Great blitz or poor OL?

[dressedcheeseside]

GT sent 5 against 6 on 3rd and 9 in the 4th qtr that effectively ended any real chance of a Clempson comeback. Watch as we send 2 LB's (Nealy and Davis) on our left side of the LOS as Clemson uses 4 to block 2 on our right. Unbelievable. Also notice the runningback is completely ineffective at picking up either blitzing LB.

Roof has taken a lot of guff for being predictable in his blitzes, this was anything but. But is it more kudos to GT or wtf for Clem's OL?

2:09

 

[33jacket]

cheese, very basic blitz. No zone dog at all.

What made it work is we didn't show it until right at the snap, ie we timed it perfect. By doing this, the OL didn't know or anticipate to adjust or slide to the right....they didn't see it coming because we didn't telegraph it.

One thing we don't do well, is what we did do well on this play. For whatever reason, we just timed it perfect. Often you will see us try to time or guess it, only to telegraph it then they make the line checks to adjust.

telegraphing is ok if you if are zone dogging; ie you walk all 7 to the LOS, the OL isn't sure who is and isn't coming and you drop at snap, hoping they miss a guy or blow an assignment...here it doesn't hurt u. But in a traditional blitz timing is your friend. Great job here by the D....

FYI timing is not on the DC. If our blitzes are predictable its because the players are too antcy and showing their hand early. They need to learn to be more patient. Roof can help them fix this....but its on the players

 

[AE 87]

People have not been listening to me. Our D signals were ripped, and Chad didn't get the memo that we finally caught on.

 

[33jacket]

People have not been listening to me. Our D signals were ripped, and Chad didn't get the memo that we finally caught on.

Call in and ask coach in a week....i am not sure about this.

 

[UgaBlows]

They were missing some starters on the O-line amirite?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

cheese, very basic blitz. No zone dog at all.

What made it work is we didn't show it until right at the snap, ie we timed it perfect. By doing this, the OL didn't know or anticipate to adjust or slide to the right....they didn't see it coming because we didn't telegraph it.

One thing we don't do well, is what we did do well on this play. For whatever reason, we just timed it perfect. Often you will see us try to time or guess it, only to telegraph it then they make the line checks to adjust.

telegraphing is ok if you if are zone dogging; ie you walk all 7 to the LOS, the OL isn't sure who is and isn't coming and you drop at snap, hoping they miss a guy or blow an assignment...here it doesn't hurt u. But in a traditional blitz timing is your friend. Great job here by the D....

FYI timing is not on the DC. If our blitzes are predictable its because the players are too antcy and showing their hand early. They need to learn to be more patient. Roof can help them fix this....but its on the players

Thanks for the explanation. Imo, poor timing is a coachable/fixable problem. It's not pure skill/talent/athleticism. Maybe our guys finally had the lightbulb come on after rep after rep after rep in practice? Maybe our coaches have been harping on this since the beginning of time, who knows? I do know this, in the postgame presser, each defender to a man said our game planning hasn't changed all year, it's just better execution. Heck, we didn't even have Green in there soaking up the double teams.

I'm just happy it's fixed, I don't care who gets the credit.

 

[33jacket]

Thanks for the explanation. Imo, poor timing is a coachable/fixable problem. It's not pure skill/talent/athleticism. Maybe our guys finally had the lightbulb come on after rep after rep after rep in practice? Maybe our coaches have been harping on this since the beginning of time, who knows? I do know this, in the postgame presser, each defender to a man said our game planning hasn't changed all year, it's just better execution. Heck, we didn't even have Green in there soaking up the double teams.

I'm just happy it's fixed, I don't care who gets the credit.

they said its been the same coaching all year. The gameplans have definitely changed. You can see that on film....its obvious. The schemes and gameplan are totally different. We are blitzing almost 50% of the time now. Early on it was around 20-25%. Trust me, as critical as I have been, I have been keeping notes.

Blitz timing can be coached somewhat and has nothing to do with athleticism. But in a game its hard to rely on coaching. You have to rely on how they hike the ball. Terms they use. Timing, hints...stuff you can't see on film or importantly hear. Its on the players more than the coaches IMO simply because observation is your biggest friend to timing a blitz.

