GT v VT 1st Offense Series

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,954
wow.good stuff. I appreciate the time, effort and insight. This place is an oasis in the desert. I do enjoy kibitzing with other like minded morons on the other sites but this place is where to go to get some real FB discussion. thanks for posting.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,633
I really appreciate your breakdown with voice over. It was hard to read your mind on your previous slow mo rewinds. Now we get to see exactly what you're thinking with your cursor movements. Super job.

One thing I'd like to point out on the 3rd and 1 play, #10 on the outside was intent on setting the edge. He busted arse to the outside and avoided Deion Hill's block by not moving upfield like most defenders do. Instead, he bolts for the boundary in order to force the play back inside. It's like they knew exactly what was coming. Great little scheme by Foster that worked on that play.
 

Big Philly

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
129
Location
Seattle, WA
I don't intend to be harsh, but I think your identification of the reads is incorrect on the first three plays.

1st and 10 - This play appears to be Inside Veer (Triple Option) #1 (mesh) is the DE, #2 (pitch) is the OLB, #3 (perimeter block) is the SS .
VT has a breakdown on the first play and has two on the dive. The OT is trying to block the MLB in this alignment. As expected the back side safety (2) is the unaccounted player and has to make the tackle. A super-veteran QB would make the pitch against this breakdown and then try to get in the way of that unaccounted player and BAM, this is a TD in the making.

1st and 10 - This play looks like a mirror image of the first.
VT looks like they are in a nifty call to muddy everything up. The formation is unbalanced so JT runs the play to the side with fewer players and on that side VT has the DT stunt to the outside and take the B-Gap, getting in the way of our OT and creating a gaping hole for a give, except that just means Zach Laskey gets to run straight into the MLB since we have nothing to block for him. In theory he should run behind the OT, but he's blocked off.

It's sort of a gamble that we called the same play. If we called a Zone run Zach Laskey could be looking at 5-7 yards instead of 0-2 yards.

2nd at 8 - Inside Veer but with a twist?
It looks like we intend to block OLB to MLB with our OT, but he's definitely not trying to block the DE. Justin read that one. VT does something bizarre and plays press man-to-man coverage on Smelter, which means that Smelter wants to switch block the SS and then have Bostic come out and block the CB, but the CB runs himself into irrelevancy with his press-man technique letting JT pick up a ton of yards. Again, the back-side safety is the unaccounted player and he's the one who makes the tackle.

You'll notice that when the player we intend to be the one capable of making the tackle is the one who makes the tackle we gain over 10 yards easily.

After this point I think you are basically correct.

1st and 10 - CPJ looks like just calls the same play with a variation, why not? VT hasn't demonstrated they can have all eleven defenders make the right read against the option yet.
Damn, VT finally achieves what they've been trying to do: get the DE (#1) to force a keep by JT and take out the OT negating the whole point of the Triple Option scheme. Then they have have the the OLB (#2) force a pitch, and then let the MLB run down the ballcarrier.

2nd and 12 - For the sake of the laymen we'll call this play "Spread Rip B-Back Option"
VT is using their DE hard on the B-Gap and the OT, so we'll motion over the extra guy, switch up the responsibilities, block that easily and then go back to gobbling up yards.

3rd and 1 - Heavy Inside Veer
First time we line up this way, VT shows the 10 men in the box I mentioned in another post. Bud Foster makes it really, really crowded at the line of scrimmage. Against this defensive cluster CPJ decides it's easier to try playing pitch and catch with the lone WR later. Nesbitt might have audibled into the QB Iso/"QB Follow" play and got this first down like clockwork, but we have rarely seen CPJ ask JT to run between the tackles. I think the only time he asked JT to do that today was on the GW drive to set up the field goal and I think all parties would agree that was totally worth it.
 

Longestday

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
2,742
@Big Philly No harshness taken as I am no expert and you may be right. I think if you look at this different view of the third play you will see the OT is clearly trying to block the DE. If you look at this play, you can match it to all three of the first three plays and the 4th play (he does an excellent job in the 4th play and it looks just like what he was trying to do in the 3rd play). The OT is trying to block the DE in the first 4 plays.


Notice there are no second level blocks by the OT as normal to last year (53 clearly does not release in the second play). This is CPJ changing the game. The MLB has been an issue with several teams as the OT's have not been able to block them. CPJ changes the block to the DE and the OT does not need to go to the second level. This also solves the issue of the DE pushing on the OT to keep him from getting to the second level.

I really believe this was CPJ's solution to the MLB by just making him the pitch man.
 

Big Philly

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
129
Location
Seattle, WA
@Big Philly No harshness taken as I am no expert and you may be right. I think if you look at this different view of the third play you will see the OT is clearly trying to block the DE. If you look at this play, you can match it to all three of the first three plays and the 4th play (he does an excellent job in the 4th play and it looks just like what he was trying to do in the 3rd play). The OT is trying to block the DE in the first 4 plays.
Aha, nice work; hat's off. Although, I don't think you'll see a read of the MLB from under center. Now it's difficult to tell what the MLB was supposed to do; is he making a mistake in a read because the blocking didn't look like a Triple Option or his he just blowing his assignment on the pitch? I don't think you have your MLB read the block of OTs...

Having the MLB taking the pitch is certainly one strategy for the defense to employ that can limit the Inside Veer and our response is going to be to try and get the MLB to make a false step in the wrong direction by using more QB action in the backfield or call a Zone run that cuts behind his track on the pitch. Laskey's big run came this way now that I think about it, we ran him through the A-Gap on sort of a planned cutback behind the MLB's pitch coverage and with that blocking by the OT now the perimeter defenders no longer have a clear read if we are running the triple option so it's difficult for them to to be useful on anything inside.

(37:00 if the link is busted)
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,379
Location
Poquoson Virginia
Great job Longest.

VT got the most negative yard plays on us that I remember for a bunch of games. They have a good run D. JT is progressing very quickly (from my uncalibrated eye) and during the game I saw few times when I thought he didn't pitch when he should. By next year's VT game, JT should be a master at the quick pass against the 9 in the box.

The BB read is always confusing to me since sometimes it's a called play. But only CPJ and the players know what is actually called.

Again, thanks Longest.
 

prifle2

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
108
Longest,

On the play run at around the 3:25 mark where V Tech forces JT to quick pitch for a loss. I think it as opposed to it being a misread of the pitch key, JT should have switch the play call to the opposite side. Looking at the formation. Vt had 4 guys to JT right side and three in the box to his left with the Middle backer straight up on the center , based on basic rules isn't the first rule to run the play to the side with the advantage. JT ran the play into a side with six defenders and he only had 4 blockers plus the fake/give to Laskey. Switching sides would have reduced the VT defenders to 5. Reading the end, we would have only had to block one lineman and had a chance for a much more successful play.

Thanks .. Keep it up.. love this
 
Top