New formations..

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
The problem with the triple option (IMO) is that hardly anyone is HS runs it. So when you get guys to GT, it is not what they are used to and takes time to learn. I also think the TO is outdated. IF* run correctly, it is unstoppable, but how many seasons will it take to cut your losses and try something else? How many winning teams (NC) run the TO?

Zero..

I think that is the problem, but I don't get paid to be a coach.

I think points per drive is the simplest and most direct measure of an offensive efficiency. It's comparable to the scoring offense stat (point per game) but does not suffer from the growing difference in number of possessions on offense between the hunh passing offenses that can get close to 20 possessions a game and GT's more methodical run-first offense which will have closer to 10 possessions a game.

What national ranking in points per drive over the last six years would you accept as evidence that our offensive scheme is not the problem?
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
I think points per drive is the simplest and most direct measure of an offensive efficiency. It's comparable to the scoring offense stat (point per game) but does not suffer from the growing difference in number of possessions on offense between the hunh passing offenses that can get close to 20 possessions a game and GT's more methodical run-first offense which will have closer to 10 possessions a game.

What national ranking in points per drive over the last six years would you accept as evidence that our offensive scheme is not the problem?
I think it should go just one step further and be delineated by length of drive. For example, ppd on drives of 80+ yards, 60-80 yards, 40 - 60 yards, 20 - 40 yards, and 20 - 0 yards.

It is entirely possible that we are pretty good in each category, relative to everybody else that is, but suffer because most of our drives are on the long end of the spectrum. Starting field position is a huge factor in scoring efficiency, but has absolutely nothing to do with the offense.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,520
The problem with the triple option (IMO) is that hardly anyone is HS runs it. So when you get guys to GT, it is not what they are used to and takes time to learn. I also think the TO is outdated. IF* run correctly, it is unstoppable, but how many seasons will it take to cut your losses and try something else? How many winning teams (NC) run the TO?

Zero..

I think that is the problem, but I don't get paid to be a coach.
The forward pass is older than the "TO".
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
The problem with the triple option (IMO) is that hardly anyone is HS runs it. So when you get guys to GT, it is not what they are used to and takes time to learn. I also think the TO is outdated. IF* run correctly, it is unstoppable, but how many seasons will it take to cut your losses and try something else? How many winning teams (NC) run the TO?

Zero..

I think that is the problem, but I don't get paid to be a coach.

I think it is irrelevant what offenses teams run in high school. If you only recruited players that came from schools running the same offense then you would be recruiting from a much smaller pool players than the competition which would put you at a severe disadvantage in recruiting. If we had a coach who base offense was an I-formation, would you want him to avoid recruiting all the 4* & 5* rated players that played in spread offenses since it would take more time to train those guys to play in from an I-formation? You recruit talent and then train it to fit the offense. Most players take a redshirt their first year anyway so they have a lot of practice in the offense before they play their first down. A player good enough to play as a true freshman is good enough to adapt to the offense regardless of the offense his high school team ran.

As to your comment about trying something different, GT ran a completely different offense under Gailey and didn't have as much success as CPJ has had. Changing the offense can be done, though it will take a new coach to do that. While I can appreciate the desire to try something different, I would caution you to not make the mistake of thinking that changing the offense automatically brings more success.
 

stylee

Ramblin' Wreck
Featured Member
Messages
603
I think it should go just one step further and be delineated by length of drive. For example, ppd on drives of 80+ yards, 60-80 yards, 40 - 60 yards, 20 - 40 yards, and 20 - 0 yards.

It is entirely possible that we are pretty good in each category, relative to everybody else that is, but suffer because most of our drives are on the long end of the spectrum. Starting field position is a huge factor in scoring efficiency, but has absolutely nothing to do with the offense.

Interesting thought to go along with a quality post from AE 87.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
I think it should go just one step further and be delineated by length of drive. For example, ppd on drives of 80+ yards, 60-80 yards, 40 - 60 yards, 20 - 40 yards, and 20 - 0 yards.

It is entirely possible that we are pretty good in each category, relative to everybody else that is, but suffer because most of our drives are on the long end of the spectrum. Starting field position is a huge factor in scoring efficiency, but has absolutely nothing to do with the offense.

I've previously agreed with you in principle that starting field position can be a factor (I'm not persuaded it's as deciding a factor as your post suggest). However, I've been offering ppd as a simple and fairly direct way of measuring efficiency. I can calculate scrimmage scores, rushing TDs, passing TDs and FGs (as distinguished from special teams and defensive TDs). I can calculate drives by summing failed scrimmaged TDs, FG atts, punts, turnovers and failed 4th downs. I can easily get all of these stats for all D1 teams from cfbstats.com.

