Offensive Game Plan

[Stray Dog THA GAWD]

What plan? Lol

 

[smokey_wasp]

I think Patenaude is a good guy to lead us through our offensive transition (and is likely one of the lowest paid OCs in P5). When we get the types of players we want and are in a better spot financially, we can make a splash hire at OC. Hopefully, Coach Pat will have had enough success to maybe slide into a lower level HC job. This is how I hope it plays out, anyway.

 

[Kennethshannon20]

I think Patenaude is a good guy to lead us through our offensive transition (and is likely one of the lowest paid OCs in P5). When we get the types of players we want and are in a better spot financially, we can make a splash hire at OC. Hopefully, Coach Pat will have had enough success to maybe slide into a lower level HC job. This is how I hope it plays out, anyway.

I'm not giving up hope on PNode yet, but I sure hope he gets a better plan this week.

 

[The Doddfather]

Too soon to say whether we like him or not as an OC. It has been stated ad nauseam that we can’t judge this team or the game plan from the first week against Clem. Let’s see what we have moving forward against teams that aren’t glorified nfl minor leaguers. The game plan could very well be completely different next week. Depends on the opponent. I expect that we will see a different scheme and hopefully fans will come off the ledge after next Saturday.

 

[BCJacket]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought the offensive gameplan against Clemson was actually pretty good. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy.' I doubt there was any possible plan that could have survived contact with Clemson's D.

I'll grant, some of the individual play calls were head-scratching. But (without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight), our best chance to pull the upset was probably to do what we did. Play to our strengths, try to keep the ball on the ground, minimize turnovers, run the clock, control the ball...

Yes, that is CPJ's philosophy. But he didn't invent any of those concepts. To think we could come out and sling the ball around against Clemson's secondary would have been insane. Especially in our first game in the new offense. We'll see, but I'd bet we see a lot more spread and passing, and less option rush, moving forward.

My biggest concern with CDP was that he was going to be stubborn about committing to the pass, even if we're not set up to do it. What I saw looked like a reasonable transition hybrid between what our players know and what he wants to do. I don't know if it works. But I'd prefer him use our players, best suited to the option, to run a version of the option. Rather than insist we run some 'system' of his without the personnel to do it effectively.

 

[MWBATL]

I am certainly willing to give this staff more time to see the offense open up and see more passing.

But I would be lying if I said that the run-pass ratio against USF shouldn’t be much more balanced than it was against Clemson. Again, I’d rather see us invest in the future than play for the short term. If TO isn’t the QB to run the offense long term I would rather see us let a freshman play and learn so that we’ll be better positioned next year.

 

[Novajacket]

A lot of people mad here on how the plays were executed, which ended up in a lot of running plays. I think this was a smart game plan for the season to transition the offense. To me we were running a lot of RPO, and TO executed what he thought was best based on what he saw. We have to establish our base plays first, plays that we think we can execute no matter what. We were not fully able to execute those base plays against the #1 team in the country, big shock I know. I am expecting us to do a better job against USF on executing the base plays, just because their defense isn’t Clemson’s D. In addition, we will have another game of experience and tape to see what we can improve on. It took about 5 games for CPJ to take hold his first year too, remember almost losing to GW? He had the benefit of a good defense that year (best defense during his tenure). I think the defense will come around faster, especially the next few games.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I'm not giving up hope on PNode yet, but I sure hope he gets a better plan this week.

Dont get me wrong. I won't complain if he turns out to be a fantastic OC and stays a decade.

 

[Technut1990]

I guess I need to be careful how I say this but While I’m disappointed in the game PLAN I’m more concerned about the lack of adjustment during the game. Since we are just talking on this board and don’t control anything or have the information to do so, I’m observing that to me it looked like we knew we were outmatched going in and called plays from that perspective. When I say go down with a fight I mean throw the ball a lot more than you did when you are down 21-0. The reason I don’t think this was TO misreads is that even in teaching moments you don’t leave him in if he is misreading the defense that much.

we were going to run run run no matter what, Why ? Because had Clemson ate up our new vaunted offense it would add to the difficulty of installing it and keeping buy in, as it’s effectiveness is as good as the player confidence in it.

