Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
PJ to Woody?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 452657" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>It's not really that straight forward though. For example, if we would otherwise have gotten the last possession of the first half but one bend but don't break drive becomes a quick hit score, then the extra drive would go to the other team. Obviously it's simplified but the idea that the defense will create more possessions for the offense comes with the caveat that it will also create about the same amount of possessions for the other team. The benefit is in the potential reward of turnovers causing better field positions vs the risk of giving up more quick scores. What worries me is that in the past couple of years we have had a big problem in putting games away, and letting teams we shold beat stick around. To me that is a very dangerous thing to have with a super aggressive defense that could easily let a team get a quick score or two to get right back in the game. </p><p></p><p>But stylistically I don't think it's a big deal either way. IMO both styles will struggle with the fact that we are practicing against OLmen recruited for blocking for the triple option offense, and coached by coaches brought in to teach it. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with passing QBs, and TEs. I think there is a hope that the scheme will take care of that by itself, but I don't really buy it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 452657, member: 2299"] It's not really that straight forward though. For example, if we would otherwise have gotten the last possession of the first half but one bend but don't break drive becomes a quick hit score, then the extra drive would go to the other team. Obviously it's simplified but the idea that the defense will create more possessions for the offense comes with the caveat that it will also create about the same amount of possessions for the other team. The benefit is in the potential reward of turnovers causing better field positions vs the risk of giving up more quick scores. What worries me is that in the past couple of years we have had a big problem in putting games away, and letting teams we shold beat stick around. To me that is a very dangerous thing to have with a super aggressive defense that could easily let a team get a quick score or two to get right back in the game. But stylistically I don't think it's a big deal either way. IMO both styles will struggle with the fact that we are practicing against OLmen recruited for blocking for the triple option offense, and coached by coaches brought in to teach it. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with passing QBs, and TEs. I think there is a hope that the scheme will take care of that by itself, but I don't really buy it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
PJ to Woody?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top