Interesting comments on CPJ's base offense

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
Read my OP. I said we ran the Diamond and Pistol early, but when the schedule became tougher, CPJ "shrank the playbook" because we couldn't execute so he made a decision to "go back to the basics"...his flex offense. That's not a secret, and he even talks about it and our team has talked about it many times in the media.
So... if we couldn't execute the playbook, what would you have done? Brought in a completely different playbook that no one has ever seen before?
 

91Wreck

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
354
Not sure how you can come to this conclusion seeing as how we ran more plays from pistol this year than we've ever have since CPJ came to Tech... probably even including his tenure at Navy.

I don't know John. Most of what I saw in the bowl game was a bunch of jet sweeps and dives with very few plays run out of the diamond or pistol formations. Of course, everybody sees the evidence to support their viewpoint and I am no different. For all I know we could have run those formations 50% of the time, but it sure didn't feel like it.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
Again, it's not what we ran, my comment was about what we didn't run, which was "his old staples". I'm not sure we ran the true read T-O more than three times in either game. We didn't run any mid-line option. We ran what CPJ felt Vad (and the other members of the offense) could run successfully.

Again, what did we run against UGA that CPJ didn't run many times in the past? We don't run the triple option that much anyhow, a point which CPJ will bring up when you call it a triple option offense. Maybe we ran it a few times less than if we had it with Tevin. Tevin didn't run much midline as well.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
So... if we couldn't execute the playbook, what would you have done? Brought in a completely different playbook that no one has ever seen before?

That's my point, John. We couldn't execute anything well, especially the new stuff from the Diamond and Pistol, so CPJ pared down the playbook to what he knew best. He made an executive decision to be a master of something rather than a jack of all trades.

My OP was to point out that Monken understands that plays from under center, which is what the flex is run from, was not always effective so he added ancillary plays from other formations to neutralize familiarity with defending our scheme. His approach is different from what CPJ did this year. CPJ wanted the team to better at his core plays rather than "mixing it up". Hey, it didn't work because of various factors which I've pointed out in this thread. I think the results speak for themselves.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,676
Location
North Shore, Chicago
CPJ's bread and butter, "old stables", has been the read option. He can run that out of whatever formation you choose, pistol, flex-bone, diamond, etc. As you stated, there were a ton of rocket-tosses and straight dives called. Plays that did not require a read option (whether it's a double option or triple option). Vad struggled with making the reads consistently (per many people who are much more knowledgeable than I), so CPJ narrowed his playbook, minimizing many of the read-option plays. That's the only point I was trying to make. I am saying only that CPJ called plays that he thought Vad (and the offense) could run successfully, and that these were not "his old stables".

(BTW, historically we ran the T-O many more times a game than we did this year. I understand it's only one play, but it was used more more the first 5 years than it was this year.)
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,676
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That's my point, John. We couldn't execute anything well, especially the new stuff from the Diamond and Pistol, so CPJ pared down the playbook to what he knew best. He made an executive decision to be a master of something rather than a jack of all trades.

My OP was to point out that Monken understands that plays from under center, which is what the flex is run from, was not always effective so he added ancillary plays from other formations to neutralize familiarity with defending our scheme. His approach is different from what CPJ did this year. CPJ wanted the team to better at his core plays rather than "mixing it up". Hey, it didn't work because of various factors which I've pointed out in this thread. I think the results speak for themselves.
I think he went away from some of the other formations as the year progressed, but I don't think he went back to what he normally called out of the base formation. I do see your point, and agree that there needs to be variety or we'll never be fully successful. I also believe CPJ understands this.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
CPJ's bread and butter, "old stables", has been the read option. He can run that out of whatever formation you choose, pistol, flex-bone, diamond, etc. As you stated, there were a ton of rocket-tosses and straight dives called. Plays that did not require a read option (whether it's a double option or triple option). Vad struggled with making the reads consistently (per many people who are much more knowledgeable than I), so CPJ narrowed his playbook, minimizing many of the read-option plays. That's the only point I was trying to make. I am saying only that CPJ called plays that he thought Vad (and the offense) could run successfully, and that these were not "his old stables".

(BTW, historically we ran the T-O many more times a game than we did this year. I understand it's only one play, but it was used more more the first 5 years than it was this year.)

We must have been watching different things, because we did run a lot of read option plays. In fact, CPJ has commented on how much of Vad's reads were correct during the game a lot. Besides, unless you know what CPJ called, do you really know if it was a read or call?
 