And yes I think discretion was the better part of valor from a developmental and entire season perspective. I think we see Johnson and more of the real offense from here on out.

 

[knoxjacket]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought the offensive gameplan against Clemson was actually pretty good. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy.' I doubt there was any possible plan that could have survived contact with Clemson's D.

I'll grant, some of the individual play calls were head-scratching. But (without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight), our best chance to pull the upset was probably to do what we did. Play to our strengths, try to keep the ball on the ground, minimize turnovers, run the clock, control the ball...

Yes, that is CPJ's philosophy. But he didn't invent any of those concepts. To think we could come out and sling the ball around against Clemson's secondary would have been insane. Especially in our first game in the new offense. We'll see, but I'd bet we see a lot more spread and passing, and less option rush, moving forward.

My biggest concern with CDP was that he was going to be stubborn about committing to the pass, even if we're not set up to do it. What I saw looked like a reasonable transition hybrid between what our players know and what he wants to do. I don't know if it works. But I'd prefer him use our players, best suited to the option, to run a version of the option. Rather than insist we run some 'system' of his without the personnel to do it effectively.

100% spot on.

 

[684Bee]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought the offensive gameplan against Clemson was actually pretty good. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy.' I doubt there was any possible plan that could have survived contact with Clemson's D.

I'll grant, some of the individual play calls were head-scratching. But (without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight), our best chance to pull the upset was probably to do what we did. Play to our strengths, try to keep the ball on the ground, minimize turnovers, run the clock, control the ball...

Yes, that is CPJ's philosophy. But he didn't invent any of those concepts. To think we could come out and sling the ball around against Clemson's secondary would have been insane. Especially in our first game in the new offense. We'll see, but I'd bet we see a lot more spread and passing, and less option rush, moving forward.

My biggest concern with CDP was that he was going to be stubborn about committing to the pass, even if we're not set up to do it. What I saw looked like a reasonable transition hybrid between what our players know and what he wants to do. I don't know if it works. But I'd prefer him use our players, best suited to the option, to run a version of the option. Rather than insist we run some 'system' of his without the personnel to do it effectively.

This is pretty much exactly my thoughts, as well.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought the offensive gameplan against Clemson was actually pretty good. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy.' I doubt there was any possible plan that could have survived contact with Clemson's D.

I'll grant, some of the individual play calls were head-scratching. But (without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight), our best chance to pull the upset was probably to do what we did. Play to our strengths, try to keep the ball on the ground, minimize turnovers, run the clock, control the ball...

Yes, that is CPJ's philosophy. But he didn't invent any of those concepts. To think we could come out and sling the ball around against Clemson's secondary would have been insane. Especially in our first game in the new offense. We'll see, but I'd bet we see a lot more spread and passing, and less option rush, moving forward.

My biggest concern with CDP was that he was going to be stubborn about committing to the pass, even if we're not set up to do it. What I saw looked like a reasonable transition hybrid between what our players know and what he wants to do. I don't know if it works. But I'd prefer him use our players, best suited to the option, to run a version of the option. Rather than insist we run some 'system' of his without the personnel to do it effectively.

I agree with this assessment but why wouldn’t you run more screen passes, maybe a reverse or maybe a swing pass to get the QB settled or to use their aggressiveness against them? I just think there were more “options” to try than what we ran.

Clemson probably would’ve blown them up with the way they were playing. Basically they were stacking the box and daring us to throw long, correct?

 

[UgaBlows]

I agree with this assessment but why wouldn’t you run more screen passes, maybe a reverse or maybe a swing pass to get the QB settled or to use their aggressiveness against them? I just think there were more “options” to try than what we ran.

Clemson probably would’ve blown them up with the way they were playing. Basically they were stacking the box and daring us to throw long, correct?

They tried some early and TO missed badly, it killed the first drive iirc

 

[GT_receivers]

Start Graham.

