Matthew Jordan Practicing at AB

[danny daniel]

Maybe it says something about what kind of fan I am, but the idea of messing with a safety's head and/or burning a d by doing this regularly is way more exciting to me than watching high school film.

I am a long time football fan and also a long time (devil's advocate) football coach. As a fan I agree that I generally like the unexpected and exciting successful gimmick or the "Fridgen" do most anything at any time anywhere. I suspect us fans are in the majority. However, as a coach my experience gives me a different perspective and opinion:

Our CPJ offense is a deliberate, disciplined, methodical smash mouth run over you approach with smarts and physical techniques. Giving up valuable practice time to polish that attack to work on gimmick (but maybe exciting if it works) is a hard decision less likely made by a coach with dedication to his scheme. To have a good success rate you have to devote valuable practice time to it.

Such gimmick plays more often backfire than work. Example Smelter's ill advised pass (interception) in 2013 and C Dennis's failed execution (partly blocking breakdown) in the Ole Miss Bowl Game. Gimmick plays typically work against weaker or poorly coached teams but success against good teams well coached is less likely.

If you really need a successful play to win a game you want the attempt in your best playmakers hand where your success rate is a practiced and game proven event. (I want J Thomas to execute a pass or run if we really need the play to win a game such as late in the UGA game). Percentages are lower for good players not routinely skilled and practiced throwing a pass (i.e. Smelter, Dennis, Bostic) in a game deciding situation compared to putting the play in your regular playmakers hand.

Now if you want to give the D something to think about (as you suggest) and waste their time practicing against a gimmick play I am all for it, even as a coach, if you do it in a situation where it does not matter if it works or not, and you do not waste too much time on it in practice.

I will admit that years of coaching has somewhat distorted me as a fan and my opinion on this is likely in the minority.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

CC is just getting started. Let's give him some time. I agree he looks good, but college is a big jump at that position. If there is any good news in this whole situation, it is that we are looking out to 2017. That alone is awesome.

I agree. As CPJ likes to say, "it'll sort itself out."

There's no way anybody can predict who will win the spot at this point in time. Heck, it just as easily could be a kid everybody thinks will play safety (any guess who I'm thinking of?)

 

[Dottie1145]

Not picking on you about this, but just a general bone to pick for people who keep repeating this whole "So-and-so didn't take snaps from under center".

Let's review the QBs who have started for CPJ:

Josh Nesbitt - played exclusive in a traditional shotgun spread offense.



Tevin Washington - played exclusively in traditional shotgun spread (no video available)

Vad Lee - played exclusively in a traditional shotgun spread



Tim Byerly - played exclusively in a traditional shotgun spread



Justin Thomas - played exclusively in a traditional shotgun spread:




I think we can say those guys did OK for us.

OTOH, Synjyn Days ran almost an exact replica of CPJ's offense at Hillgrove and as much of an athletic advantage as he had over Tevin, he could never take the starting job from him.

I think fans make WAAAAY too much about guys playing from under center in HS.

That's true, but you don't think it helps at all that CC has played in that offense?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I am a long time football fan and also a long time (devil's advocate) football coach. As a fan I agree that I generally like the unexpected and exciting successful gimmick or the "Fridgen" do most anything at any time anywhere. I suspect us fans are in the majority. However, as a coach my experience gives me a different perspective and opinion:

Our CPJ offense is a deliberate, disciplined, methodical smash mouth run over you approach with smarts and physical techniques. Giving up valuable practice time to polish that attack to work on gimmick (but maybe exciting if it works) is a hard decision less likely made by a coach with dedication to his scheme. To have a good success rate you have to devote valuable practice time to it.

Such gimmick plays more often backfire than work. Example Smelter's ill advised pass (interception) in 2013 and C Dennis's failed execution (partly blocking breakdown) in the Ole Miss Bowl Game. Gimmick plays typically work against weaker or poorly coached teams but success against good teams well coached is less likely.

