Question About Offensive Plays

[Randy Carson]

I'm not an offensive guru by ANY measure, but when I watch oh, I dunno, Colorado or some of these air-raid offensive teams, it appears to my untrained eye that they've got a helluva lot of receivers running all over the place and their QB's have lots of places they can go with the ball. By contrast, it seems to me that our playbook is a bit...pedestrian. I think someone in another thread suggested that we're running a simplified version of UGA's offense from five years ago. Or something along those lines.

At any rate, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to analyze every play run by every team and rank them according to average yardage gained.

For example, a deep post pattern may yield a 78-yard touchdown...but only once every 10 tries. So, the average yardage for that would be 7.8 yds per play. Conversely, a QB draw might yield similar yardage ON AVERAGE. So, these two plays would be equal in terms of outcome predicted.

The goal of this analysis would be to design a playbook with a mix of high-yield plays that result in maximum yardage gained on average. Simple, right? We're from Georgia Tech. We can do this!

I'm asking because it seems to me that Tech is running a pretty fair number of plays that yield little to nothing ON AVERAGE but we keep running them.

Why? To set something else up? I'm not convinced that's the best approach. Starting 2nd and long is not a great way to win a game.

We need a more creative playbook in order to utilize King's talents and to keep the defenses guessing.

 

[CuseJacket]

I got good news for you. Our top 30 offense (OFEI) improved as much as any offense in one offseason. It's even ahead of that Colorado team you mentioned.

Rather than yards/play, here's how much we've improved in points/drive (pre-Clemson):

 

[stech81]

You know what helps a good QB with his passing game? Go back and look at the 2 games before the Clemson game, a good running game.

 

[MacDaddy2]

I got good news for you. Our top 30 offense (OFEI) improved as much as any offense in one offseason. It's even ahead of that Colorado team you mentioned.

Rather than yards/play, here's how much we've improved in points/drive (pre-Clemson):

Not sure this is a list we want to reference, while improvement is good, the list only spotlights how poor we were last year. More importantly, we are 43rd in the nation in offense efficiency (prior to Clemson). Better than average, and improving, but only top 1/3 in the nation. Hoping for top 20% moving forward.

Defense (prior to Clemson) is 110 in FBS in scoring efficiency. 4th worst in Power 5.

 

[CuseJacket]

Not sure this is a list we want to reference, while improvement is good, the list only spotlights how poor we were last year. More importantly, we are 43rd in the nation in offense efficiency (prior to Clemson). Better than average, and improving, but only top 1/3 in the nation. Hoping for top 20% moving forward.

Defense (prior to Clemson) is 110 in FBS in scoring efficiency. 4th worst in Power 5.

I mentioned top 30 offense (#28 OFEI) in the same post.

I agree our D is bad.

 

[slugboy]

Not sure this is a list we want to reference, while improvement is good, the list only spotlights how poor we were last year. More importantly, we are 43rd in the nation in offense efficiency (prior to Clemson). Better than average, and improving, but only top 1/3 in the nation. Hoping for top 20% moving forward.

Defense (prior to Clemson) is 110 in FBS in scoring efficiency. 4th worst in Power 5.

There are a lot of lenses to view our offense through, but the improvement in our offense has been dramatic this year. We went from one of the worst offenses last year to above average with visibility to a top flight offense.

It would be one thing if we went from one of the least effective offenses to average. This offense went from terrible to well above average in one year.

Are there things to improve in our offense? Definitely. Consistency would be huge. But, if we improve half as much next year as we did this year, watch out for this team

 

[Josh H]

but when I watch oh, I dunno, Colorado or some of these air-raid offensive teams

Faulkner's roots is in the Air Raid. We're more of a Power Raid with the commitment to the running game and getting tight ends in the mix.

it appears to my untrained eye that they've got a helluva lot of receivers running all over the place and their QB's have lots of places they can go with the ball.

Sanders is also the most sacked QB in college football so he's taking a beating back there - Colorado star Shedeur Sanders is nation's most-sacked QB. Painkillers may be his best blockers.

At any rate, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to analyze every play run by every team and rank them according to average yardage gained.

