Opponents Defensive Scheme

Ggee87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,046
Location
Douglasville, Georgia
I wonder if Laskey was still here as RS senior if the offense would be different this year. I would think teams would have to respect the dive which would open things up for JT. IMO it is very important to use your resources wisely and not waste any eligibility early on in a players career. We have razor thin margins of error from a depth and production standpoint.
Nail... Meet head. VERY thin margin when it come to recruiting and red shirting. But... I'm glad alot of young guys are getting experience and it's something different than previous classes. Maybe it will be beneficial in a couple of years. That's what I am hoping happens.
 

Ggee87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,046
Location
Douglasville, Georgia
gotta disagree, the long snap would give JT time to assess PLUS,the THREAT of him running keeps the LBs in so our recs have more room to get open including OVER THE MIDDLE
Shotgun ONLY on obvious passing plays or 2 minute drill type situations. It'll atleast get rid of that backwards footwork drop and turn he has to do before he can even look down field for a WRs route to come open. If you take that few seconds of dropback away... he can atleast use that time to survey things and make quicker decisions in the passing game.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,916
Shotgun ONLY on obvious passing plays or 2 minute drill type situations. It'll atleast get rid of that backwards footwork drop and turn he has to do before he can even look down field for a WRs route to come open. If you take that few seconds of dropback away... he can atleast use that time to survey things and make quicker decisions in the passing game.
AND
Since he is facing down field rather than racing back to his spot , He can see the rush developing
AND
put into the jet computer program and blast off
OR
Shoot a pass to the CROSSING a back
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Using guys as freshmen is ok if they help you that year. Laskey's true frosh year was wasted, imo. Using true frosh puts more pressure on your recruiting as you have to have a guy in the next class good enough to fill the void.

The problem with all those seniors graduating last year is there were no juniors of equal caliber ready to step in this year. Heck, there weren't even an sophs.

Snoddy and Andrews to name two. But we all know what has happened there. No doubt...balancing classes is still a bit of a work in progress.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Argument for what case?
Now Boomer, such dissembling is unbecoming of you. But perhaps I misunderstood that you felt the current team is much better than its record and it is not a bad team. I reluctantly concluded after that mashup against Virginia that the record speaks for itself. I have been a Tech fan too long not to find the season painful, but there it is: six straight losses, three wins, one signature for certain, but two tuneups, and one of them being paid to take the beating. But again, perhaps it is my misunderstanding.
 

TechTravis

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
666
gotta disagree, the long snap would give JT time to assess PLUS,the THREAT of him running keeps the LBs in so our recs have more room to get open including OVER THE MIDDLE
this is only correct if the OL holds. Also, shotgun gives DE's, often the most athletic guys on the field, a flatter, easier trajectory at the mesh point. All you're doing at that point is losing 4 yds instead of 1. IDK what the answer is, but im fairly certain it isnt moving the QB further behind an ol that can't block. My opinion; we've seen underperforming OL's more often than not while Sewak has been here. Many personnel variations, one constant. It's time for him to be moved on.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,262
Now Boomer, such dissembling is unbecoming of you. But perhaps I misunderstood that you felt the current team is much better than its record and it is not a bad team. I reluctantly concluded after that mashup against Virginia that the record speaks for itself. I have been a Tech fan too long not to find the season painful, but there it is: six straight losses, three wins, one signature for certain, but two tuneups, and one of them being paid to take the beating. But again, perhaps it is my misunderstanding.
Once again you leave me confused. "dissembling"? What are you trying to say? Perhaps my vocab isn't up to snuff. Maybe I need to clarify. We have a competitive football team. That is my position or "case" as you say. It is impossible to say we are a good team because we are not finding ways to win. Good teams do that. IMHO "bad" football teams are not competitive in very many games. We have played close games against teams with good records. That makes us competitive in my book. Go back and look at what the teams we have lost to do against "bad" teams. It looks a little different.
 
Last edited:

GT_B

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
640
Nail... Meet head. VERY thin margin when it come to recruiting and red shirting. But... I'm glad alot of young guys are getting experience and it's something different than previous classes. Maybe it will be beneficial in a couple of years. That's what I am hoping happens.

I don't even think with Laskey we would have much different results. The line isn't blocking anyone, so there would still be no where for Laskey to run. I think losing Shaq was bigger than anyone knew. IIRC, most of our BBack dives were right behind Burden/Shaq, I would say 80% of dives went behind Shaq and he was driving his man 5 yards off the ball.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Once again you leave me confused. "dissembling"? What are you trying to say? Perhaps my vocab isn't up to snuff. Maybe I need to clarify. We have a competitive football team. That is my position or "case" as you say. It is impossible to say we are a good team because we are not finding ways to win. Good teams do that. IMHO "bad" football teams are not competitive in very many games. We have played close games against teams with good records. That makes us competitive in my book. Go back and look at what the teams we have lost to do against "bad" teams. It looks a little different.
You know, we can't go through life meeting this way. I never wrote that you wrote GT was "a good team," but that you felt it is "better than its record and is not a bad" team while being competitive. While my reluctant conclusion -- and it is reluctant for a lot of reasons -- is that it is what its record says it is, all assumptions to the contrary, particularly since all those assumptions tilt in Tech's favor. I agree we have been competitive in four of the losses, though I disagree one of those games was against ND. There was a time when that would be written off as "scoring two TDs late to make it interesting." Not competitive, interesting. I think Clemson and ND waxed us. I appreciate being "competitive". I really do, having once lost a HS game so massively the other guys were down to 3rd and 4th team late in the second quarter -- try that for being embarrassing. I just get no satisfaction from it because at the end of the game the only score that counts is the last one on the scoreboard. I do not suggest you, or any other board member, does. Merely that to talk about being competitive with a six-loss team is excessively optimistic. There is a difference in "competing" -- and except for Clemson, I think we have competed to the end -- and in "being competitive."