If you really need a successful play to win a game you want the attempt in your best playmakers hand where your success rate is a practiced and game proven event. (I want J Thomas to execute a pass or run if we really need the play to win a game such as late in the UGA game). Percentages are lower for good players not routinely skilled and practiced throwing a pass (i.e. Smelter, Dennis, Bostic) in a game deciding situation compared to putting the play in your regular playmakers hand.

Now if you want to give the D something to think about (as you suggest) and waste their time practicing against a gimmick play I am all for it, even as a coach, if you do it in a situation where it does not matter if it works or not, and you do not waste too much time on it in practice.

I will admit that years of coaching has somewhat distorted me as a fan and my opinion on this is likely in the minority.

I agree completely but I would have said this with less "apology" and in a more simple and straight forward way. Gimmicks only work in rare situational moments over the course of an entire season. And they also tend not to work if your basic offense is not working effectively to begin with. Better to spend time and energy working on "bread and butter" plays than gimmick plays.

I know, it is basically what you said but I had to get my 2 cents worth in.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Now if you want to give the D something to think about (as you suggest) and waste their time practicing against a gimmick play I am all for it, even as a coach, if you do it in a situation where it does not matter if it works or not, and you do not waste too much time on it in practice.

I will admit that years of coaching has somewhat distorted me as a fan and my opinion on this is likely in the minority.

I guess I disagree with your assessment of this play as a gimmick. I'm 100% with you if we're talking about a hook and lateral or statue of liberty. Those plays are gimmicks because they succeed brilliantly if the defense does X (where X is something pretty involved and specific. Otherwise, you might describe any play in this language.) Good defenses are less likely to be burned because involved X is something you can coach a team not to fall into.

This doesn't require the D not to notice something big, it's fundamentally a similar play to the rocket toss, where if the rocket toss is a called run, this is a called pass. Unusual != gimmick. What's neat about this play strategically is that it can burn safeties who cheat towards the middle, figuring they have a motion presnap to get into defend the rocket toss territory. Suddenly that A-back is hanging back to complete to the other a back or a wr or even the qb.

The key is an aback that does all the other things you want an aback to do while also being able to consistently throw that quick completion. Something worth doing with all abacks in practice time? Probably not- well, not until you're building the dream CPJ NFL team where you can buy a whole offense of option quarterbacks out of college. But, hey, if we're at a place where we have highly talented third (or fourth, etc.) string quarterbacks who are so physical that you want them on the field, why not? They were going to be practicing with their arm anyhow, no?

The only thing that makes the Aback pass a low percentage high risk play is the inexperience of the throwing aback. With the right talent, that's no longer a correct assumption.

The reason I like the idea is that it gives a fundamentally kind of aback threat. Your standard aback does what we know and love. Your backup qb aback probably isn't as developed in the aback running and motion, but if you want to keep him as a qb, well, he's on the field because of his athletic ability, not his aback technique. Instead, you've got a (fast, physical, whyever he's on the field) runner, as well as a promise to catch you looking in the back. Yet another level of mind game for the d coordinator.

Because at Georgia Tech, we don't dream about big magic the one game that matters winning plays that we imagined. Oh no, that happened, I have it on my DVR. And Youtube. I watch it whenever I'm feeling down. No, when we imagine things, we imagine an even more complex, layered offense. An offense that every other head coach has nightmares about. Here at Georgia Tech, we aren't happy until we've defeated the other team in their own heads before the game even starts. Because they know CPJ is out there waiting for them. And their time is coming.

Soon.

 

[Dottie1145]

I guess I disagree with your assessment of this play as a gimmick. I'm 100% with you if we're talking about a hook and lateral or statue of liberty. Those plays are gimmicks because they succeed brilliantly if the defense does X (where X is something pretty involved and specific. Otherwise, you might describe any play in this language.) Good defenses are less likely to be burned because involved X is something you can coach a team not to fall into.

This doesn't require the D not to notice something big, it's fundamentally a similar play to the rocket toss, where if the rocket toss is a called run, this is a called pass. Unusual != gimmick. What's neat about this play strategically is that it can burn safeties who cheat towards the middle, figuring they have a motion presnap to get into defend the rocket toss territory. Suddenly that A-back is hanging back to complete to the other a back or a wr or even the qb.

