Is it mostly us or them?

[dressedcheeseside]

I've thought about this for a long time and can't come to a definitive conclusion. Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel and coaching or is it mostly on how other teams on our schedule have evolved over time? There's no doubt the competition in the ACC has improved over the last decade. Even Duke is no longer a penciled in W at the start of the season.

But it can also be argued that teams we regularly face have come up with certain strategies or practice routines that have them better prepared to face our offense since '08 and '09 where the element of surprise and unfamiliarity was on our side. Having defensive players that have faced our offense for 2, 3 and even 4 years in a row has to have a positive affect for our opponents, right? Same goes for DC's that have faced us repeatedly?

That said, our O was very good in '14 and pretty darn good in '16, too. Which is a bigger factor for our success, our personnel or the combined affect of our opponents improvements in coaching, athletes, experience? Is there now a blueprint? I know if we had equal talent, there would be no blueprint, but what about with our current roster? Last year, if you had a very fast MLB, and a stout DL, our O was in serious trouble. D's were basically selling out on the horizontal run game and paying little attention to the dive or pass (the vertical parts of the O). Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

To answer my own question, I'm leaning on us over them. With the right personnel, our O is awesome and it doesn't matter what the defense does. There are answers to the tactics that were successful against us last year. The real question is will we be better at executing them this year?

 

[bobongo]

Defenses seem to have become focused on getting into our backfield to disrupt the pitch, but last year I think the problem was mainly us because of weak OT play. If we can't block on the ends of the line, the TO will be more sputter than sparkle. It's all about the offensive line.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I've thought about this for a long time and can't come to a definitive conclusion. Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel and coaching or is it mostly on how other teams on our schedule have evolved over time? There's no doubt the competition in the ACC has improved over the last decade. Even Duke is no longer a penciled in W at the start of the season.

But it can also be argued that teams we regularly face have come up with certain strategies or practice routines that have them better prepared to face our offense since '08 and '09 where the element of surprise and unfamiliarity was on our side. Having defensive players that have faced our offense for 2, 3 and even 4 years in a row has to have a positive affect for our opponents, right? Same goes for DC's that have faced us repeatedly?

That said, our O was very good in '14 and pretty darn good in '16, too. Which is a bigger factor for our success, our personnel or the combined affect of our opponents improvements in coaching, athletes, experience? Is there now a blueprint? I know if we had equal talent, there would be no blueprint, but what about with our current roster? Last year, if you had a very fast MLB, and a stout DL, our O was in serious trouble. D's were basically selling out on the horizontal run game and paying little attention to the dive or pass (the vertical parts of the O). Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

To answer my own question, I'm leaning on us over them. With the right personnel, our O is awesome and it doesn't matter what the defense does. There are answers to the tactics that were successful against us last year. The real question is will we be better at executing them this year?

I think these are the same questions/benefits/risks of any scheme. But ours being more rare, even if you have a tenured DC or seniors on the other side, they still don't see teams like us much. So we have an advantage there if we execute well. But it goes both ways, it can take awhile for folks on our side to learn the offense well too. The problem I have (with no data to back it up) is that it feels like our offense doesn't just help neutralize the talent difference of those above us, but that it feels like it does that the opposite way too. Meaning, we have fewer possessions, so its more difficult for teams with great talent to beat us by a lot, but it also can be difficult for us to beat teams with lesser talent by a lot.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Defenses seem to have become focused on getting into our backfield to disrupt the pitch, but last year I think the problem was mainly us because of weak OT play. If we can't block on the ends of the line, the TO will be more sputter than sparkle. It's all about the offensive line.

We couldn't keep the MLB honest with the dive. I think that was the biggest factor. We couldn't punish them for selling out on motion.

 

[Coloradojacket]

So take a look at my post about the CPJ offense and in the end I would come to this. The answer is yes, yes, and yes. 08 we certainly had a different offense but if you look at the stats it was one of CPJs worst years. What was different, our D was very good. 8 players on that D ended up going into the pros. Also Clemson and Florida ST were on a downturn. To say that people have figured out CPJ. Well many teams we play run the same offense. The dive, screen etc have been around for 60 years. It is all about execution. A trick play fools someone, but execution wins the day. In 2014 our O was 10 seniors and a darn good line. 2015, nothing but Freshman.

