Replay Study: GT Offense vs Clemson

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,284
I did it. I didn't want to do it, but I did it. I watched most of the offensive snaps out of morbid curiosity. I just couldn't stand the idea of not understanding the debacle better than I did leaving the stadium. I could make this a really long posting of great detail, but truthfully it would just sound very repetitive. The truth is, that Clemson did about what I expected on defense. They fired their corners a good bit and they blitzed the A gap some, but for the most part, they kept it simple for their kids. Most likely they felt their defensive players were good enough to have a succesful day without trickeration, which would have been correct. Much of the time they kept one safety back and used the other flying up in run support. They didn't give our WRs a ton of respect. When they fired corners they rolled their safety over without a care in the world about the match up.

The Clemson players are very good all over the field. It would be really hard to find a weak spot. I give them a ton of respect because they are a hard bunch to block, even when executing well, which, unfortunately, we didn't do much of the time. The battle on the inside, you may feel was very one-sided. They gave us a tough time, but I don't think it was as one-sided as I felt it was leaving the stadium. They defeated some blocks to make tackles, they fooled our reads with quickness when left unblocked intentionally, and they made us look blind and stupid out in space trying to get a hat on them. Quite often we just passed up a would be tackler, preferring to run ahead and block somebody 5 yards further away, which makes no sense to me. I do not know what the assignments are on a given play because we use so many variations, but I feel sure they are never to let one guy run through from the second level while two of our guys take a different second level defender at the same time (after releasing). I don't have enough fingers on one hand to count the number of times that happened. I probably also don't have enough fingers one hand to count the number of plays where at least three of our players blocked nobody. Now, I am not talking about getting defeated on a block attempt. I am talking about blocking nobody, you know, running around in space and choosing nobody (or not touching anybody). You do the math, when you include unblocked players by design and add three others unaccounted for, it doesn't end well. Later on, we started running the ball effectively by slamming it up the gut, where at least, our guys seemed to know who to block. It was the only thing that worked. We did some pulling on unbalanced playside and switched with outside guys blocking down a few times to relative success, but all this stuff was happening after the game was decided. By this point, it didn't look like option football, but block every player football.

I didn't watch to the end. Maybe we got a few successful option plays in for the latter stages. I was in a daze when I left the stadium so I really don't know. You can fill me in.

What do I take away from this? Well, that Clemson is very good and they will be hard to beat. It will be interesting to see how they do against L'ville. But I also take away that we still are not executing our offense. Its maddening to be honest. We have personnel issues in places, but just plain lack of experience in others. Personally, I think the O-Line talent is there if we can develop some cohesiveness. We have a lot of guys who can run with the football pretty darned well, but if you ever wondered why CPJ put such a premium on AB and WR blocking, now you know. It gets atrocious pretty fast when it doesn't happen.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,144
Yes. The answer here is lack of OL experience. No Klock and Shamire gone after the half made a difference. The we need to remember that only two of our starters against the Tiggers (Shamire and Burden) were starting in positions where they played last year.

I'm not discouraged about this (yet). It'll take a few games to get things down to normal. Not playing a D like Clemson's again will help immensely. So will getting Mills 20 carries a game.
 

upwgdrb

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
199
I did it. I didn't want to do it, but I did it. I watched most of the offensive snaps out of morbid curiosity. I just couldn't stand the idea of not understanding the debacle better than I did leaving the stadium. I could make this a really long posting of great detail, but truthfully it would just sound very repetitive. The truth is, that Clemson did about what I expected on defense. They fired their corners a good bit and they blitzed the A gap some, but for the most part, they kept it simple for their kids. Most likely they felt their defensive players were good enough to have a succesful day without trickeration, which would have been correct. Much of the time they kept one safety back and used the other flying up in run support. They didn't give our WRs a ton of respect. When they fired corners they rolled their safety over without a care in the world about the match up.