Possible, if you can figure out what play the offense was in after the snap. And what play the defense was in. There's not exactly an "Ask Madden" feature here that's telling you the play calls. You also have to account for the Jimmies and the Joes. If you don't have a receiver that can win deep against the coverage, or if you can't pass block you aren't hitting any of those big plays. Finally - college has limited practice time. You just can't have a playbook with hundreds of plays from all sorts of schemes.

Then you have concepts. Smash is designed to beat Cover 2. Flood beats Cover 3. Call the wrong concept against the wrong defense and things are ugly fast.

Most teams will script out their first 10-15 plays of the game, based on tendencies learned from their opponent over film review, or just plays that they have a good chance of gaining positive yards.

 

[Root4GT]

Not sure this is a list we want to reference, while improvement is good, the list only spotlights how poor we were last year. More importantly, we are 43rd in the nation in offense efficiency (prior to Clemson). Better than average, and improving, but only top 1/3 in the nation. Hoping for top 20% moving forward.

Defense (prior to Clemson) is 110 in FBS in scoring efficiency. 4th worst in Power 5.

Actually the offensive improvement from one of the worst in Division 1 football the a top 1/3rd on offense is remarkable improvement in one offseason. That is a far greater improvement than could be reasonably expected. If the defense improved from one of the worst in Division 1 to simply below average we would likely already be Bowl eligible.

 

[Randy Carson]

There are a lot of lenses to view our offense through, but the improvement in our offense has been dramatic this year. We went from one of the worst offenses last year to above average with visibility to a top flight offense.

It would be one thing if we went from one of the least effective offenses to average. This offense went from terrible to well above average in one year.

Are there things to improve in our offense? Definitely. Consistency would be huge. But, if we improve half as much next year as we did this year, watch out for this team

I agree that our improvement on offense has been dramatic.

What I'm wondering is whether there is a way to identify the patterns that are more successful on average given the athletes we have and the kind of offense we want to run.

For example, ND runs this play four times per game with an average gain of 23 yds. Bama runs this play three times per game for 12 yds on average. They have good QB's. We have a good QB. Put those in our playbook. OK State has a stud RB gaining six yds per carry on this play. We don't have a stud RB (or the right OL). Don't run that play (or anything like it). Etc, etc.

And one other point...it always appeared to me that the NE Patriots made a living with quick hits from Brady to his TE for seven yard a pop. Where is that play in our scheme?

 

[ibeattetris]

I'm not an offensive guru by ANY measure, but when I watch oh, I dunno, Colorado or some of these air-raid offensive teams, it appears to my untrained eye that they've got a helluva lot of receivers running all over the place and their QB's have lots of places they can go with the ball. By contrast, it seems to me that our playbook is a bit...pedestrian. I think someone in another thread suggested that we're running a simplified version of UGA's offense from five years ago. Or something along those lines.

At any rate, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to analyze every play run by every team and rank them according to average yardage gained.

For example, a deep post pattern may yield a 78-yard touchdown...but only once every 10 tries. So, the average yardage for that would be 7.8 yds per play. Conversely, a QB draw might yield similar yardage ON AVERAGE. So, these two plays would be equal in terms of outcome predicted.

The goal of this analysis would be to design a playbook with a mix of high-yield plays that result in maximum yardage gained on average. Simple, right? We're from Georgia Tech. We can do this!

I'm asking because it seems to me that Tech is running a pretty fair number of plays that yield little to nothing ON AVERAGE but we keep running them.

Why? To set something else up? I'm not convinced that's the best approach. Starting 2nd and long is not a great way to win a game.

We need a more creative playbook in order to utilize King's talents and to keep the defenses guessing.

I sometimes can’t tell what is a joke and what isn’t. Assuming this is all serious, you can’t collect plays like Pokémon cards and hope to just play them for some static value. The plays of a playbook are meant to be orchestrated together so that they are complementary to one another and (should) make the best use of the players in your team.

Take for example the Belly Series that GT would sometime run under CPJ. Sure, any team could run a single play from it, but each play is meant to be a paper rock scissors response to what the defense is doing, and having all three is more valuable than just one.

I’d also be concerned with taking a collage of plays, because it removes the context of the team that runs them. The plays OSU call to get Marvin Harrison Jr open are different than what we would call to get Singleton open because they have different skill sets that give them a competitive edge.