The key is an aback that does all the other things you want an aback to do while also being able to consistently throw that quick completion. Something worth doing with all abacks in practice time? Probably not- well, not until you're building the dream CPJ NFL team where you can buy a whole offense of option quarterbacks out of college. But, hey, if we're at a place where we have highly talented third (or fourth, etc.) string quarterbacks who are so physical that you want them on the field, why not? They were going to be practicing with their arm anyhow, no?

The only thing that makes the Aback pass a low percentage high risk play is the inexperience of the throwing aback. With the right talent, that's no longer a correct assumption.

The reason I like the idea is that it gives a fundamentally kind of aback threat. Your standard aback does what we know and love. Your backup qb aback probably isn't as developed in the aback running and motion, but if you want to keep him as a qb, well, he's on the field because of his athletic ability, not his aback technique. Instead, you've got a (fast, physical, whyever he's on the field) runner, as well as a promise to catch you looking in the back. Yet another level of mind game for the d coordinator.

Because at Georgia Tech, we don't dream about big magic the one game that matters winning plays that we imagined. Oh no, that happened, I have it on my DVR. And Youtube. I watch it whenever I'm feeling down. No, when we imagine things, we imagine an even more complex, layered offense. An offense that every other head coach has nightmares about. Here at Georgia Tech, we aren't happy until we've defeated the other team in their own heads before the game even starts. Because they know CPJ is out there waiting for them. And their time is coming.

Soon.

Chills man

 

[danny daniel]

I agree completely but I would have said this with less "apology" and in a more simple and straight forward way. Gimmicks only work in rare situational moments over the course of an entire season. And they also tend not to work if your basic offense is not working effectively to begin with. Better to spend time and energy working on "bread and butter" plays than gimmick plays.

I know, it is basically what you said but I had to get my 2 cents worth in.

Better said.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Better said.

Nah....just differently said because I could not help but offer my opinion also.

 

[jwsavhGT]

I guess I disagree with your assessment of this play as a gimmick. I'm 100% with you if we're talking about a hook and lateral or statue of liberty. Those plays are gimmicks because they succeed brilliantly if the defense does X (where X is something pretty involved and specific. Otherwise, you might describe any play in this language.) Good defenses are less likely to be burned because involved X is something you can coach a team not to fall into.

This doesn't require the D not to notice something big, it's fundamentally a similar play to the rocket toss, where if the rocket toss is a called run, this is a called pass. Unusual != gimmick. What's neat about this play strategically is that it can burn safeties who cheat towards the middle, figuring they have a motion presnap to get into defend the rocket toss territory. Suddenly that A-back is hanging back to complete to the other a back or a wr or even the qb.

The key is an aback that does all the other things you want an aback to do while also being able to consistently throw that quick completion. Something worth doing with all abacks in practice time? Probably not- well, not until you're building the dream CPJ NFL team where you can buy a whole offense of option quarterbacks out of college. But, hey, if we're at a place where we have highly talented third (or fourth, etc.) string quarterbacks who are so physical that you want them on the field, why not? They were going to be practicing with their arm anyhow, no?

The only thing that makes the Aback pass a low percentage high risk play is the inexperience of the throwing aback. With the right talent, that's no longer a correct assumption.

The reason I like the idea is that it gives a fundamentally kind of aback threat. Your standard aback does what we know and love. Your backup qb aback probably isn't as developed in the aback running and motion, but if you want to keep him as a qb, well, he's on the field because of his athletic ability, not his aback technique. Instead, you've got a (fast, physical, whyever he's on the field) runner, as well as a promise to catch you looking in the back. Yet another level of mind game for the d coordinator.

Because at Georgia Tech, we don't dream about big magic the one game that matters winning plays that we imagined. Oh no, that happened, I have it on my DVR. And Youtube. I watch it whenever I'm feeling down. No, when we imagine things, we imagine an even more complex, layered offense. An offense that every other head coach has nightmares about. Here at Georgia Tech, we aren't happy until we've defeated the other team in their own heads before the game even starts. Because they know CPJ is out there waiting for them. And their time is coming.

