I want a run first pro style offense

[GTRX7]

I thought that was what we were going to see with Vad and Cook but, for whatever reason, it didn't work out. I would like to see it tried again with another duel threat QB.

Sounds dangerous.

You wouldn't want a QB like this?

Grammar bully

 

[nodawgs]

Ok. I don't think that makes a big difference since the players are the same. If you believe that then what happened with the Butch Davis staff? 2008 we score 7, 2009 we score 24, 2010 we score 30 and 2011 we score 35. Same staff except for the HC in 2011 when Davis was fired right before the season and the rest of the staff remained intact. Explain how we increased our point totals each year when teams are supposed to be "figuring us out." Can you explain UGA in 2012 and UGA in 2013? Did they forget how to defend us? No. In 2012 they had Jarvis Jones, John Jenkins, Ogletree and Rambo. They didn't in 2013!

You obviously don't understand what goes into game planning and coaching if you don't think that different coaches don't matter. If you think that our offense has been on an upward trend since 2009, you are a fool. Stats get padded by the FCS schools and Syracuses of the world. How fast we forget an average Ole Miss defense led by Dave Wommack shutting our offense down.

 

[GTL]

Last year was a aberration. I don't want to pile on the guy that's gone, but Vad's poor play, from a maddening inability to make the proper options reads, to poor passing decisions, to an apparent reluctance to take a hit made the offense a shambles. Yes, poor line play contributed, but a not insignificant portion of that play was due to Vad's poor decisions and hesitation.

I'm cautiously optimistic the O will be much improved next year, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You obviously don't understand what goes into game planning and coaching if you don't think that different coaches don't matter. If you think that our offense has been on an upward trend since 2009, you are a fool. Stats get padded by the FCS schools and Syracuses of the world. How fast we forget an average Ole Miss defense led by Dave Wommack shutting our offense down.

Frankly, I think our offense shut themselves down in the Ole Miss game as much as the Ole Miss defense shut it down. Terrible execution and highly questionable play-calling did us in IMO

 

[swampsting]

Brian I think you are coming to the same conclusion that many Tech fans are coming to. Coach Johnson is a good man and a good football coach. He is married to his triple option (for lack of a better term) offense and he is not going to change. It defines who he is. I think he always wanted the opportunity to prove to the football world that his offense was viable not only at the Division 2 (for lack of a better term) but also at the D 1 level with the big boys.

I think his initial success was more a result of the teams we faced not being familiar with how to defense the unusual formations and the options the offense presented. I know a lot of folks like to say it was because Coach had Gailey's players and for sure there were a couple that were stellar, but I think most of the initial success was just due to the unfamiliarity of how to defense his offense among our opponents.

PJ's never coached at the D2 level. His time as a coordinator and a head coach has all been at the D1 level. Georgia Southern has been and remains D1.
Those opponents the first couple of years had miles of tape to look at before playing Tech from PJ's days at Hawaii, Southern and Navy. They had ample time in the offseason to break that down. They weren't going to spend weeks at a time as a staff doing it. But a couple of assistants watching various film during the offseason and breaking it down isn't out of the ordinary.

 

[thagooseisloose]

I want to run our offense and tweak it to add more zone concepts similar to auburn, and hire a assistant coach that can infuse some 2000's passing concepts into it including protection schemes.

That is all I want.

we won't beat uga doing what uga does.

This might be the most true statement ever made on this board...

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

^ well it's an opinion, not a awful one either mind you, but an opinion nonetheless. So assigning "truth" to it is is illogical. I understand you strongly agree with it however ;>

 

[thagooseisloose]

Thanks....I think.

Regardless of what some here want to think, Georgia Tech is never gonna get the "jimmies & joes" that the factories get. So if people really think that's the only way to beat the u(sic)ga's and climpsumbs of the world, then we should all just give up. Leonard Pope is never gonna get by the hill. It's just not gonna happen. So, with that established, we have to figure out what is our optimal allocation of resources in regards to talent. Should we try to find guys in the 8th grade who show promise and "keep them on track," like Stanford? I'd be curious to know what that costs them on a yearly basis, btw. Should we push for official relationships with JC's like Georgia Military to work as a feeder program? That's something I think the powers that be should consider, as it might actually give us an advantage in the area of talent collection and retention that we've never had before. Or should we hope that a new, energetic young coach is somehow convince better players that it's in their best interests to tackle lab science and calc in their first year at GT while their factory buddies are taking Team Sports and remedial modern illustrated literature (comic books)? If you really want to believe that #3 is possible, God bless you. But it's pretty naive to think there's any salesman in America who can convince vain, naive, coddled 16-17 yr olds that a Tech education is more worthwhile than skating at a factory for 3 yrs. Just my opinion...

