Offensive and Defensive coordinators

jchens_GT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
573
Location
Georgia
Fwiw, it seems to me that CGC has bought into an offensive strategy of using different QBs and personnel packages to complicate opponent prep.

Iow, he doesn't want a single QB or offensive identity.

I don’t know what’s up, but I hope it isn’t this. I’ve heard Patenaude say in interviews that ideally, he wants one guy. I’ve not heard Collins say that. I’ve also noticed that Collins is more vague in interviews and tends to focus on brand messaging and motivating/promoting our players in his interviews. Hopefully these first few games are a trial period, and we’ll see someone step up and be the guy. I guess it’s too early to really know what’s going on yet.

Last thing, I really didn’t like seeing us sub QBs in the middle of a series. Feel like that really only makes sense when someone is clearly injured and needs to come out.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,527
Going all the way back to his LSU days Nick Saban has changed QBs in the middle of a game very effectively. Granted we are doing it more each game than he has, but I'm not worried about QB or offense identity with the mix mash of players we have on offense, not really suited for much of anything as a unit. Maybe something evolves eventually, I'm into recruiting for the next two years. That's where the interest and excitement is for me.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,237
Fwiw, it seems to me that CGC has bought into an offensive strategy of using different QBs and personnel packages to complicate opponent prep.

Iow, he doesn't want a single QB or offensive identity.
When you don’t have 1 who can do everything you want you don’t have much choice. He didn’t do this at Temple once they found their QB
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
The multiple QB approach is fine as long as you aren’t trying to run a different system with each one. Each QB can just know his stuff, but the OL, RB, WR, & TR has to know all of it. You can emphasize different components of the offense with each QB so long as the basic offense is same for every QB or else you risk having the non-QB players confused and under prepared.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,585
The multiple QB approach is fine as long as you aren’t trying to run a different system with each one. Each QB can just know his stuff, but the OL, RB, WR, & TR has to know all of it. You can emphasize different components of the offense with each QB so long as the basic offense is same for every QB or else you risk having the non-QB players confused and under prepared.

I don't think we're trying to run different systems with them. I think we're trying to run different parts of the same system hoping one stands out enough in his part to lean on that for the year while he develops in the other parts.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,121
Location
Augusta, Georgia
There's obviously a lot of heartburn among the fan base about the three headed QB monster we currently have, but try to remember that we are in a fairly uniques position. What other FBS school has recently transitioned from a primarily running option offense to a more "NFL style" O? The closest I can recall is the BVG experiment at GaSo that lasted all of a year. I don't think we can fairly make assumptions about the future of our offensive identity/scheme based off anything we do this year, and possibly next year as well. This is a total rebuild.
 

pbrown520

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
586
Swinging gate was always an attempt to confuse the defense with an odd look that we used when I played HS ball. It very rarely works when you put it on film and you will see most teams audible out of it when the defense aligns properly. I think in both cases we should have audibled out of it into something else, but I think that the coaches possibly thought our guys could win a one on one. In both cases this year was a complete waste of down - I would be curious to see if it ever worked at Temple.
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
656
Swinging gate was always an attempt to confuse the defense with an odd look that we used when I played HS ball. It very rarely works when you put it on film and you will see most teams audible out of it when the defense aligns properly. I think in both cases we should have audibled out of it into something else, but I think that the coaches possibly thought our guys could win a one on one. In both cases this year was a complete waste of down - I would be curious to see if it ever worked at Temple.

Certainly felt odd to me. My understanding of a a swinging gate that works requires either:

A. A confused defense failing to pick up a TE
B. A good matchup on the RB next to the QB for some short yardage run
C. Using all those blockers ahead of the "protected" receiver to make some yards

C is infrequently used because you can better accomplish the same from a more traditional under center snap.

Maybe they were thinking it might help the OL matchups? Hard to say. I think whatever was supposed to happen didn't.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,619
Certainly felt odd to me. My understanding of a a swinging gate that works requires either:

A. A confused defense failing to pick up a TE
B. A good matchup on the RB next to the QB for some short yardage run
C. Using all those blockers ahead of the "protected" receiver to make some yards

C is infrequently used because you can better accomplish the same from a more traditional under center snap.

Maybe they were thinking it might help the OL matchups? Hard to say. I think whatever was supposed to happen didn't.

When you are struggling to run basic stuff it just looks like a waste to spend time on a gimmick. It smacks of desperation rather than confidence. .
 

boger2337

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,435
No offense should look this bad. Never seen more predictable plays in my life. I called almost 7 plays in a row twice.

Sure you can say he doesn't have much to work with but to lose to a team with half the talent is in excusable.
 
Top