Soon.

Oh be still my heart!

 

[PBR549]

I am a long time football fan and also a long time (devil's advocate) football coach. As a fan I agree that I generally like the unexpected and exciting successful gimmick or the "Fridgen" do most anything at any time anywhere. I suspect us fans are in the majority. However, as a coach my experience gives me a different perspective and opinion:

Our CPJ offense is a deliberate, disciplined, methodical smash mouth run over you approach with smarts and physical techniques. Giving up valuable practice time to polish that attack to work on gimmick (but maybe exciting if it works) is a hard decision less likely made by a coach with dedication to his scheme. To have a good success rate you have to devote valuable practice time to it.

Such gimmick plays more often backfire than work. Example Smelter's ill advised pass (interception) in 2013 and C Dennis's failed execution (partly blocking breakdown) in the Ole Miss Bowl Game. Gimmick plays typically work against weaker or poorly coached teams but success against good teams well coached is less likely.

If you really need a successful play to win a game you want the attempt in your best playmakers hand where your success rate is a practiced and game proven event. (I want J Thomas to execute a pass or run if we really need the play to win a game such as late in the UGA game). Percentages are lower for good players not routinely skilled and practiced throwing a pass (i.e. Smelter, Dennis, Bostic) in a game deciding situation compared to putting the play in your regular playmakers hand.

Now if you want to give the D something to think about (as you suggest) and waste their time practicing against a gimmick play I am all for it, even as a coach, if you do it in a situation where it does not matter if it works or not, and you do not waste too much time on it in practice.

I will admit that years of coaching has somewhat distorted me as a fan and my opinion on this is likely in the minority.

Agree 100%

 

[deeeznutz]

I am a long time football fan and also a long time (devil's advocate) football coach. As a fan I agree that I generally like the unexpected and exciting successful gimmick or the "Fridgen" do most anything at any time anywhere. I suspect us fans are in the majority. However, as a coach my experience gives me a different perspective and opinion:

Our CPJ offense is a deliberate, disciplined, methodical smash mouth run over you approach with smarts and physical techniques. Giving up valuable practice time to polish that attack to work on gimmick (but maybe exciting if it works) is a hard decision less likely made by a coach with dedication to his scheme. To have a good success rate you have to devote valuable practice time to it.

Such gimmick plays more often backfire than work. Example Smelter's ill advised pass (interception) in 2013 and C Dennis's failed execution (partly blocking breakdown) in the Ole Miss Bowl Game. Gimmick plays typically work against weaker or poorly coached teams but success against good teams well coached is less likely.

If you really need a successful play to win a game you want the attempt in your best playmakers hand where your success rate is a practiced and game proven event. (I want J Thomas to execute a pass or run if we really need the play to win a game such as late in the UGA game). Percentages are lower for good players not routinely skilled and practiced throwing a pass (i.e. Smelter, Dennis, Bostic) in a game deciding situation compared to putting the play in your regular playmakers hand.

Now if you want to give the D something to think about (as you suggest) and waste their time practicing against a gimmick play I am all for it, even as a coach, if you do it in a situation where it does not matter if it works or not, and you do not waste too much time on it in practice.

I will admit that years of coaching has somewhat distorted me as a fan and my opinion on this is likely in the minority.

The best way to successfully execute a "trick play" is to have everyone run a standard play, but have a couple players change their assignments to take advantage of a hole. If you've been running rocket toss a bunch, you can run that but give the running A-back and the opposite WR/A-back an alternate assignment to create a route. That way you have had the whole team practice that play, as the rest of the team is just running a basic play they know. It doesn't take much away from practice time as it's only two guys who need to really work on it, and it's not so critical to have a pinpoint pass (if the trick play works, the guy should be wide open).

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Trick plays are fine if used to take advantage of something you see the defense doing repeatedly. For example, if we see the corners and safeties breaking off the receivers as soon as the abacks get the ball.