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
That's my point, John. We couldn't execute anything well, especially the new stuff from the Diamond and Pistol, so CPJ pared down the playbook to what he knew best. He made an executive decision to be a master of something rather than a jack of all trades.
You're making two different points here... you think we couldn't execute anything well. I agree. I think this was the reason why we wanted to try to go back to the basics. I still don't think we were running the same offense that we ran in the past few years. I think the offense we ran with Nesbitt was different than the one we ran with Tevin just like the offense we ran with Vad was different than both Nesbitt's and Tevin's offense. I think CPJ was trying to find something that his offense this year would be good at running (not just Vad) and couldn't find it.

My OP was to point out that Monken understands that plays from under center, which is what the flex is run from, was not always effective so he added ancillary plays from other formations to neutralize familiarity with defending our scheme. His approach is different from what CPJ did this year. CPJ wanted the team to better at his core plays rather than "mixing it up". Hey, it didn't work because of various factors which I've pointed out in this thread. I think the results speak for themselves.
We did try to mix it up and it didn't work. What reason would we have to continue try something that wasn't working? It'll be one thing if every play we ran out of pistol resulted in 10+ yard plays. Which plays out of the pistol made such an impression on you that makes you think we should have kept calling it? I only remember two "big" plays out of pistol and one of them was a lucky play that couldn't gone the other way.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,676
Location
North Shore, Chicago
We must have been watching different things, because we did run a lot of read option plays. In fact, CPJ has commented on how much of Vad's reads were correct during the game a lot. Besides, unless you know what CPJ called, do you really know if it was a read or call?
Nope, I don't know. I've based some of this on what I've heard from former players, people who have coached this type of offense and have commented, and my own observations. I believe there was more read option earlier in the year. Also, I saw too many B-Backs get stuffed at the line, which was either a straight dive call or a horribly bad read.

I like Vad. I saw flashes of what we needed. I think he was a great ambassador for Tech and wish him the best. I think he would have made great strides this off-season and would have been a much better QB for GT next year. I think we would have passed more successfully next year (and may still). I would love to see a combination of run-n-shoot, read-option and base offense the way Lil' Joe and Freidgen ran. I think what they had in 1999 and with Godsey in 2000 was unstoppable (except self-inflicted). I think Vad could have grown into that by his senior year, but we'll never know. Maybe now we'll see with JT.
 

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
In fact, CPJ has commented on how much of Vad's reads were correct during the game a lot.
CPJ likes to defend his players when they are criticized by third parties so I've heard CPJ defend Vad a ton of times this season.

However, I don't think I've heard him say Vad made a lot of correct reads on the real option.

Take a listen here:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/gtathletics/13123001.mp3

Skip to about the 2:10 mark where he says:
"First three or four times, ran the true option, the triple, I think we missed the read every time."
 

91Wreck

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
354
A big deal has been made that Vad is terrible with his reads in the option. My take is that every time we ran the option there were three DL on top of Vad two seconds after the snap. Did Vad hesitate - yes he did. Were his reads bad - yes they were. That's kinda what happens when you are supposed to be reading one unblocked guy and instead there are three.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
You're making two different points here... you think we couldn't execute anything well. I agree. I think this was the reason why we wanted to try to go back to the basics. I still don't think we were running the same offense that we ran in the past few years. I think the offense we ran with Nesbitt was different than the one we ran with Tevin just like the offense we ran with Vad was different than both Nesbitt's and Tevin's offense. I think CPJ was trying to find something that his offense this year would be good at running (not just Vad) and couldn't find it.


We did try to mix it up and it didn't work. What reason would we have to continue try something that wasn't working? It'll be one thing if every play we ran out of pistol resulted in 10+ yard plays. Which plays out of the pistol made such an impression on you that makes you think we should have kept calling it? I only remember two "big" plays out of pistol and one of them was a lucky play that couldn't gone the other way.

I agree, there have been some difference in our offenses between Josh/Tevin/Vad. That much is obvious to anyone that's watched this offense since CPJ first came here. However, the core plays of the Dive, rocket tosses, triple, midline, I/O veer have always been there. Of course the core run and shoot plays (choice, switch, go, etc.) have remained with some tweaks (going away from mirroring routes being the biggest change from early in CPJ's GT tenure). The frequency of those plays depended on personnel. Just because CPJ ran the midline more with Dwyer and Josh than he did with Tevin and Vad doesn't mean it made our core offense different.

So if new stuff doesn't work, you would rather try over and over something old that's not working that well? Isn't the definition of insanity trying something over and over and getting the same results? Evolution occurs because people do new things and get better. You can't get better at something if you give up on it. I'm not saying CPJ should scrap our core plays, heck, we ran the same plays out of the Pistol and Diamond that we did out of the Flex. The point is, and Monken reiterated it, is that teams are stymieing our under the center plays...otherwise, why install the ancillary stuff?