 

[UgaBlows]

Feiw I believe that we will see our “normal” offense going forward, different starter and more balanced attack......if OL protection allows it, if were not getting any pass pro for the QB then they prob revert back to the QB double option survival plan we saw at Clemson.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I can remember sitting in the stands during Ross's first 3 years at Tech bemoaning the fact that, at least to me, it appeared that he was trying to "force" players to run his offense, and it wasn't working. In time, of course, that paid off big time, but there's never any guarantee that that approach will work. I like, for the most part, the approach we took offensively against Clemson, capitalizing (or at least trying to capitalize) on the strengths of our current roster of players. Now that we have the first game, and one against the number 1 team in the country, out of the way, I think we will see more variety in play calling, neither diminishing the known strengths of our players, nor "forcing" them to do things they aren't accustomed to, but building from those strengths and (hopefully) developing new strengths.

 

[stech81]

Ross, O'Leary, and Johnson were not players coaches. We will see if a players coach now in today's time can turn Tech around.

 

[danny daniel]

My biggest concern about the game plan was using the gun in the red zone and critical short yardage. Every Saturday we see teams start first and ten inside the 5 and wind up with zip points. A good O needs the ability to get short yardage to score and to keep drives alive. Then you can have a 4 down mentality in certain situations and play that to an advantage. I fear PNode will stay in the gun and frustrate me to no end.

 

[BCJacket]

I agree with this assessment but why wouldn’t you run more screen passes, maybe a reverse or maybe a swing pass to get the QB settled or to use their aggressiveness against them? I just think there were more “options” to try than what we ran.

Clemson probably would’ve blown them up with the way they were playing. Basically they were stacking the box and daring us to throw long, correct?

I'm just totally speculating here. But I'm sure our coaches are realistic. Much more realistic than some on this board. What was our chance of upsetting Clemson? 1-in-30? I wonder if any other new head coach has ever had his first game against the defending national champ and consensus preseason #1 at their place? Not to mention with a completely new system. If so, it cannot be many. I seriously can't think of a worse scenario for a football team.

I think they came up with a plan that maximized that slim chance. Once it became clear that wasn't going to work, doing anything else- trying more risk-reward plays, wasn't going to affect the outcome.

At that point, what mattered most was getting out of the situation with the team's physical and mental health intact. So, stick to the plan and grind it out. Start the real plan next week.

I also think that's why TO was QB1 for the game. He was the only QB who's played in a big environment before (VT) and they weren't putting him in a position to fail big. TO had some good runs and positives to take away. Asking LJ or Graham to take their first meaningful snaps in that environment against maybe the best secondary in the country, under constant pass rush. Not good for a player's development.

 

[gt69hjcollins]

I think that either people are mis-stating what they mean or you are misunderstanding what they are saying. I think the coaches felt that given our level of current proficiency and the skill sets of our opponents that the best possibility for us to be at all competitive was to do what our most experienced players could do well. I think it was pretty obvious that they felt our best chance to start the first game of the season under our new staff against the best team in the country was to put our most experienced and most likely to be poised QB out there and do what he does best rather than trying to do things with him that aren’t in his wheel house, especially against a team that could make us pay dearly for those types of mistakes.

I happen to think that with Tobias’s skill set and his athleticism and skill running the ball it was best to try and maximize that. Then when Lucas came in he, unfortunately, looked very uncomfortable (not a criticism, it was his first game in years and it was against the best team in the country and it was 1min left in the half with us down big already) and under those circumstances it seemed obvious to me that the coaches felt he wouldn’t be effective for the rest of the game.

As for James Graham I love that he seems fearless and is explosive. He makes a lot of freshman mistakes because, surprise, he’s a freshman. But when he was in the game the coaches opened it up to take advantage of his skills. But again, seems obvious they felt his youth wouldn’t produce the best potential for success in the game over an extended period of time.

So it’s not “I don’t think we can be competitive so let’s be conservative.” It’s “I think our best chance to be competitive is to be conservative and do what our most experienced players do better.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said! I like that type of approach. I think we can anticipate great improvement over the course of the season!