question regarding GT (vs Opponents) O formation

[TheSilasSonRising]

Not a post regarding if you like/love/hate/dislike the T.O., spread, I formation, no huddle, shotgun or whatever.

I did an unscientific research of our roster vs 2 of our biggest rivals' football rosters.

I counted the # of QB, A & B backs on our roster vs one teams QB, RB, FB and another teams' QB & RB rosters.

First, did it quickly so numbers may not be perfect. Second, have no idea how many of these players are or are not on FB ships. Only looked at the raw roster.

GT has 22 QB/A/B backs.
One opponent has 19 QB/RB/FB.
Another has 12 QB/RB on roster.

So, again, not saying any particular system is good or bad. Players have to execute regardless.

But does our O system require we devote more "resources" to QB/A/B backs that might be diverted to OL, or other "needy" positions?

Of course the other 2 schools have TE, but some would counter that could help O line blocking at times.

What say you?

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Only 11 can play at a time. Barring injuries or a blow out, only about 40 players ever contribute significant minutes. That goes for the Bama's all the way to the Bill and Mary's. I am more interested in getting 5-6 play makers every year instead of a roster full of so-so's.

 

[AE 87]

You would have to include all skill positions for comparison. Our Abacks are also rxs

 

[CobbTech]

You would have to include all skill positions for comparison. Our Abacks are also rxs

I was thinking the same thing. Or at least throw in TE's for other teams.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You would have to include all skill positions for comparison. Our Abacks are also rxs

This.

 

[JazzyD95]

You would have to include opposing teams TEs to make the numbers more accurate. But I like the topic, it's something I've always wondered about CPJ. It seems like we divert lots of resources to having an overflowing stable of RBs, when we should be spending more ships on the trenches. It always feels like we have an abundance of skill players and are barely able to field a two deep on the lines. But I may be completly incorrect on that assumption, just my personal viewpoint.

 

[Fatmike91]

It's just not an apples-to-apples comparison unless you also look at wide receivers too (all skill positions). Most teams will have more wide receivers than we do because if they go 4 wide, they will use "slot" receivers. Tech's slot receivers are called "A" backs...


/

 

[awbuzz]

It's just not an apples-to-apples comparison unless you also look at wide receivers too (all skill positions). Most teams will have more wide receivers than we do because if they go 4 wide, they will use "slot" receivers. Tech's slot receivers are called "A" backs...


/

This ^

 

[gtg936g]

Just about all teams use the HB or a TE as a reciever. I think it all evens out when you consider we do not have TEs. I think a better comparison would be the guards/tackles/centers because they are the most consistent theme across offensive formations.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think you also have to look at DB's. Many of our Abacks could play DB or Aback. They are basically recruited as athletes. Look at Jamaal Golden and Demond Smith.

 

[collegeballfan]

Look at the fact that all teams must have 5 OL. The other 6 can be called skilled players. Compare skilled players to skill players.

 

[JazzyD95]

I've always been a fan of having as many big bodies as possible. The more trench players you have, the better trench players your going to have. This is due both to a larger talent pool and the ability to throw multiple guys in without a drop off. When you have all those guys it really pushes players and they are more Likly to meet Their maximum potential. I believe if you did a study, the better teams would have a higher than average amount of lineman

 

[prifle2]

We actually have 15 QB's/BBacks/ABacks and no tight ends ... 3QBs (Vad, Justin, T. Griffin.. don't think Byerly is on a scholly yet) 4 BBacks (Sims, Laskey, Snoddy, Conners) and A-Backs (Hill, Bostic, Godhigh, Perkins, Days, Andrews, Zenon, and Wilson). The other players listed are walkons. I would doubt our totals are much different than other teams.. when you factor in no tightends and a smaller group of wide receivers.

 

[DTGT]

There are several things I dislike about the OP. Mainly that you are using QB/AB/BB numbers to argue that the O-Line needs more `ships... without even researching the O-line numbers.

Why not just compare the O-Line numbers?