JacketFromUGA
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,897
Someone's inadvertently trying to make me feel bad about my degree in this thread me thinks.
When I transferred from there after 1 1/2 years, to GT, the only class accepted by GT was a land surveying class I took while in Landscape Architecture. That was in 1978.The easiest MJR at GT is one of the harder ones at Clemson and the rest of the teams on our schedule . Clemson has a some great programs . Hard majors . They also have Yoga , Rowing , Camping , Fishing classes etc ... it goes on and on and on . GT's " Liberal Arts " are business classes w math that with my UGA Econ Degree have trouble spelling . Until 2 years ago , I had not been on the GT campus since before the Olympics . I believed the academic argument was BS . Now w 2 Sons at GT , one who was a SEC Honor Roll student , I know for a absolute fact that GT is night and day more difficult. The same classes at UGA and GT ( Econ ) are much more math laden and much more difficult . Thats just a fact . Will was homeschooled until the 8 th grade , and made all A's in High school ,it was easy . I was still nervous about him going to GT . How many " 5 and 4 star " players have a 4.0 GPA and score in the Zell Miller range on the SAT ? GT is freeking hard . Every school we play has " football majors " . We do not . If you graduate from GT you earned it and your ready for life . What in the hell do you do w a rec sports mgt degree ? Chalk fields back home at the rec dept ? Clemson is a great school w many hard as hell majors , don't get your panties in a wad because some one is talking about their joke classes that 70 % of the athletes take . Sorry panties in a wad might have been to harsh . Im still pissed off about the guy who said our players have no heart . I can't help it that stuff makes me want to suit up
Wow - not even any English or Poli Sci classes?When I transferred from there after 1 1/2 years, to GT, the only class accepted by GT was a land surveying class I took while in Landscape Architecture. That was in 1978.
1. Expand recruiting staffThere are a half a dozen things we can do before cirriculum to get a bigger pool of kids we can offer and help recruiting that either the AA can control or the president and ad can tweak without external beaurocratic oversight.
@33jacket
#7...........pass pro needs improvement...no debate there. Please explain what tweaks you propose that won't degrade what we do the 80% of plays we don't pass.
you can run multiple schemes and execute the same plays. We can run our typical options...and zone them. By the same token, so we "don't tip off the defense on pass vs run" we can zone block certain run plays, and then use the same zone scheme in pass pro. Right now, we typically block with 6. 5 OL and one RB, typically the BB but sometimes a AB. If you notice, defenses now predict this, attack our blocking scheme. They will overload a side knowing our OL typically are assigned a man, vs shift and zone and hand off. Secondly, they know they get a free rusher every time if they bring 6. Or almost everytime, and have a rusher vs our BB, who rarely blocks well and almost always blocks on the backside of the play as a cut block. And he typically is assigned to the backside DE. And the DE typically wins.
and, we can still block many of our run plays as we always have. We just simply put more zone in across the board. Not every play, but more than today, and create pass pro friendly schemes off it.
I have broken down so much of our pass pro schemes I can now predict it almost everytime. Its VERY simple and totally dependent on a successful run game and relatively short yardage situations that still threat the run. Since its hard to attack the line in pass rushing and be sound in the option run game, defenses have to sit back a tad more when the run is still a threat; then the pass pro we emply is ok. Adequate enough. However, in 1 min or 2 min drills, or obvious passing downs, more times than not its a disaster.
Why?
It frequently has a running back, who is smaller and not skilled enough, blocking a DE one on one. This is ok once and a while, but its a key to us.
It uses a formation call with wider splits and 3 pt stances that automatically make the OL have to move more in space at snap to pick up a rusher, than a tighter formation allowing the guards and tackles in 2 pt stances.
Typically, we try not to pass off much, so if you overload a side and there is no one there, you will often not see a proper line call to shift the pass protection. Go watch tape on overloaded blitzes...almost always someone free with no blocker. It looks like a jail break.
We never put in a true TE. We do have a AB lined up as a TE, often overwhelmed with the size speed of the rusher. Again, if you on occasion infused a TE, it helps pass pro.
