS to offset the unbalanced DL set, with only the TE (and maybe the OT) ahead of the RB. The slot is sprinting to his right, switching coverage from our SS to our FS and freeing the SS. Pre-snap coverage would likely have been standard, field CB-Y flanker, SS-Slot receiver, SAM-TE, boundary CB-X receiver, FS - middle zone/run support.

One of those two (SAM/SS) has got to hold the field side edge. I'd say that depends on what the TE does and how the coverage is called. The field CB has man on the Y, so the SS has no coverage unless the TE flares (or stalks the SS). In which case, it mano y mano with the SAM on RB, but I'd guess if you rolled this forward, you might see the TE running the SS out of the play somehow, and the OT menacing the SAM, leaving the RB a wide-open lane for the TD.

 

[stinger78]

Yes, it looks alarming but it’s not always how it seems. Several things can be happening.

You can line up in a way that makes the defense look soft in a given zone but you are disguising where the defenders are going to flow when the ball is snapped. This can work sometimes against a team that has a history of audibles when presented certain “opportunities.”

Related to this is offensive game tendencies. The defense may know that a given team runs X play 80% of the time in this situation and is lined up accordingly.

Sometimes a defense getting pushed around may present a lesser of two evils formation because they have a major weakness in an area that is most likely exploited near the goal line.

Lastly, all it takes is one player being out of place for the correct scheme to become a disaster.

I’ve seen this look before, not just with Tech, and even with some pro teams. Frankly, it alarms me every time I see it but I suspect there is more going on than meets the eye.

Agree. It looks like an unbalanced DL (but it's a step into the and the DT could have been 1-tech, but I'd bet he was head-up). What I don't get is why the LB are not shifted to the field, or the SAM is not moving that way at the snap. UNC presented 2 WR +TE to the field side, yet the LB are in a standard set. I would have liked to see him slide over to stack on the DE so he could better cover both gaps. As it is, he stayed inside and left himself more vulnerable to the OT scooping him after the chip on the DE and the edge open. I don't like the DL set at all, but given that, I really don't like the LB staying put.

 

[Techastrophe]

Our athletes are smart. Our coaches are smart. Our team is smart. We are smart.

 

[gameface]

In my experiences, on run defense the DL are the pluggers and occupiers the LB's are the play-makers and the tacklers. I do agree pursuit angles and scheme are playing a role in this. In the photo above the man in motion creates a strong-side and shift in the defense, but the LB and Strong Safety should have compensated for that and quicker to reactive to the QB on the weak side.

Sometimes the DL shoot the gap. This is how some teams play WF due to their slow mesh. The try and attack the mesh.

 

[stinger78]

Sometimes the DL shoot the gap. This is how some teams play WF due to their slow mesh. The try and attack the mesh.

True. The closer the gap is to the ball, the harder it is to shoot, for pretty obvious reasons. So, the B gap is easier than the A gap, and the C easier than the B, albeit usually further from the QB and the QB/RB mesh. Typically, the B gap is the best one to shoot, IMO.

 

[TromboneJacket]

There's only one thing I know for sure, I will never figure this team out. This feels big for the program somehow. Dec through January is going to be very interesting to watch IMO.
I thought the coaches had a really good game plan, they did an excellent job of scouting UNC and game planning around what they saw IMO. I somehow wish HK could correct the mind farts he seems to have, throwing more than once into triple coverage sure needs to be corrected. Someone said he seems at times to get set on going somewhere with the ball no matter what and I see it the same way. Don't get me wrong the kid is extremely talented, just seems to have the already mentioned problem from time to time. Get that corrected and I see him playing on Sundays. He has an NFL arm IMO. He's mentally tough as well as physically. I still believe CBK and company will bring GT back to it's glorious past but only if Angel and J Batt get us enough money and it needs to be done already. My barber says it has.. Hope he knows what he's talking about.

On the triple coverage throw, at first I was wondering what on earth he was thinking. After seeing the replay, it looked like the tight end didn’t have anyone within 10 yards of him when the ball was thrown. The coverage closed in quickly on that one. I think King just needs to do a better job of anticipating whether the DBs can close in on the receiver before the ball gets there. Using better leverage and throwing the ball where only our guy can get it would help that a lot as well.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Agree. It looks like an unbalanced DL (but it's a step into the and the DT could have been 1-tech, but I'd bet he was head-up). What I don't get is why the LB are not shifted to the field, or the SAM is not moving that way at the snap. UNC presented 2 WR +TE to the field side, yet the LB are in a standard set. I would have liked to see him slide over to stack on the DE so he could better cover both gaps. As it is, he stayed inside and left himself more vulnerable to the OT scooping him after the chip on the DE and the edge open. I don't like the DL set at all, but given that, I really don't like the LB staying put.

The only thing that bothered me was a safety shading too much inside and watching the motion man. He seemed to be overcommitting even before the snap.

Again this could be because of a tendency they were aware of or he could have been overcompensating out of concern that UNC was going to run a power play to the short side of the field and he was not confident the bodies we had over there could handle it.

If he was shaded further outside, looking straight ahead and watching what the offensive linemen were doing I would have felt better. But not surprising the way our defense was getting beat up that a player was not disciplined in his assignment.

I act like I know what I’m talking about but I’m barely fooling myself.