Another example, UNC had our number for a few years there, until they had to start a Freshman QB. This year we face teams like UVA, UNC, Duke, Louisville, and USF with all new Qbs. Georgia has to replace their entire team. etc.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I've thought about this for a long time and can't come to a definitive conclusion. Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel and coaching or is it mostly on how other teams on our schedule have evolved over time? There's no doubt the competition in the ACC has improved over the last decade. Even Duke is no longer a penciled in W at the start of the season.

But it can also be argued that teams we regularly face have come up with certain strategies or practice routines that have them better prepared to face our offense since '08 and '09 where the element of surprise and unfamiliarity was on our side. Having defensive players that have faced our offense for 2, 3 and even 4 years in a row has to have a positive affect for our opponents, right? Same goes for DC's that have faced us repeatedly?

That said, our O was very good in '14 and pretty darn good in '16, too. Which is a bigger factor for our success, our personnel or the combined affect of our opponents improvements in coaching, athletes, experience? Is there now a blueprint? I know if we had equal talent, there would be no blueprint, but what about with our current roster? Last year, if you had a very fast MLB, and a stout DL, our O was in serious trouble. D's were basically selling out on the horizontal run game and paying little attention to the dive or pass (the vertical parts of the O). Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

To answer my own question, I'm leaning on us over them. With the right personnel, our O is awesome and it doesn't matter what the defense does. There are answers to the tactics that were successful against us last year. The real question is will we be better at executing them this year?

With very few exceptions have other teams beat us because they have "figured us out," and can defend our system. Other teams have beat us with superior offense (Clemson), or because our defense sucked.

 

[GT_05]

I’d say that we have more influence over our success than our competitors. I don’t think they have us figured out based off a few things I read about last year.

1. We lost to Tennessee but Butch said he devoted a large percentage of the Spring practice preparing for our offense.

2. We lost to Duke but they had a bye week and they played Army in the two weeks before they played us.

3. Of course, UGA killed us last year partly because of their talent and depth but Kirby also devoted time every week to prepare for our offense - very, uh hum, Smart.

The common thread in the three items above seems to be the amount of time they devoted to preparing for our offense. If they had our O figured out, they wouldn’t spend so much time getting ready for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GTL]

Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel

I think this is largely it. What '15 and '17 had in common was the loss of several key starters during the year. We just don't have (and never have had) the depth to absorb the loss of more than 3-4 starters (and/or key players in the 2-deep) without it impacting our W/L bottom line.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I’d say that we have more influence over our success than our competitors. I don’t think they have us figured out based off a few things I read about last year.

1. We lost to Tennessee but Butch said he devoted a large percentage of the Spring practice preparing for our offense.

2. We lost to Duke but they had a bye week and they played Army in the two weeks before they played us.

3. Of course, UGA killed us last year partly because of their talent and depth but Kirby also devoted time every week to prepare for our offense - very, uh hum, Smart.

The common thread in the three items above seems to be the amount of time they devoted to preparing for our offense. If they had our O figured out, they wouldn’t spend so much time getting ready for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well you kind of answered for the opposite of what you thought you did. I lumped extra preparation in with "figured us out" (having better athletes goes in this subset, as well). The reason is because these things have to do with what our opposition does rather than what we do.

I still think we can overcome all of this with the right combo of experience, talent and depth. But we need all of this, to varying degrees. In '14 we had it with the emphasis on the experience side. In '09 we had it, too, but with the emphasis on the talent side. We were also new enough at that point, as well.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

I have no doubt that the other schools in the ACC, generally speaking, have stepped up their game over the last 10 years. Clemson has gone from good to elite, UNC and Duke have gone from pushovers to better than average, etc. The coaching has improved, the recruiting has improved, and the teams are certainly more aware of how to defend and attack the Triple Option. We have largely stayed the same in terms of talent and coaching, and thus...we have lost ground. We will still have good years when the schedule favors us, but most years, it does not. I am still optimistic that we can stay on pace, or perhaps we will catch some luck and the ACC will have a few down years, but this is the new reality. Step it up, or lower expectations. That is where we are.

Win or lose, I'll keep cheering.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I have no doubt that the other schools in the ACC, generally speaking, have stepped up their game over the last 10 years. Clemson has gone from good to elite, UNC and Duke have gone from pushovers to better than average, etc. The coaching has improved, the recruiting has improved, and the teams are certainly more aware of how to defend and attack the Triple Option. We have largely stayed the same in terms of talent and coaching, and thus...we have lost ground. We will still have good years when the schedule favors us, but most years, it does not. I am still optimistic that we can stay on pace, or perhaps we will catch some luck and the ACC will have a few down years, but this is the new reality. Step it up, or lower expectations. That is where we are.