BTW, plays from the diamond and pistol worked pretty well against Duke. The same Duke team that won 10 games and went to the ACC Championship game.
 

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
So if new stuff doesn't work, you would rather try over and over something old that's not working that well? Isn't the definition of insanity trying something over and over and getting the same results?
Sure but did our core offense fail us every time we ran it? Were we so inept at offense that we were blown out in every loss? So I'd have to ask, what's your definition of "not working"?

BTW, plays from the diamond and pistol worked pretty well against Duke. The same Duke team that won 10 games and went to the ACC Championship game.
If you go back and look, the majority of the big (and scoring) plays that we got at Duke were from under center. Including two passing TDs to Smelter and one to Laskey. The one big play that I remember we ran out of pistol was a jet sweep to Snoddy when the game was already well in hand. I also remember us running the same type of plays against VT and failing miserably. So I'd have to ask which is the lesser of two evils?
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
Sure but did our core offense fail us every time we ran it? Were we so inept at offense that we were blown out in every loss? So I'd have to ask, what's your definition of "not working"?


If you go back and look, the majority of the big (and scoring) plays that we got at Duke were from under center. Including two passing TDs to Smelter and one to Laskey. The one big play that I remember we ran out of pistol was a jet sweep to Snoddy when the game was already well in hand. I also remember us running the same type of plays against VT and failing miserably. So I'd have to ask which is the lesser of two evils?

RE: Duke game...that's not true. I remember charting the plays, and the big plays/scoring plays for that game and what formation they came out of and it was pretty even. The Duke game is still available on ESPN3 if you want review that statement.

RE: Your first statement. Not sure why you and others keep harping on the same thing that I even agree on. The point of the OP was to point out the different philosophy that Monken has taken compared to what CPJ did once our schedule got tougher. You can disagree, and that's fine, but Monken isn't me, he's a CPJ disciple and a FBS level coach. He didn't make that statment 'cause it sounds cute. His philosophy has evolved from CPJ's...whereas he's now going for variety of where the defense has to make their key reads, CPJ has gone back to trying to make his team run the core plays better. When you say "blown out in every loss" you're giving the offense more credit than what our defense has done this year. Now you're muddying up the intent of the OP.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
CPJ likes to defend his players when they are criticized by third parties so I've heard CPJ defend Vad a ton of times this season.

However, I don't think I've heard him say Vad made a lot of correct reads on the real option.

Take a listen here:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/gtathletics/13123001.mp3

Skip to about the 2:10 mark where he says:
"First three or four times, ran the true option, the triple, I think we missed the read every time."

That comment was in reply to Forenzic's comment that CPJ didn't run a lot of read plays with Vad this year, and wasn't necessarily about Vad making the best reads every time. But your comment is evidence that CPJ did call plenty of read plays with Vad.
 

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
RE: Duke game...that's not true. I remember charting the plays, and the big plays/scoring plays for that game and what formation they came out of and it was pretty even. The Duke game is still available on ESPN3 if you want review that statement.
Sorry, you are correct. I think I got the Duke game confused with the VT game where I wasn't very impressed with us running from pistol.

His philosophy has evolved from CPJ's...whereas he's now going for variety of where the defense has to make their key reads, CPJ has gone back to trying to make his team run the core plays better. When you say "blown out in every loss" you're giving the offense more credit than what our defense has done this year. Now you're muddying up the intent of the OP.
I guess the question is... was GSU executing the variations? If so, it makes sense that they continue running it.
 

John

Peacekeeper
Staff member
Messages
2,174
That comment was in reply to Forenzic's comment that CPJ didn't run a lot of read plays with Vad this year, and wasn't necessarily about Vad making the best reads every time. But your comment is evidence that CPJ did call plenty of read plays with Vad.
Not sure what you mean by that. The audio was the MCB post-game presser. That comment was specific to the MCB game where CPJ tried to call "true option" plays at the start but we didn't do a good job reading it. It also implies that after the first three or four attempts, we started to call non-option plays where there were no reads because we had such a trouble with the read.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,695
Not sure what you mean by that. The audio was the MCB post-game presser. That comment was specific to the MCB game where CPJ tried to call "true option" plays at the start but we didn't do a good job reading it. It also implies that after the first three or four attempts, we started to call non-option plays where there were no reads because we had such a trouble with the read.

Gotcha...I didn't listen to it to be honest. I just saw the ""First three or four times, ran the true option, the triple, I think we missed the read every time." quote and took it to mean we did run read plays.
 
Top