 

[CobbTech]

You obviously don't understand what goes into game planning and coaching if you don't think that different coaches don't matter. If you think that our offense has been on an upward trend since 2009, you are a fool. Stats get padded by the FCS schools and Syracuses of the world. How fast we forget an average Ole Miss defense led by Dave Wommack shutting our offense down.

You didn't answer my question. You never explained why we increased our point totals every year against the Butch Davis staff. They were supposed to have it figured by year 2 or 3. But wait...we only scored 7 points in year 1. So they figured it out and then forgot how to defend it? Please explain.

I never said our offense was on an upward trend. Plus, the Ole Miss defense we faced had more talent than any defense we faced all year. Make fun of Wommack all you want but his defense carried our team in the first half of 2008. Funny how NFL talent makes you a better coach.

 

[Atomic Jacket]

I think the original poster is on to something. Tech should be focusing all of its recruiting resources and energy on getting the best offensive linemen available, even if that means sacrificing at the skill positions. Offensive linemen tend to be the smartest players on the field if you consider average Wonderlic scores by position in the NFL (OT-26, C-25, G-23, TE-22 versus WR-17, HB-16) and acknowledge that Wonderlic scores translate to some degree to academic ability (Chemist-31, Engineer-29, Salesperson-25, Machinist-21, Janitor-14).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test#Average_score_in_the_NFL_by_position

By this logic, the percentage of offensive linemen candidates who would academically qualify at Tech ought to be larger than the percentage of wide receivers and running backs. Simply put, Tech is not as likely to attract top-ranked talent at the skill positions as they should be able to at the offensive line positions.

Now, assuming Tech could shift its recruiting focus and get more of these top-ranked offensive linemen and some average players at the skill positions, what type of offense is best suited for the available talent? Well, in these spread offenses, whether it's run- or pass-based, the offensive line is not as critical because most of the action is happening out in the periphery at the skill positions. The offense is using lots of speed and misdirection, getting the passes out there quickly, or running to the edges or using fakes and misdirection to create gaps in the line for the runners. We aren't going to have the best talent at the skill positions, so we're just not going to have the speed to compete with the best teams. However, in a power running offense, most of the action is taking place between the tackles. The action is right there at the offensive line. If the line is capable of consistently opening some holes, the running back just needs to hold onto the ball and get a few yards. Then the power running game sets up the play-action pass. If this sounds like the Chan Gailey offense, don't immediately dismiss the idea. Gailey's problem was that he was too conservative. He had no killer instinct. When he got the slightest lead, he would simply try to run out the clock and often watch his lead fritter away. When he got behind, he refused to adjust and just kept on doing whatever was not working. I think Gailey's problems were numerous, but the offensive system was not the problem.

 

[thagooseisloose]

If your premise about OL is correct, then we'd be best suited just ripping off Stanford. They have 8, sometimes 9 ol on the field...

 

[GT_B]

I agree with a lot different individual elements of everyone's two cents here. There is always going to be the constant argument of "if we can ran a pro style or a spread type offense we would bring in better recruits" vs. "we can't bring in top recruits so this offense helps us mask talent gaps" I think it really makes sense that we prob are never going to bring in 5 star recruits here based on the simple fact that our guys have to care at least a slight bit about academics to make it through school and 95% of top recruits do not care about academics it's all about who's going to get me to the NFL the fastest and who's the hottest current teams. And like people have mentioned, we had a pro style offense under gailey for several years and had about the same and really, less success than under PJ.

I don't think we can bring in the guys on the OL/DL here who can line up in power - I and play smash mouth football and dominate other teams, we just dont get those guys to commit here. I think PJ would have had more success over the 10' - 13' seasons if he had added more wrinkles and options through his offense. pJs stubbornness is our downfall at times as he runs basically a set 10 plays or so that he can change blocking schemes and footwork out of but it's the same ten plays. If he added some pieces like quick slants, Power-I, TIght end quick routes, it would really keep the defense off balance and not able to cheat. And no I don't consider a 50 yard hail Mary into triple coverage 4-5 times a game called keeping the defense honest or guessing.

