Passing Game Question

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by OldJacketFan, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    7,048
    Most of us are aware of the questions that exist for Tech's passing attack, inexperienced receivers, new full time QB and the lack of pass protection cohesion with the OL. Given these questions do you feel CPJ will use the Elon and, possibly, the Duke game as an opportunity to allow the receivers more of an opportunity to get game experience having to run routes, see if they can get separation and, most importantly, show that they can consistently catch the ball. By doing this CPJ also allows the O line to get reps to sharpen their cohesion and line stunt pick ups as well as allowing the QB a game feel for the receivers.

    Most of us agree the run game will be fine so does CPJ take a chance and open the passing attack early on?
     
  2. ATL1

    ATL1 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,496
    Man we can only hope..
     
  3. Tech First

    Tech First Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    147
    This what I hope as well.
     
  4. John

    John Peacekeeper Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    I think that losing to teams like Elon and Duke (and MTSU) is CPJ's greatest fear as a coach. So I don't think he'll start out those games with anything out of the ordinary. I forget which games early last year where we threw it a bunch of times after the game was pretty much won. I'm thinking it was either Presbyterian or UVA or perhaps even both.
     
  5. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    7,048
    Presbyterian 8 of 14 243 yds 2 TDs, Virginia 7 of 12 143 yds 1 TD. More what I was asking about what are the thoughts out there of a 20-25 pass attempt game early?
     
  6. John

    John Peacekeeper Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    Hey 14 pass attempts... that's pretty good. :D
     
  7. GTonTop88

    GTonTop88 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,521
    I feel like we'll use our passing game against whoever brings their safeties up and does a good job of stopping positive plays. If they can't stop us with we'll keep pounding and pitching. I don't see us throwing unless we have the game outta reach, or way behind, unless we aren't moving the ball.
     
  8. forensicbuzz

    forensicbuzz Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,281
    He will run the ball mostly. He'll mix in a little of everything else. If the games get out of hand, he'll practice. However, he will look to hone and sharpen that part of the game he feels is most needed to beat the better teams we'll see early in the season. He won't risk the running game being "rusty" for Miami, UNC or VaTech just to provide game experience for the passing game. Those areas will get work after the "bread and butter" is running like a well oiled machine or if the "bread and butter" isn't working.
     
  9. John

    John Peacekeeper Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,909
    While I pretty much agree with this, with all this talk to recruits about running the zone option out of shotgun/pistol and hiring of Bryan Cook, I am really curious how much of that we'll start to see this season. In fact, I probably wouldn't have been able to believe it if it wasn't for Travis being quoted as being told we were going to run the type of plays that the redskins ran with RGIII.
     
  10. Eric

    Eric Retired Co-Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,734
    I'm not sure why people want us to pass so much more? I think we need to be more efficient but it really depends on what the D is bringing at us as how much passing is needed.
     
    John likes this.
  11. xenoabe

    xenoabe Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    394
    I think sitting in that 15-20 range is more our style while still upping the attempts. I don't think CPJ will ever go much higher than that.
     
  12. xenoabe

    xenoabe Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    394
    To me, it's about becoming more dangerous in the passing game even if we don't do more attempts. It seems like less because we've had way too many missed throws or a QB running for his life. If we were 10-13 or 11-16 then I guarantee you people would stop complaining about the passing so much. We need passes to be a threat so that people play off us more, which makes our run game more dangerous. That hasn't been the case and people just load up against us because they weren't scared of the pass.
     
  13. daBuzz

    daBuzz Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    965

    I can answer that. Because teams like Miami, VT, and UGA will stack the box and dare us to throw on them. Having averaged 12 passes per game, we will be inefficient at doing so, and we will fail miserably most of the time when we try and do it.

    I don't think any of us are advocating throwing the ball 40 times per game. But certain games, it would be really nice to throw the ball 20 - 25 times in that game to:
    a) practice in the throwing game
    b) give future opponents more to worry about
    c) help recruit future WRs and QBs. (You can only tell them you're going to open up the passing game so much until they start to call BS unless and until you actually DO open up the passing game.)
     
  14. Eric

    Eric Retired Co-Founder Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,734

    Like I said we don't need to pass more we just need to be more efficient...throwing 10 more times in a game isn't going to make us that more efficient. Plus with the guy we had under center did we really want to pass more? I think we should be able to throw around 15 times a game like Xenoabe said and be efficient at that...that will make teams respect the pass.

    And from the recruiting side I can tell you that passing a little more won't affect anything...the perception isn't going to change. The same kids that are going to come here if we're throwing 20 times a game are the same ones that will come in we throw 10.
     
  15. ATL1

    ATL1 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,496
    I would say more like 20 -25 times a game with a completion percentage of 50%-60% if you really want to have a truly effective and efficient passing attack. That's Oregon and Alabama like ratio, that's a top 10 offense, that leaves teams afraid to face you.
     
  16. poodleface

    poodleface Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    208
    I doubt we'll see anything too groundbreaking in the opening games... I expect the first priority will be making sure the bread and butter plays work with a new starting QB.
     
  17. xenoabe

    xenoabe Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    394
    You're going to be disappointed because I don't ever see us getting there. We have a plenty dangerous enough offense. The biggest improvement I see there is not putting ourselves in 3rd and long and converting short yardage. An improved defense would do wonders for our perception.
     
  18. ATL1

    ATL1 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,496
    Probably will be disappointed, I've been disappointed for the past three years now.
    I'm just speaking of what I would love to see from CPJ. More pistol and shot gun sets, way less TO, more NFL concepts and most importantly an actual recognizable passing attack. No one confuses Alabama or Oregon as being pass happy teams but they do have a passing attack, something Tech has never had. You would think the offensive genius could put some kind of passing attack together after 5 seasons.
     
  19. xenoabe

    xenoabe Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    394
    I know it's been beat to death but Nesbitt and Tevin had below average arms (in terms of accuracy for both and power for Tevin) so we never had a whole lot of hope for a great passing attack. Hopefully Vad can change some of that.
     
  20. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    11,034
    1) When CU stacked the box and crashed their corners, TW picked them apart. TW wasn't as bad as so many make out. Confirmation bias has blown-up his bad throws out of proportion and overlooked his many great throws. Admittedly, he had some what the what throws, but that might be scheme related, thinking of Vad's wild overthrow/interception in the spring game.
    2) It seems to me that plays are designed against down/distance/defense, and I suspect that we could have both passing and rushing plays that attack comparable situations. The next question is likelihood of success. I think that's one of the reasons why our offense runs so much more.
    3) If 2 is true, then the decision to pass is not just a matter of what the D gives us but also what we can do with a high chance of success.
    4) So, greater efficiency might also translate into more attempts.
     

Share This Page