Win or lose, I'll keep cheering.

I agree. But in CPJ's and TStan's defense, they have taken steps to address these things, albeit small ones. I still think the biggest key for our success is keeping depth high and attrition low. Much of that has to do with luck, unfortunately.

 

[GTJake]

Hard to make a conclusion after last years fails, last season's disaster could really have been mitigated if we would have had Butker still on the roster.
We really stunk it up at the end of the season vs. Duke and UGA ... Cutcliffe has had our number and we can't seem to beat UGA at BDS ???
Maybe a little bit of both ....

 

[Coloradojacket]

So here is my question on this to whoever chooses to answer. What is success for Tech? What would you consider say a 5 year span for Tech should look like.

For me, Average 8 games won, Beat UGA twice, win 1 Coastal Championship and go to 5 bowls. May sound low but I am realistic.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Hard to make a conclusion after last years fails, last season's disaster could really have been mitigated if we would have had Butker still on the roster.
We really stunk it up at the end of the season vs. Duke and UGA ... Cutcliffe has had our number and we can't seem to beat UGA at BDS ???
Maybe a little bit of both ....

The mutts had there best team since 1980.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So here is my question on this to whoever chooses to answer. What is success for Tech? What would you consider say a 5 year span for Tech should look like.

For me, Average 8 games won, Beat UGA twice, win 1 Coastal Championship and go to 5 bowls. May sound low but I am realistic.

Pretty good look.

 

[GTJake]

So here is my question on this to whoever chooses to answer. What is success for Tech? What would you consider say a 5 year span for Tech should look like.

For me, Average 8 games won, Beat UGA twice, win 1 Coastal Championship and go to 5 bowls. May sound low but I am realistic.

Sounds reasonable for me adding one ACC Championship and a Playoff appearance
Great would be beat UGA three times and two ACC and Playoff appearances.

 

[Coloradojacket]

The mutts had there best team since 1980.

You know what is interesting about 1980. Yes, Georgia had a team and a great running back but.......They only played 4 teams with winning records including the bowl game. Florida was an 8 win team that they almost lost to. They only beat ND, a team we beat/tied with a 6th string QB. Also they did not play Alabama that year nor LSU. See it sometimes takes a schedule.

 

[GTJake]

The mutts had there best team since 1980.

But how many years in a row have we lost to them at home ??

 

[takethepoints]

Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

Bingo. If we had had Mills last year (and the coming year) we would have won at least 3 more games and probably 4. I say that not because I don't think Benson stepped up to the plate, but because Mills was the main thing we needed to beat Miami, UVA, Puke, and, maybe Clemson: a back who could run really well (remember the BC game in '16) in the slop. This is especially the case in the Miami game, imho; we were playing ahead of them and Mills playing instead of Quaid or, even, Benson means we keep the ball most of the second half. And don't even ask me what I think our record would have been with Jordan and Mills (spoiler alert: much better).

This isn't intended to say that TaQuon and Benson didn't do a great job last year. They, especially Benson, did much better then most of us (i.e. me) thought they would. But Mills would have been another The Real Adrian Peterson and would have made a humongous difference in our performance on O. Let's hope TM and Benson make us forget that this coming year.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Bingo. If we had had Mills last year (and the coming year) we would have won at least 3 more games and probably 4. I say that not because I don't think Benson stepped up to the plate, but because Mills was the main thing we needed to beat Miami, UVA, Puke, and, maybe Clemson: a back who could run really well (remember the BC game in '16) in the slop. This is especially the case in the Miami game, imho; we were playing ahead of them and Mills playing instead of Quaid or, even, Benson means we keep the ball most of the second half. And don't even ask me what I think our record would have been with Jordan and Mills (spoiler alert: much better).

This isn't intended to say that TaQuon and Benson didn't do a great job last year. They, especially Benson, did much better then most of us (i.e. me) thought they would. But Mills would have been another The Real Adrian Peterson and would have made a humongous difference in our performance on O. Let's hope TM and Benson make us forget that this coming year.

As said many times I totally disagree. Marcus Marshall was a bigger loss. Also Benson had more yards on less carries than Mills had. Go back and watch the Miami game. We lost Benson in the 3rd quarter and the offense was not the same. Also in 2016, We beat Va Tech, Duke without Mills, he was suspended.