 

[Atomic Jacket]

If your premise about OL is correct, then we'd be best suited just ripping off Stanford. They have 8, sometimes 9 ol on the field...

I think the Stanford model is probably a good one for schools with high academic requirements. Focus on the OL.

 

[johncu]

Lots of shortsightedness in this thread. There is a lot that goes into coaching besides offensive scheme, which is unquestionably Johnson's strength. It is so foolish to blame everything on that one aspect of his coaching.

Think PJ should be gone because of poor recruiting? I disagree, but you would have a valid argument because our mediocre talent is undoubtedly holding us back.

Think PJ should be gone because of poor defense? Again, I disagree, but that is most definitely a weak point at GT despite multiple new DC's. If there is not continued improvement under Roof then it would be difficult to support PJ on this one.

If you want to criticize PJ, fine. At least pick something logical to base your argument on.

 

[AE 87]

Lots of shortsightedness in this thread. There is a lot that goes into coaching besides offensive scheme, which is unquestionably Johnson's strength. It is so foolish to blame everything on that one aspect of his coaching.

Think PJ should be gone because of poor recruiting? I disagree, but you would have a valid argument because our mediocre talent is undoubtedly holding us back.

Think PJ should be gone because of poor defense? Again, I disagree, but that is most definitely a weak point at GT despite multiple new DC's. If there is not continued improvement under Roof then it would be difficult to support PJ on this one.

If you want to criticize PJ, fine. At least pick something logical to base your argument on.

This.

 

[Buzz776g]

I want to run our offense and tweak it to add more zone concepts similar to auburn, and hire a assistant coach that can infuse some 2000's passing concepts into it including protection schemes.

That is all I want.

we won't beat uga doing what uga does.

And this from Techster (edited):

Oregon - Chip Kelly's Spread Option with a more balanced run/pass
Auburn - Malzahn's Spread Option with heavy run
Baylor - "Traditional" spread with Air Raid elements

This is what I want.

Looking at the very big picture, I think Roof is steadily improving our defense. I'm happy with the improvements being made and expect to see more -- slow but sure -- improvements this year.

Is there a Malzahn-jr. diamond in the rough out there somewhere? If so I'd love to snag him for an OC.

I got interested in the pro game years ago watching Dan Marino's Dolphins. When I was admitted to Tech (2nd degree), I realized I was, uh, not going to be seeing that. I am a patient person (as we all know a requirement for being a GT fan). I do think the offense will see an improvement from last year. I am not at all prepared to predict or even speculate as to how much of an improvement or in what ways. I do think ANY of our qb's will have a bit more confidence in running the system (and that's not a bash on Vad; it's no fun being constantly unsure of yourself on your job).

I am patient enough to want to see what CPJ can continue to build for us. That said, I sure would like to see more offensive options (no pun intended).

 

[takethepoints]

Is there a possibility we can see an end to these kinds of posts?

I'll say it three times for emphasis:

The problem we have is on Defense.

The problem we have is on Defense.

The problem we have is on Defense.

The offense is doing just fine, thank you very much, especially when you remember that we are in the conference with the second best defensive teams in the country (you can check). If we get the D up to speed - and that does present a recruiting problem and may take another year - then we'll do just fine.

 

[Ibeeballin]

The irony in this thread is that pro-style/Iform is becoming almost as archaic as the Flexbone. I'm pretty sure near 70% of teams in the NFL are spread teams. You would probably see more option plays in the league than you would see a FB on the field.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I have been a big CPJ supporter and still want him to win, but I want a pro style offense again similar to Georgia's. If we don't win 8+ and beat UGA I want him canned

Without reading the other comments: Been there, done that, got the Reggie Ball T shirt to prove it. 15 points per game is what it is all about. Time fuzzes our memories.

 

[gtg936g]

This thread got me to thinking about what the most effective offensive scheme is in football today. I have not done a lot of analysis on completion % or rushing yards, or time of possession. Just a cursory look at various schemes today, with the mindset of what is the hardest to defend. If I were in the position to choose what system I would run, I would probably do what Ole Miss, and to some extent WV and Oregon are doing with packaged concepts. They are hard to defend and are simpler for the offense to execute. It is basically an option and pass plays combined into one. Most call this a "Spread" in some form or another, but to me they are just a variation to option football. This is something I actually think we could implement, but it would change how we block. A variation could be ran out of the Flexbone.


Here is a quick read on what I am talking about.


http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packaged-plays-and-the-newest-form-of-option-football/