Seems to me that is perilously close to the dreaded "moral victory."
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,027
You know, we can't go through life meeting this way. I never wrote that you wrote GT was "a good team," but that you felt it is "better than its record and is not a bad" team while being competitive. While my reluctant conclusion -- and it is reluctant for a lot of reasons -- is that it is what its record says it is, all assumptions to the contrary, particularly since all those assumptions tilt in Tech's favor. I agree we have been competitive in four of the losses, though I disagree one of those games was against ND. There was a time when that would be written off as "scoring two TDs late to make it interesting." Not competitive, interesting. I think Clemson and ND waxed us. I appreciate being "competitive". I really do, having once lost a HS game so massively the other guys were down to 3rd and 4th team late in the second quarter -- try that for being embarrassing. I just get no satisfaction from it because at the end of the game the only score that counts is the last one on the scoreboard. I do not suggest you, or any other board member, does. Merely that to talk about being competitive with a six-loss team is excessively optimistic. There is a difference in "competing" -- and except for Clemson, I think we have competed to the end -- and in "being competitive."

Seems to me that is perilously close to the dreaded "moral victory."
I agree there are no moral victories. However there is a difference between being a "bad team" and being a "competitive team that can't find a way to win" when projecting forward. Bad teams have a long, long way to go to be competitive, much less winners. Competitive teams have less ground to make up.

Again, this has nothing to do with my feeling about this year. It only has to do with next. Just because our performance is down this year doesn't automatically mean it will be again next year. This year proves there is no overlap in GT football if it says anything at all.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I agree there are no moral victories. However there is a difference between being a "bad team" and being a "competitive team that can't find a way to win" when projecting forward. Bad teams have a long, long way to go to be competitive, much less winners. Competitive teams have less ground to make up.

Again, this has nothing to do with my feeling about this year. It only has to do with next. Just because our performance is down this year doesn't automatically mean it will be again next year. This year proves there is no overlap in GT football if it says anything at all.
Don't argue with your conclusions at all. '14 over '13 is more than enough evidence that one year's performance does not necessary mean it will repeat the next. But there are deep, systemic problems on defense that have festered eight years. I have no idea what they are or how to fix them. Johnson makes enough money to do that. There are other areas as well, but my main concern is finishing '16 strong and then the fan base, me included, having a reasonable and nuanced view of the 2016 season. But what the heck. Maybe if nothing else this season has deep -sixed the cocky view that Abacks, Bbacks and WRs are plug-and-play in this offense. If I recall, and that is not a lock, you were one of the very few on the board who were cautioning about that very early.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
this is only correct if the OL holds. Also, shotgun gives DE's, often the most athletic guys on the field, a flatter, easier trajectory at the mesh point. All you're doing at that point is losing 4 yds instead of 1. IDK what the answer is, but im fairly certain it isnt moving the QB further behind an ol that can't block. My opinion; we've seen underperforming OL's more often than not while Sewak has been here. Many personnel variations, one constant. It's time for him to be moved on.
if the defensive end is the most athletic guy on the field, he would not be at DE.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,501
Location
Huntsville,Al
Don't argue with your conclusions at all. '14 over '13 is more than enough evidence that one year's performance does not necessary mean it will repeat the next. But there are deep, systemic problems on defense that have festered eight years. I have no idea what they are or how to fix them. Johnson makes enough money to do that. There are other areas as well, but my main concern is finishing '16 strong and then the fan base, me included, having a reasonable and nuanced view of the 2016 season. But what the heck. Maybe if nothing else this season has deep -sixed the cocky view that Abacks, Bbacks and WRs are plug-and-play in this offense. If I recall, and that is not a lock, you were one of the very few on the board who were cautioning about that very early.

wow-"deep systemic problems on def"'--S,well said
I could guess what they are but pure conjecture and I would get ripped by guys who probably said 6 yrs ago that the DC was the only problem
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Where would he be? Ask most NCAA or NFL coaches. Big Time DE's are athletic cyborgs with forty inch verticals and no conscious.
No argument the "big time" DE's are athletic. Just the anointing as "the best on the field." Given two "big" time players, I'd go with the MLB who has greater responsibilities and more space to cover. As for "the most", Calvin Johnson wins in a landslide, and as a rule WRs are more athletic. RBs now not so much. Maybe "big time" corners if they have the size. I was tempted to say kicker just to start an argument.
 

upwgdrb

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
199
By diverting practice time to the shotgun, the offense would be even worse. There are a lot of other reasons which CPJ has mentioned.

Disagree with this. I would hope we devote some time to the two minute drill. Just practice with a shot gun formation. Move the bback to one side and go with the exact same plays. He gets more time to see the field and routes develop. This also includes seeing a blitz scheme better. Contrary to popular legend we won a game against Duke when Lee was here primarily running out of the diamond formation. Our guys are smart enough to pick up another formation.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Disagree with this. I would hope we devote some time to the two minute drill. Just practice with a shot gun formation. Move the bback to one side and go with the exact same plays. He gets more time to see the field and routes develop. This also includes seeing a blitz scheme better. Contrary to popular legend we won a game against Duke when Lee was here primarily running out of the diamond formation. Our guys are smart enough to pick up another formation.
You can "pick up" another formation by seeing it chalked on the board. Actually doing it is the trick. Besides which arguments like this are monumental wastes because Johnson is not going there. Next.
 
Top