 

[AE 87]

The best way to successfully execute a "trick play" is to have everyone run a standard play, but have a couple players change their assignments to take advantage of a hole. If you've been running rocket toss a bunch, you can run that but give the running A-back and the opposite WR/A-back an alternate assignment to create a route. That way you have had the whole team practice that play, as the rest of the team is just running a basic play they know. It doesn't take much away from practice time as it's only two guys who need to really work on it, and it's not so critical to have a pinpoint pass (if the trick play works, the guy should be wide open).

I don't think that works because I think we use linemen blocking the second level also on rocket toss. They can't do that on a pass play, iiuc.

 

[deeeznutz]

I don't think that works because I think we use linemen blocking the second level also on rocket toss. They can't do that on a pass play, iiuc.

Good point, but don't a lot of other teams get away with downfield blocking on pass plays (thinking of Clemson and a bunch of read option teams)? I remember that getting brought up a bunch in the "rules change" discussion earlier this offseason. I guess you could work on a more horizontally stretched blocking scheme for that play if that would be an issue, but then yeah you do get into spending practice time on a play you may only use once all year.

 

[Techster]

This thread about MJ's move to AB is actually a fascinating discussion because it highlights the type of athletes CPJ needs to recruit for QB. I was trying to think about any QBs that CPJ recruited that actually ended their careers as a backup QB if they stayed at GT. The only one I can think of Tim Byerly, and CPJ really didn't recruit him more than Byerly recruited us by walking on and earning a scholarship.

I think every QB that CPJ signed out of HS ended up being a big contributor at another position if they didn't stay at QB. There are no career backup QBs at GT.

 

[Skeptic]

I guess I disagree with your assessment of this play as a gimmick. I'm 100% with you if we're talking about a hook and lateral or statue of liberty. Those plays are gimmicks because they succeed brilliantly if the defense does X (where X is something pretty involved and specific. Otherwise, you might describe any play in this language.) Good defenses are less likely to be burned because involved X is something you can coach a team not to fall into. ...

One of the definitions of "gimmick" is something out of the ordinary that has no special relevance. That pretty much is what Danny Daniel opposes. Looking back -- with a particularly defective memory system -- I can think of but four or five of those totally unexpected plays that were intended to do great harm, and did. (One was that tackle eligible play to Barrick -- against whom I don't recall -- that was intended to get a first down and didn't, but only because at the end of his run Barrick reverted to his tight end Twinkletoes days with a dipsy doodle move that got him nailed short. That lead to a wonderful sideline explosion by Johnson that I would give a week's pay to hear a recording, though I figure it would melt the tape. Runs from punt formation shouldn't count, because everybody on the D should be expecting that. I thought it interesting that in the Georgia game, the last play from scrimmage in regulation, Johnson did not go trickery, but was straightforwardly trying to get it downfield far enough to kick.

 

[redmule]

Anybody remember the fake field goal pass against Clemson? Johnson's not afraid to run gimmicks.

Didn't Boomer say last year that Jordan has the best looking passes in warmups? I will be sorely disappointed if we don't have an A Back option pass in our bag.

 

[GT Chillin' It]

Good point, but don't a lot of other teams get away with downfield blocking on pass plays (thinking of Clemson and a bunch of read option teams)? I remember that getting brought up a bunch in the "rules change" discussion earlier this offseason. I guess you could work on a more horizontally stretched blocking scheme for that play if that would be an issue, but then yeah you do get into spending practice time on a play you may only use once all year.

They would have to change something in the blocking technique. It would seem like the new one yard box for ineligible receiver would really screw this kind of play up. Our line is so used to getting to the second level that it would be hard to break that on an aback option pass.

 

[deeeznutz]

They would have to change something in the blocking technique. It would seem like the new one yard box for ineligible receiver would really screw this kind of play up. Our line is so used to getting to the second level that it would be hard to break that on an aback option pass.

Did the one yard box get passed, though? I thought it was considered but they decided to stick with the original 3 yard box.

 

[danny daniel]

Did the one yard box get passed, though? I thought it was considered but they decided to stick with the original 3 yard box.

Last I heard it is still 3 yds.