I guess my final concerns would be formations. If we are just grabbing every random play we find, are we running them from the formation they were run from? We’d at the very least need to make a concession there or it becomes very apparent what play we are about to run.

 

[Josh H]

And one other point...it always appeared to me that the NE Patriots made a living with quick hits from Brady to his TE for seven yard a pop. Where is that play in our scheme?

Kind of a microcosm of this point - but Brady and Gronkowski are both future hall-of-famers. Look at the Patriots record since both of them have left. Belichick may very well not be coaching the Patriots after this year. Heck, look at the Bucs this year without Brady. The play is probably a version of Stick which is ran by every NFL team and is a staple of the Air Raid.

Heck, Peyton Manning basically ran a 4 play offense (Levels/Smash/Four Verticals). He was just that good at diagnosing the defense and getting into the right play.

I'm really sad Smart Football is no longer accessible (and possible filled with malware), as it did a really great job of breaking down passing concepts for us keyboard warriors who never played the game (like myself).

Last example: Look at this MTSU Offense Breakdown (Faulkner was OC at MTSU). Apologies for the ads, but on page 1 it has the Dive play which averages 7.84 yards a rush. Our offensive staff knows which plays work best for us. Unfortunately, so does the opposing defense and they have 11 four and five star players on D-line alone.

 

[roadkill]

I agree that our improvement on offense has been dramatic.

What I'm wondering is whether there is a way to identify the patterns that are more successful on average given the athletes we have and the kind of offense we want to run.

For example, ND runs this play four times per game with an average gain of 23 yds. Bama runs this play three times per game for 12 yds on average. They have good QB's. We have a good QB. Put those in our playbook. OK State has a stud RB gaining six yds per carry on this play. We don't have a stud RB (or the right OL). Don't run that play (or anything like it). Etc, etc.

And one other point...it always appeared to me that the NE Patriots made a living with quick hits from Brady to his TE for seven yard a pop. Where is that play in our scheme?

I think there is already a bit of what you're suggesting taking place with our playcalling, but not necessarily via the process that you describe. The 2 games prior to Clemson yielded 1150 yards and 91 points. I'd say we did a pretty good job of selecting plays that worked well for the players we have. I won't go into all the post-mortem for the Clemson game (that's another thread), but we didn't execute what would have been some very successful plays.

Inevitably after a loss, there are those who critique our play calling, without regard for the other factors that affect a play's success.

 

[slugboy]

I agree that our improvement on offense has been dramatic.

What I'm wondering is whether there is a way to identify the patterns that are more successful on average given the athletes we have and the kind of offense we want to run.

For example, ND runs this play four times per game with an average gain of 23 yds. Bama runs this play three times per game for 12 yds on average. They have good QB's. We have a good QB. Put those in our playbook. OK State has a stud RB gaining six yds per carry on this play. We don't have a stud RB (or the right OL). Don't run that play (or anything like it). Etc, etc.

And one other point...it always appeared to me that the NE Patriots made a living with quick hits from Brady to his TE for seven yard a pop. Where is that play in our scheme?

If all our games were against UGA, Clemson, Miami, and Ole Miss, we’d design our offense differently. There are a lot of gripes about our wide screens, but I’m sure our GAs chart those plays and overall they’re pretty effective. They’re less effective when Clemson’s LB blows past his blocker, but they’re great against UVA.

Matt Ryan is a borderline Hall of Fame QB. He was about even with Drew Breeze, who is going in. New England had Brady and Belichick and an all pro TE and a best of league OL. Even when Ryan had Tony Gonzalez, he didn’t have Brady’s OL, and he was a notch behind Brady. Atlanta fans say horrible things about Ryan, but he was on fire with the right OC and three out of four ingredients (OC, skill players, QB, and passable OL). Our OC might be there, our OL is passable against most defenses (not Miami and Clemson), but out TEs are not consistently at the level to make the plays we need them to against elite teams. Say what you will about PFF grades, but our TEs missed critical blocks and plays on Saturday.

We have a QB who might be a good enough ingredient. We have more we just recruited. We need better play from our TE position and OL to get the automatic play you want.

