Let's speculate on starters if we get Woody

[Skeptic]

im all in for getting woody. heh. who's with me.

re roof's son. his other boy isnt at gt and wasnt worried about getting coached by his dad. i think we are fine imo.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the only dad I would want coaching me would be Albert Einstein or such. I just can't imagine taking it home every single night and your coach is staring at you. I had enough trouble reliving the whole practice myself. But I see Swinney and Venables are doing it at Clemson so somebody can adjust to it. Or has to.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Right. He is too small to play DE in a 3 man front. Branch can play one end and maybe Glanton the other. Basically we now need (1) 1-tech and (2) 3-tech. Assuming we morph into a 3-4. The 1990 Dl was a 1,3 and 4 with an OLB on the line

Not necessarily, Woody has his guys line up as a 0 tec and 4i (not much difference). While Saint-Amour isn’t the prototypical size for that he could still do it some, and with another 5 to 10 pounds I think he would be fine. I wouldn’t mind him playing weak side Lb though, just wouldn’t want him in coverage often. I’m just not sure if we have anyone on the roster outside of Branch who could play the 4i better than Saint-Amour and that’s my concern. Of course we have Glanton, Owens, Dalton, And Cortez currently on the team who would probably be put at DE. I also think TK could play either NT or DE. I really hope we land Jamarcus Chatman though, he would be perfect for DE imo and Alfred Thomas if we got him.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I agree. I fact, are there any insiders statements, indications, or even rumors that Woody is even a candidate? Or is he just on this board’s wish list?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A pretty reliable sports outlet said GT was looking at him as well as Kelly Q.

 

[ilovetheoption]

A pretty reliable sports outlet said GT was looking at him as well as Kelly Q.

Also a board member who I believe is related to a defensive player.

 

[takethepoints]

Having watched AppSt in their bowl game, I haven't any idea what will happen if Woody decides to come to Tech. Everybody here seems to think he'll immediately go 3-4 because that's why he's done at Wofford and AppSt. I think he probably used a 3-4 at those stops because he had a hard time recruiting the size DL you need for a 4 man front. He depended on speed instead. Now he's coming to a school that has been consistently increasing the size of its DLs over the last three recruiting cycles. Does he try to fit our round pegs into the square holes of a 3-4 or does he sigh with relief and go to a 4 man front?

I sure don't know, but I do know this: coaches who have been DCs as long as he has know how to work most any D formation. Further, he will be under a lot of pressure to keep recent D progress going and find a place for the good players already here or coming up. Switching D formations now will almost certainly mean a year or two of regress until players come who can make a 3-4 work. That's why I think the whole business on D for Tech is up in the air if he comes.

That's also one reason why I'm not sure if he will or that we'll be happy if he does.

 

[Skeptic]

A pretty reliable sports outlet said GT was looking at him as well as Kelly Q.

What? Kelly as DC? .... I'm just picking at you. Might be worth a try though.

 

[Skeptic]

Having watched AppSt in their bowl game, I haven't any idea what will happen if Woody decides to come to Tech. Everybody here seems to think he'll immediately go 3-4 because that's why he's done at Wofford and AppSt. I think he probably used a 3-4 at those stops because he had a hard time recruiting the size DL you need for a 4 man front. He depended on speed instead. Now he's coming to a school that has been consistently increasing the size of its DLs over the last three recruiting cycles. Does he try to fit our round pegs into the square holes of a 3-4 or does he sigh with relief and go to a 4 man front?

I sure don't know, but I do know this: coaches who have been DCs as long as he has know how to work most any D formation. Further, he will be under a lot of pressure to keep recent D progress going and find a place for the good players already here or coming up. Switching D formations now will almost certainly mean a year or two of regress until players come who can make a 3-4 work. That's why I think the whole business on D for Tech is up in the air if he comes.

That's also one reason why I'm not sure if he will or that we'll be happy if he does.

It's not clear to me why he could run a 3-4 at ASU but not at Tech. And the guy would be a fool to come if he couldn't run his defensive scheme, right? Kind of inviting failure. If the guy is good then he should also be confident. Confident enough to tell anybody dictating his defense to him to take a hike. You got to dance with the girl ... and all that stuff.

 

[Lavoisier]

Well, the 50 defense doesn't really work if you have 4 guys with their hand in the ground. He'd have to overhaul everything he does if he wants to run a 4-3. It would probably look closer to Tenuta with his blitzes, but you'd give up big plays with a QB that can get the ball out quickly. The benefit of the 50 is that you have three down and two that play standing up so it's easier to drop one or both into coverage if you need to.

