Pat Hill to GT?

mts315

mts315

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
This is a chicken or the egg question at the heart. Would Hill be able to come in and produce a better product on the field which would in turn give us a couple more wins which would increase or national prominence and therefore our recruiting.

The other side of that coin is can we bring in a younger fiery coach who would be a better recruiter thereby increasing our results on the field.

One of these two options pays dividends in the current season. The other may payoff 2 to 3 years down the road. I personally prefer option 1.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
I've got no issue with his age. Don't think he will be hired here because he doesn't know the blocking schemes and techniques. The pool is limited with OLine coaches that can coach what we run. Not a lot of young coaches doing OLine in this system either. It's kind of a dead end path with not many options outside of GT and military schools.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Our system doesn't reinvent blocking techniques. May do more pulling and cutting than other systems but the techniques are the same.
 
70Jacket

70Jacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
79
nodawgs said:
I've got no issue with his age. Don't think he will be hired here because he doesn't know the blocking schemes and techniques. The pool is limited with OLine coaches that can coach what we run. Not a lot of young coaches doing OLine in this system either. It's kind of a dead end path with not many options outside of GT and military schools.
Click to expand...

Ole Pat was coaching when the Veer and Wishbone were prevalent; he could be just what the doc ordered; don't know if he's had any experience at an academic institute- not necesary
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
nodawgs said:
No, ...it's a lot different. Trust me.
Click to expand...
Do we drive block differently? Do we use leverage differently? Hands? I concede we do less pure pass blocking and our splits may vary more than other offenses. But I maintain the techniques are the same. Please enlighten my ignorance though.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Whiskey_Clear said:
Do we drive block differently? Do we use leverage differently? Hands? I concede we do less pure pass blocking and our splits may vary more than other offenses. But I maintain the techniques are the same. Please enlighten my ignorance though.
Click to expand...

Few things: We have more weight forward presnap. Back stays flat longer, head down longer. Different aiming points, different steps, different angles. Totally different blocking rules. Pass blocking is way different than conventional offenses.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Steps and angles are gonna be dependent on splits and where the D lines up...also on the O-lineman's read on who to block. I just don't see the rest being huge differences in technique. Maybe I just don't recognize rocket science when I see it. Just not buying Hill would be incapable of coaching in our system. I've been wrong before though.
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
I've coached several different offenses. There is a big difference when you get down to teaching and executing. At the college level, you need someone who is well versed in the system. OLine is by far the most complicated position on the field to coach. There is way more to it than meets the eye.
 
Last edited:

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Also steps are different due to philosophy more than splits. Zone schemes use flat lateral steps, we don't. We fire out, which is also why we get beat a lot by aggressive DLines. It's not the just "the same blocking as everyone else, with different backfield action" like many assume.
 
Boomergump

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,281
I would have no idea how to coach OL. With that said, from watching film, I can see we do different stuff than other teams. As with all similar positions in sports, there is some commonality to the basics. Leverage is leverage. However, I can see the benefit to having someone who is well versed in "what we do".

One thing to make note of, our personnel along the line is changing. We have a much bigger and more physical group coming into the program now. That may allow us to do some things a little differently where Pat Hill could be of help. Who knows? With GCG of Devine, O'Reilly, and Mason the best plan may be for the splits to be narrowed somewhat and have us plow the middle. You may be surprised at how that would slow the pass rush some too.

With JT at QB (and possibly Custis at BB) wide splits seem like the best choice, but if TB wins out and Laskey gets most of the BB snaps, we may want to ground and pound.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
I doubt there's anything to this, but …

There's simply no question that the two biggest states for the kind of student -athletes we want at Tech are – wait for it – New York and California. Especially the latter.

It is true that we will have a hard time recruiting in California. It is also true that when you recruit in California you are not recruiting in just another jive state: you're recruiting in another country. There are more good athletes who fit our academic profile in California then any other state in the Union. And when I say that I mean that there are probably at least 2X as many potential Tech recruits there as anywhere else. That we don't recruit there is what's the puzzling question; not whether we would succeed. Shoot, a 10% success rate would repay the cost in talent quickly, imho.

But the only thing that's more risk-adverse then football recruiting is, perhaps, planning for the next war. Besides, I don't know that Hill would be an answer for this. Still, we need to think about it. Seriously.
 
ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
takethepoints said:
I doubt there's anything to this, but …

There's simply no question that the two biggest states for the kind of student -athletes we want at Tech are – wait for it – New York and California. Especially the latter.

It is true that we will have a hard time recruiting in California. It is also true that when you recruit in California you are not recruiting in just another jive state: you're recruiting in another country. There are more good athletes who fit our academic profile in California then any other state in the Union. And when I say that I mean that there are probably at least 2X as many potential Tech recruits there as anywhere else. That we don't recruit there is what's the puzzling question; not whether we would succeed. Shoot, a 10% success rate would repay the cost in talent quickly, imho.

But the only thing that's more risk-adverse then football recruiting is, perhaps, planning for the next war. Besides, I don't know that Hill would be an answer for this. Still, we need to think about it. Seriously.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, I think it would be way to costly for Tech do it.
 
JazzyD95

JazzyD95

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
727
Location
The ATL
Boomergump said:
I would have no idea how to coach OL. With that said, from watching film, I can see we do different stuff than other teams. As with all similar positions in sports, there is some commonality to the basics. Leverage is leverage. However, I can see the benefit to having someone who is well versed in "what we do".

One thing to make note of, our personnel along the line is changing. We have a much bigger and more physical group coming into the program now. That may allow us to do some things a little differently where Pat Hill could be of help. Who knows? With GCG of Devine, O'Reilly, and Mason the best plan may be for the splits to be narrowed somewhat and have us plow the middle. You may be surprised at how that would slow the pass rush some too.

With JT at QB (and possibly Custis at BB) wide splits seem like the best choice, but if TB wins out and Laskey gets most of the BB snaps, we may want to ground and pound.
Click to expand...
We can't do wide splits with our current Oline. They haven't worked well since spencer leff. Otherwise I would agree
 
Top