 

[Minawreck]

Clemson has a bad OL, make no mistake about that. UGA will be a big test for us. Frankly I don't think UGA is THAT much better than Miami talent-wise.

They will likely be more focused and the game is on the road so it will not be an easy game.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

they said its been the same coaching all year.

So what does this mean?

 

[33jacket]

So what does this mean?

fundamentals. For instance, if you are playing zone and you have 1, if one makes a route move inside and 2 moves outside 2 becomes the new one and you cover him; he is primary. That is regardless of the blitz, or gameplan. Its a fundamental of football. Thats coaching. When DB's are talking about why they are picking the ball off, the backend coaching, of assignment and how you play the receivers is the same.

What is making it easier on them is we are getting pressure. You can see the QB's rushing...making poor throws, messing their timing up. We have seen this week after week.

you obviously change gameplan week to week. But your fundamentals of assignment is the same based on the coverage you call. cover 2, OLB hit the flats mlb drops. Cover 3 both CBs drop 12, SS comes up.

Coaching like this doesn't change. What changes is blitzing. Playing your cover 2 5 yards closer to the LOS than you did. Assignments still the same...etc.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

fundamentals. For instance, if you are playing zone and you have 1, if one makes a route move inside and 2 moves outside 2 becomes the new one and you cover him; he is primary. That is regardless of the blitz, or gameplan. Its a fundamental of football. Thats coaching. When DB's are talking about why they are picking the ball off, the backend coaching, of assignment and how you play the receivers is the same.

What is making it easier on them is we are getting pressure. You can see the QB's rushing...making poor throws, messing their timing up. We have seen this week after week.

you obviously change gameplan week to week. But your fundamentals of assignment is the same based on the coverage you call. cover 2, OLB hit the flats mlb drops. Cover 3 both CBs drop 12, SS comes up.

Coaching like this doesn't change. What changes is blitzing. Playing your cover 2 5 yards closer to the LOS than you did. Assignments still the same...etc.

Ok. There's been criticism of our coaching fundamentals, too, especially db's.

 

[33jacket]

Ok. There's been criticism of our coaching fundamentals, too, especially db's.

i for one haven't been beating that drum. I have been saying repeatedly our scheme didn't give them the best chance to succeed. No pressure...DB's playing WAY TOO OFF....which means a few things

1 - coverage will break down
2- its harder to tackle when you are coming from so far off. Tackling is space is HARD.

You play tighter...and low and behold...tackling improves...I have said this time and time again...and it HAS!!!!

The problem is Roof was way too loose in his scheme. Period. Its been fixed...

And now, low and behold..the talent doesn't look so bad does it? Because while we aren't bama...our talent isn't that bad.

we had scheme issues. We admitted it. We changed. We improved. 33 is right again LOL I say that TIC; but it was proven to be right as well as putting gamble at DE....so sometimes you can just see it...

give paul credit, he is one coach that when he sees an issue he is willing to change...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

i for one haven't been beating that drum. I have been saying repeatedly our scheme didn't give them the best chance to succeed. No pressure...DB's playing WAY TOO OFF....which means a few things

1 - coverage will break down
2- its harder to tackle when you are coming from so far off. Tackling is space is HARD.

You play tighter...and low and behold...tackling improves...I have said this time and time again...and it HAS!!!!

The problem is Roof was way too loose in his scheme. Period. Its been fixed...

And now, low and behold..the talent doesn't look so bad does it? Because while we aren't bama...our talent isn't that bad.

we had scheme issues. We admitted it. We changed. We improved. 33 is right again LOL I say that TIC; but it was proven to be right as well as putting gamble at DE....so sometimes you can just see it...

give paul credit, he is one coach that when he sees an issue he is willing to change...

I wonder how much input CPJ had in our early conservative game plan, not just the recent changes that have worked?

What credit does Roof deserve, if any? I know he was a very aggressive player back in his day, he's got to have that kind of leaning as a coach?

 

[33jacket]

I wonder how much input CPJ had in our early conservative game plan, not just the recent changes that have worked?

What credit does Roof deserve, if any? I know he was a very aggressive player back in his day, he's got to have that kind of leaning as a coach?

the impression Paul gives is he lets his guys do their thing until he feels he needs to input...he says this all the time

i think he felt the need to input after UNC. And based on his pressers....this is accurate...but who really knows

players and style of play are never correlative to coaching styles....and great players rarely make great coaches....its just true....the qualities are so different...