 

[Lavoisier]

I'd like to make a correction actually, when I say "hand in the ground" I don't necessarily mean that literally. The NT for instance may start in a crouch because you don't want him to declare which gap he's slanting in to. He'll line up at the 0 but slant to a gap depending on the play call.

 

[takethepoints]

It's not clear to me why he could run a 3-4 at ASU but not at Tech. And the guy would be a fool to come if he couldn't run his defensive scheme, right? Kind of inviting failure. If the guy is good then he should also be confident. Confident enough to tell anybody dictating his defense to him to take a hike. You got to dance with the girl ... and all that stuff.

I didn't say he wouldn't. What I said is that - if I were him - I'd take a long look at our D personnel and our expectations for improvement before I decided to run a 3-4 at Tech. Maybe he thinks he can do it here, but he had better be sure that things continue to improve if he does. We didn't part company with Roof to see the D relapse back to the 70s.

And, again, this is one reason why I wouldn't be surprised to see him decide not to take the jump.

 

[Techster]

Something no one has brought up about Nate Woody: He's coached at schools whose offenses were option based. At Wofford, their offenses was VERY similar to CPJ's spread option. App Stat's option offense is more "modern" in terms of matching the passing of the modern game, but their offense utilizes skill players similar to most modern offenses.

Some on here don't believe our offense makes a difference with how our defense performs, but I think that's false. There is no way our personnel gives our defense the same level of reps as other schools. I've written about it before, but other schools, especially in the ACC, have scout team QBs that were some of the top HS QB recruits in the land. Other schools have highly rated skill position players and OLs. It's not a secret that GT has struggled to recruit on the offensive side. Nothing against Jay Jones or Tobias Oliver, who are great players in a flex option system, but their passing ability would not get them recruited in other systems. Unfortunately, our defense doesn't get to match the game speed in practices. It's similar to what other teams face when they play us. Teams only have to deal with us once a year, so it's not so much of an issue. Unfortunately, our QBs and skill guys are what we have, and that's what our defense has to work with in practice.

I think having a coach with a background that Woody has with Wofford and App State could prove beneficial. Maybe there are some things NW would tweak in practice that helps with the offensive talent disparity. Afterall, he's fielded some of the top defenses for the conferences he's coached in while working with those offenses in every practice.

 

[gtrower]

When we hired Groh I was convinced it would benefit us being able to find some smaller DEs to play OLB and only having to recruit 3 DL positions which has always been our weakness under CPJ. But we failed miserably at that. I see no reason to expect us to be better at recruiting the 3-4 now than we were under AG. Not real excited about the 3-4 coming back unless Adams turns out to be a beast of a NT.

 

[ilovetheoption]

When we hired Groh I was convinced it would benefit us being able to find some smaller DEs to play OLB and only having to recruit 3 DL positions which has always been our weakness under CPJ. But we failed miserably at that. I see no reason to expect us to be better at recruiting the 3-4 now than we were under AG. Not real excited about the 3-4 coming back unless Adams turns out to be a beast of a NT.

You know, I actually don't agree there. You guys DID succeed at finding OLB's in that era

Attaochu, Marcordes, Watts were all during those years. Jabari as a freshman, too.

 

[Techster]

You know, I actually don't agree there. You guys DID succeed at finding OLB's in that era

Attaochu, Marcordes, Watts were all during those years. Jabari as a freshman, too.

Attaochu and Watts are still in the NFL. Marcordes saw time in NFL camps.

 

[Lavoisier]

Groh used a two gap scheme that pretty much everyone in the Bill Parcells tree uses. It didn't work because a) you need DLine that can control the gaps, especially a NT that can eat up the interior b) he couldn't make adjustments and c) he butted heads with Paul Johnson over personnel. Groh was very focused on playing big, physical guys even at the expense of "better" players. Jamea was a backup because he didn't fit the prototype even though Johnson wanted him out there (and rightfully so).

 

[Skeptic]

Something no one has brought up about Nate Woody: He's coached at schools whose offenses were option based. At Wofford, their offenses was VERY similar to CPJ's spread option. App Stat's option offense is more "modern" in terms of matching the passing of the modern game, but their offense utilizes skill players similar to most modern offenses.