In a zone scheme how you form a pocket and protect, with tighter splits, you call the MLB and the line makes a blocking call off that. How they slide and who gets who. You block from inside out. You make sure all inside rushers are taken first, and if you HAVE to let one go its the outside guy while your QB steps up. how often do you see the inside rusher break free while we block the outside guy? Happens a ton. We don't shift protection. We just set up....we are VERY basic in pass pro.
Now you shift to a zone scheme, on occasion, for runs...it looks similar to the pass pro stances, but you run the option by zoning. The Center doesnt' dive at the tackles knees. He hits him up and stays, or waits for the backside guard to take that tackle, before the center, on his feet, attacks the MLB. the playside guard seals the playside tackle or if the playside is an end, we option off the end and that guard goes to the S or OLB, and the tackle chips and does the same. This is a simple zone blocked run...but the key is OL stays on their feet...and the backside OT cuts his end....Now, this is VERY similar to how we block many of our run plays, with the differences being how the center is assigned, how the guard helps, and the OL is allowed to align in 2 point so they don't have to lift up to run.
I would do this much more and create pass pro off of it. Often in our pass pro, our OL attack the DL pretending it looks like a run, well, if its obviously not a run situation, this is a disaster. There is a reason, in pass pro, everywhere, OL sit back and absorb....
So there are many reasons our passing game is so basic. This is one. But really its so much based off playaction and the run game that its almost useless as a pass game. These techniques for the OL are used by the NFL...so we can translate and advertise that better. We are so biased to the run game...and thats fine...we can still run it 75% of the time. But you can do it with more friendly schemes that translate to better pass pro techniques.
people need to realize, there is no single solution in football....you can do alot of the same things different ways and be successful. You can block and run our option a few different ways. Paul chooses his. It has its benefits and faults. I think for our level of league play, and OL size it isn't a great match most of the time. Historically, this is true. Sure, we can have a year where we hit a stride and it all looks good like last year. But lets face it. 5 out of 6 its a struggle on the OL. So for me tweaking the system is what we should do...
its also why I think certain D's work at tech and others don't scheme wise, it goes back again to the kid we recruit and have....we are cerebral...we need more complexity and aggression, vs trying to win simply, with physical prowess taking over and winning vs thought and calculated risk taking
Great post. Doesn't seem much like tweaks though. Seems like a pretty large departure in a lot of what we currently do, for our current scheme.
@MWBATL,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Fwiw, I disagree with the logic inherent in the presentation as I understood it. I understood your point to be that the record simply reflects the talent which reflects recruiting and ultimately the institute's attitude toward having a competitive D1 program.
As has been mentioned before (I think) and here again in this thread, the Institute does not control it's degree offerings. Ultimately, iiuc, the kind of majors that attract the top football players are not majors that fall within the mission of GT as an institute of technology, making it more difficult to get them approved.
However, my biggest disagreement with the logic of the post stems from the "how" of our record during previous years. Our O was typically top 20 and D outside the top 50. In other words, the O outperformed its talent and the D seemed to under-perform its talent (though this take on D may be debated). In other words, the underlying data doesn't seem to support a simplistic talent-to-record equation.
Moreover, if you look at our actual personnel issues over the last few years, you'll see that we lost a huge chunk of guys expected to be contributors this year before the season last year, many because they weren't an academic or social fit for GT--that is, we recruited and signed better talent than could ultimately thrive at Tech. So, the kind of change you suggest would also require a change in culture, not just offerings, a change which would be hard to make in the short term without doing what UNC did.
AE87, appreciate the thoughts. Without being too verbose:
...
(2) I recognize that the BOR must approve any changes, but GT must first apply for them, and then push for them. I don't think the Hill has a taste for that (as far as I can tell);
....
Sounds great until you realize that you have to justify it to the BoR. Forget the BoR, first you have to convince the hill it is of critical need. What are you gonna say at the first proposal meeting, "gentlemen, if we want a great football program, we need this major!" Essentially, that is the what and why of this proposal. Or you could lie through your teeth and say "gentlemen, the state of georgia really needs more sports agents, etc!" Good luck with that.I would like to see a sports management major added or something of the sort. Not to offer an easy curriculum by any means, but have an option to appeal to a wider student athlete audience. I'm sure tech could still make it science based and tough enough so it would never be considered a cupcake major. And I'm not talking coaching 101. I'm talking business classes, negotiations, and so on. Basically a major to set up a career as an agent, sports exec, etc.