IMO roof deserves credit for taking the input and changing his D and embracing it...he has done that.

I hope, this now changes his D philosophy for ever while at tech.

 

[kg01]

If I didn't know any better I'd say that sounds like 33 just gave Roof some kudos. I am shocked, shocked I say
(Just messin' witcha 33. )

 

[Nook Su Kow]

i for one haven't been beating that drum. I have been saying repeatedly our scheme didn't give them the best chance to succeed. No pressure...DB's playing WAY TOO OFF....which means a few things

1 - coverage will break down
2- its harder to tackle when you are coming from so far off. Tackling is space is HARD.

You play tighter...and low and behold...tackling improves...I have said this time and time again...and it HAS!!!!

The problem is Roof was way too loose in his scheme. Period. Its been fixed...

And now, low and behold..the talent doesn't look so bad does it? Because while we aren't bama...our talent isn't that bad.

we had scheme issues. We admitted it. We changed. We improved. 33 is right again LOL I say that TIC; but it was proven to be right as well as putting gamble at DE....so sometimes you can just see it...

give paul credit, he is one coach that when he sees an issue he is willing to change...

Really thought this was the best tackling our defense has done all year.

 

[GTJake]

Not only disguising the blitz, but our DB's along with PJ Davis and Tyler McCordes have the speed to get there.
PJ Davis may be our most under-rated defender.
Obviously big props to CTR, but as we all hoped, I think our youthful defense is starting to mature.

 

[AE 87]

IIrc, CPJ also made comments about the need for keeping guys in front of you after the GS game and the suggestion to play Kyle Travis.

I agree that CPJ seems to put the reigns in the DC's hands, but it would be interesting to know how many of his suggestions are received as merely suggestions.

It would also be really interesting to know how the relationship between CPJ and CTR has been this year. I hear they're pretty tight. I know that he's expressed a lot of confidence in his D coaches over the last several weeks and even his public comments after UNC were not laced with the bitterness and disgust that I remember from some of his comments about playing 2-gap technique on the line before the 2012 season.

@33jacket may be right that our players were tipping their coverage and blitzes against UNC etc, but I still think that stolen play calls makes the most sense to me.

This is the transcript of the CPJ radio show from @John after the Pitt game:

Here's the transcript.

When we played a game, gosh I can't remember I was so peeved about it because I kinda thought it was happening. Middle Tennessee State we played here, they had our defensive signals. And I knew they had our defensive signals but I was the only one who wanted to believe it. And after the game the guy told me because we weren't playing them anymore he said "Coach, we had your signals". I knew they had them because nobody is that smart. So there's all kinds of stuff like that. He was good enough to tell us because if he had them, everybody had them. It's no secret because coaches know each other so if somebody gets one thing on you don't think for one second... if Pitt had something on us, somebody from Virginia is talking to Pitt this week. Now, it's a little different in the league because they may want somebody else to win. Once you got a tendency or something like that, it gets around.

When Brandon asked if it happens less and less now and if he'd have a pretty good idea:

Probably you don't know it if it's happening. You won't know until it's over. Well, you have a pretty good idea if you can't get off the field.

After that radio show:

UVA 19.5 pts/game vs ACC scored 10
NCSt 23.1 pts/game vs ACC scored 23, but 7 in the 4th qtr garbage time against a mostly freshmen defense
CU 25.5 pts/game vs ACC scored 6.​

 

[Fatmike91]

To answer the OP's question, I think it's both. I think Nealy and Davis are very effective blitzers. If they aren't coming, then Marcordes on the other side is pretty effective too. So you really can't easily predict who will come from where.

I also think their Offensive Line missed some assignments on that play. But I give our D credit for pressuring them & giving them the opportunity to blow the assignment.

Slightly off topic, but the other thing that stood out in this game on Defense is how hard the guys were hitting -- cornerbacks, linebackers, safteys -- all of them -- getting shots in on Clemson skill position players the entire game.

/

 

[CHE90]

Clearly the scheme has changed for the better, but I also feel we have tackled better in the last few games. I can't really explain this but fundamentally the tackling has improved.