The TE does not have to be Brock Bowers, but you need a guy who will win against the LB or Nickel who is covering them.

We also need TEs that can block. We need them as sixth linemen, and we need them as H Backs. It’s part of our scheme, and they haven’t been able to do that

 

[roadkill]

If all our games were against UGA, Clemson, Miami, and Ole Miss, we’d design our offense differently. There are a lot of gripes about our wide screens, but I’m sure our GAs chart those plays and overall they’re pretty effective. They’re less effective when Clemson’s LB blows past his blocker, but they’re great against UVA.

Matt Ryan is a borderline Hall of Fame QB. He was about even with Drew Breeze, who is going in. New England had Brady and Belichick and an all pro TE and a best of league OL. Even when Ryan had Tony Gonzalez, he didn’t have Brady’s OL, and he was a notch behind Brady. Atlanta fans say horrible things about Ryan, but he was on fire with the right OC and three out of four ingredients (OC, skill players, QB, and passable OL). Our OC might be there, our OL is passable against most defenses (not Miami and Clemson), but out TEs are not consistently at the level to make the plays we need them to against elite teams. Say what you will about PFF grades, but our TEs missed critical blocks and plays on Saturday.

We have a QB who might be a good enough ingredient. We have more we just recruited. We need better play from our TE position and OL to get the automatic play you want.

The TE does not have to be Brock Bowers, but you need a guy who will win against the LB or Nickel who is covering them.

We also need TEs that can block. We need them as sixth linemen, and we need them as H Backs. It’s part of our scheme, and they haven’t been able to do that

I agree with your comments about our tight ends, but also wanted to add that we have gone from having tight ends that appeared to be just roster placeholders, to some that occasionally make plays. So some progress has been seen. Blocking is still a weakness against good, fast defenses.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Our offensive staff knows which plays work best for us. Unfortunately, so does the opposing defense and they have 11 four and five star players on D-line alone.

Can you say this again for the people in the back?

My opinion is that we, as fans, tend to have knee jerk reactions to losses. Losses have to blamed on something or someone. Sometimes it's the QB, or the OL, or the Refs. Sometimes it's the coach. Now, to be fair, sometimes these are real issues. No one can argue that Reggie losing count of the downs killed our last ditch effort against uga. No one can argue the abysmal coaching decisions in the Citadel debacle. Sometimes, however, the chance of winning a game is so low that it's honestly possible to have a loss without a bogeyman to blame. That's where I categorize this one. The football experts picked this game as Clemson, even though they had an identical record to GT, to win by more than two touchdowns. They were right.

 

[ThatGuy]

Can you say this again for the people in the back?

My opinion is that we, as fans, tend to have knee jerk reactions to losses. Losses have to blamed on something or someone. Sometimes it's the QB, or the OL, or the Refs. Sometimes it's the coach. Now, to be fair, sometimes these are real issues. No one can argue that Reggie losing count of the downs killed our last ditch effort against uga. No one can argue the abysmal coaching decisions in the Citadel debacle. Sometimes, however, the chance of winning a game is so low that it's honestly possible to have a loss without a bogeyman to blame. That's where I categorize this one. The football experts picked this game as Clemson, even though they had an identical record to GT, to win by more than two touchdowns. They were right.

This. So much this.

It reminds me of whenever we would be beaten by Clemson or uGA when CPJ was coach - immediately we'd hear, "so-and-so has figured out this 'gimmick' offense. The time of the option is over." And then the next game we'd go on a tear for 550+ yards. CPJ came out and said once, "Our offense has trouble against really good defenses. Just like any other offense has trouble against really good defenses." That stuck with me, and I remember it whenever we try and draw conclusions about "our offense doesn't work" from 1 game.

Clemson has an elite defense. That threw a monkey wrench into our entire approach. We can try to analyze it to death, but ultimately, I think that will be the one common thing that got in the way of our game this week. Until our defense gets better, and our offense gains some more experience playing against elite talent and schemes, the odds will be against us to win this sort of game.

(Then again, we're on a message board - what else have we got to do? We punched above our weight for a few games this year - which has us all thinking that any game can be a win. So let the back-and-forth dissecting our offense commence.)