Some on here don't believe our offense makes a difference with how our defense performs, but I think that's false. There is no way our personnel gives our defense the same level of reps as other schools. I've written about it before, but other schools, especially in the ACC, have scout team QBs that were some of the top HS QB recruits in the land. Other schools have highly rated skill position players and OLs. It's not a secret that GT has struggled to recruit on the offensive side. Nothing against Jay Jones or Tobias Oliver, who are great players in a flex option system, but their passing ability would not get them recruited in other systems. Unfortunately, our defense doesn't get to match the game speed in practices. It's similar to what other teams face when they play us. Teams only have to deal with us once a year, so it's not so much of an issue. Unfortunately, our QBs and skill guys are what we have, and that's what our defense has to work with in practice.

I think having a coach with a background that Woody has with Wofford and App State could prove beneficial. Maybe there are some things NW would tweak in practice that helps with the offensive talent disparity. Afterall, he's fielded some of the top defenses for the conferences he's coached in while working with those offenses in every practice.

It's an overstatement but Clemson literally went the other way: a defense that let them run their offense. Swinney and his DC -- Steele I think it was -- parted ways over Steele's objection to Swinney's desire to run plays as quickly as possible, maybe 100 a game. Said it did not give his defense breathing and bench rest. Venables, on the other hand, is as aggressive on defense as Swinney is on offense, and bought into it. That allowed the offense to fully develop. At the same time, I gather, there was a conscious effort to recruit very deep on the D line, and now they are two deep everywhere and 3 deep in a couple I'm told. I had never fully thought through all the ramifications of defense and offense partnered up.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

It's an overstatement but Clemson literally went the other way: a defense that let them run their offense. Swinney and his DC -- Steele I think it was -- parted ways over Steele's objection to Swinney's desire to run plays as quickly as possible, maybe 100 a game. Said it did not give his defense breathing and bench rest. Venables, on the other hand, is as aggressive on defense as Swinney is on offense, and bought into it. That allowed the offense to fully develop. At the same time, I gather, there was a conscious effort to recruit very deep on the D line, and now they are two deep everywhere and 3 deep in a couple I'm told. I had never fully thought through all the ramifications of defense and offense partnered up.

UGAG's defense in the mid 70s and early 80s had the same impact allowing Vince Dooley to run an extremely vanilla offense.

 

[UgaBlows]

When we hired Groh I was convinced it would benefit us being able to find some smaller DEs to play OLB and only having to recruit 3 DL positions which has always been our weakness under CPJ. But we failed miserably at that. I see no reason to expect us to be better at recruiting the 3-4 now than we were under AG. Not real excited about the 3-4 coming back unless Adams turns out to be a beast of a NT.

That was more about Groh than the 3-4, he was bound and determined to run a 2-gap dline scheme, which absolutely depends on having a war-daddy NT who will demand a double team to be successful. NW uses a 1-gap attacking scheme which can be very successful with smaller quicker D linemen.

 

[gtrower]

You know, I actually don't agree there. You guys DID succeed at finding OLB's in that era

Attaochu, Marcordes, Watts were all during those years. Jabari as a freshman, too.

My point was more about our defenses still not being good. We were never able to get the DL we needed. Attaochu was a huge get at OLB for sure. We never got a NT that could do anything (although Barnes somehow developed a pulse in the nfl) and our DL recruiting was overall terrible. I think Watts was a hold over from the previous staff.

You simply can’t have a good defense without a good DL. And I’m not sure we’re going to be able to recruit 3-4 DL well enough to justify the switch. At least that’s what I saw under Groh. Could be completely different with the ‘18 staff. Just not real excited about the potential switch right now.

 

[Techster]

It's an overstatement but Clemson literally went the other way: a defense that let them run their offense. Swinney and his DC -- Steele I think it was -- parted ways over Steele's objection to Swinney's desire to run plays as quickly as possible, maybe 100 a game. Said it did not give his defense breathing and bench rest. Venables, on the other hand, is as aggressive on defense as Swinney is on offense, and bought into it. That allowed the offense to fully develop. At the same time, I gather, there was a conscious effort to recruit very deep on the D line, and now they are two deep everywhere and 3 deep in a couple I'm told. I had never fully thought through all the ramifications of defense and offense partnered up.

I think the difference is A LOT of teams run the spread offense now like Clemson, so in essence, Clemson's defense isn't seeing anything out of the ordinary versus most other teams. If anything, an up tempo offense would give both offense and defense more reps than normal.

I forget which coach, but there was a college coach that would have both 1st and 2nd team practice next to each other at the same time. 1st team would run a play, and after it was over, coaches would just turn around to the other side of the 50 and 2nd team would run a play. They wanted to maximize reps across all their players that way if reserve players were pressed to play, they would at least have the reps in practice. I'm gonna have to do some digging...I remember it was a pretty successful coach...