Where do you get average starting field position?
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
I think it is irrelevant what offenses teams run in high school. If you only recruited players that came from schools running the same offense then you would be recruiting from a much smaller pool players than the competition which would put you at a severe disadvantage in recruiting. If we had a coach who base offense was an I-formation, would you want him to avoid recruiting all the 4* & 5* rated players that played in spread offenses since it would take more time to train those guys to play in from an I-formation? You recruit talent and then train it to fit the offense. Most players take a redshirt their first year anyway so they have a lot of practice in the offense before they play their first down. A player good enough to play as a true freshman is good enough to adapt to the offense regardless of the offense his high school team ran.

As to your comment about trying something different, GT ran a completely different offense under Gailey and didn't have as much success as CPJ has had. Changing the offense can be done, though it will take a new coach to do that. While I can appreciate the desire to try something different, I would caution you to not make the mistake of thinking that changing the offense automatically brings more success.

I can see that. I just think more guys can adapt more easily and have more of an impact early if they were used to what they ran in HS. I know its a different game, but I have watched GT over the past couple of years and screaming at the TV b/c 3 running plays go nowhere. just my .02.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
I think it is irrelevant what offenses teams run in high school. If you only recruited players that came from schools running the same offense then you would be recruiting from a much smaller pool players than the competition which would put you at a severe disadvantage in recruiting. If we had a coach who base offense was an I-formation, would you want him to avoid recruiting all the 4* & 5* rated players that played in spread offenses since it would take more time to train those guys to play in from an I-formation? You recruit talent and then train it to fit the offense. Most players take a redshirt their first year anyway so they have a lot of practice in the offense before they play their first down. A player good enough to play as a true freshman is good enough to adapt to the offense regardless of the offense his high school team ran.

As to your comment about trying something different, GT ran a completely different offense under Gailey and didn't have as much success as CPJ has had. Changing the offense can be done, though it will take a new coach to do that. While I can appreciate the desire to try something different, I would caution you to not make the mistake of thinking that changing the offense automatically brings more success.


I kinda disagree with you recruit talent and train to fit the O. At some positions, yes. Hate to bring up SEC, you won't see Bama recruit a scrambling QB, doesn't fit the O.
Lee is a prime example. Sure, he ran the offense and moved the ball but how effective was it? Honestly?
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
I think points per drive is the simplest and most direct measure of an offensive efficiency. It's comparable to the scoring offense stat (point per game) but does not suffer from the growing difference in number of possessions on offense between the hunh passing offenses that can get close to 20 possessions a game and GT's more methodical run-first offense which will have closer to 10 possessions a game.

What national ranking in points per drive over the last six years would you accept as evidence that our offensive scheme is not the problem?


I will take ACC championships as proof..
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
I will take ACC championships as proof..

Fair enough. Some people believe that winning games involves the defense as well as the offense. But, you aren't the only person in this forum for whom that concept apparently seems strange.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,520
I kinda disagree with you recruit talent and train to fit the O. At some positions, yes. Hate to bring up SEC, you won't see Bama recruit a scrambling QB, doesn't fit the O.
Lee is a prime example. Sure, he ran the offense and moved the ball but how effective was it? Honestly?
Maybe not at 'Bama, but Auburn definitely seeks a running QB because it is the system.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
Fair enough. Some people believe that winning games involves the defense as well as the offense. But, you aren't the only person in this forum for whom that concept apparently seems strange.

Not trying to start a fight, man.
You are right, it takes D too. Ask T A&M...
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
I kinda disagree with you recruit talent and train to fit the O. At some positions, yes. Hate to bring up SEC, you won't see Bama recruit a scrambling QB, doesn't fit the O.
Lee is a prime example. Sure, he ran the offense and moved the ball but how effective was it? Honestly?

I'd agree that recruiting has to consider the players talents in the context of what the player will be asked to do and that you only recruit the players that you think have the potential to do what you will ask of them. However, when you find those players, you will recruit them regardless of what offense they are running in high school.

I don't think any ineffectiveness with Lee as QB was related to a mismatch between this talent and what he was asked to do in the offense. I say that because we all agreed that Lee had more talent than Washington, who ran the offense competently.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
I'd agree that recruiting has to consider the players talents in the context of what the player will be asked to do and that you only recruit the players that you think have the potential to do what you will ask of them. However, when you find those players, you will recruit them regardless of what offense they are running in high school.

I don't think any ineffectiveness with Lee as QB was related to a mismatch between this talent and what he was asked to do in the offense. I say that because we all agreed that Lee had more talent than Washington, who ran the offense competently.

Fair enough..

Serious question.
What was it with Lee? I have read that he didn't run hard, wasn't aggressive etc...
I will admit I didn't watch him much last year.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
Where do you get average starting field position?
I can't find that anywhere and it's a head scratcher. Seems to be pretty important and revealing if you ask me. I guess you could calculate it yourself, the raw data is in the box scores. Maybe I'll do it sometime, however, it's not very meaningful if you can't compare it to other teams.

My guess would be the better teams in college football would have some of the best average starting field position, which I would say is a pretty good measure of the combined effectiveness of defense + special teams.
 
Last edited:
Top