The Clemson players are very good all over the field. It would be really hard to find a weak spot. I give them a ton of respect because they are a hard bunch to block, even when executing well, which, unfortunately, we didn't do much of the time. The battle on the inside, you may feel was very one-sided. They gave us a tough time, but I don't think it was as one-sided as I felt it was leaving the stadium. They defeated some blocks to make tackles, they fooled our reads with quickness when left unblocked intentionally, and they made us look blind and stupid out in space trying to get a hat on them. Quite often we just passed up a would be tackler, preferring to run ahead and block somebody 5 yards further away, which makes no sense to me. I do not know what the assignments are on a given play because we use so many variations, but I feel sure they are never to let one guy run through from the second level while two of our guys take a different second level defender at the same time (after releasing). I don't have enough fingers on one hand to count the number of times that happened. I probably also don't have enough fingers one hand to count the number of plays where at least three of our players blocked nobody. Now, I am not talking about getting defeated on a block attempt. I am talking about blocking nobody, you know, running around in space and choosing nobody (or not touching anybody). You do the math, when you include unblocked players by design and add three others unaccounted for, it doesn't end well. Later on, we started running the ball effectively by slamming it up the gut, where at least, our guys seemed to know who to block. It was the only thing that worked. We did some pulling on unbalanced playside and switched with outside guys blocking down a few times to relative success, but all this stuff was happening after the game was decided. By this point, it didn't look like option football, but block every player football.

I didn't watch to the end. Maybe we got a few successful option plays in for the latter stages. I was in a daze when I left the stadium so I really don't know. You can fill me in.

What do I take away from this? Well, that Clemson is very good and they will be hard to beat. It will be interesting to see how they do against L'ville. But I also take away that we still are not executing our offense. Its maddening to be honest. We have personnel issues in places, but just plain lack of experience in others. Personally, I think the O-Line talent is there if we can develop some cohesiveness. We have a lot of guys who can run with the football pretty darned well, but if you ever wondered why CPJ put such a premium on AB and WR blocking, now you know. It gets atrocious pretty fast when it doesn't happen.

A couple of observations. I don't understand why we moved MLD to receiver he by far our best blocking aback last year. He needs to return there asap. In 2014 when we were so good, we did a lot of just man on man blocking and letting our bback grind it out. That worked against Clemson as well. Maybe it's time to simplify and just let our guys block straight up come and see what occurs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

yerjacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
26
A couple of observations. I don't understand why we moved MLD to receiver he by far our best blocking aback last year. He needs to return there asap. In 2014 when we were so good, we did a lot of just man on man blocking and letting our bback grind it out. That worked against Clemson as well. Maybe it's time to simplify and just let our guys block straight up come and see what occurs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think MLD is a far better reciever blocker than his blocking is better than 2 other ABs. Just what i think. I absolutely agree that the power run game needs to start games just to give confidence and wear away at the defense of the opposition.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
10,040
Location
Oriental, NC
I agree with Boomer, but put more of the blame load on the Clemson D. Those guys are good. I watched one play over & over. It was late and JT dropped back to pass. The Clemson LB blitzed and Mills tried to get into position to block the LB, but the guy was so fast he went by Mills without a touch and sacked JT. Their LB was faster than our RB.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,694
Location
Georgia
We didn't talk about having a young team in 13 & 14.

I respectfully disagree. There was alot of talk in 2014 about being a young defense and a young OL other than shaq and braun, and a new young qb....

A sept 16 article in 2014 paul himself called his team young....

http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2014/09/16/5-notes-from-paul-johnsons-presser/

Read some fan articles like the below. Young was tossed around. Like it was in 2015. 2016. It was in 2011 and 2012. Its been said alot dude. Dispoportionally so if u ask me.....it seems its a constanf reason

http://yellowjackedup.com/2014/10/21/georgia-tech-football-blame-placed-paul-johnson-warranted/

Here is my point. Even when in 2014 the team had a ton of aged players at AB, BB, WR, etc people and paul still referred to team as young. I bet if you did more searching u could find how much it was said here too. Then after 2014 we called it experienced. But early in 2014 it was young lol
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,838
. They defeated some blocks to make tackles, they fooled our reads with quickness when left unblocked intentionally, and they made us look blind and stupid out in space trying to get a hat on them. Quite often we just passed up a would be tackler, preferring to run ahead and block somebody 5 yards further away, which makes no sense to me. I do not know what the assignments are on a given play because we use so many variations, but I feel sure they are never to let one guy run through from the second level while two of our guys take a different second level defender at the same time (after releasing). I don't have enough fingers on one hand to count the number of times that happened. I probably also don't have enough fingers one hand to count the number of plays where at least three of our players blocked nobody. Now, I am not talking about getting defeated on a block attempt. I am talking about blocking nobody, you know, running around in space and choosing nobody (or not touching anybody). You do the math, when you include unblocked .
.

I picked up on this in another post. You can get beat on any play, BUT, when you don't know who to block, there is a HUGE problem somewhere.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,776
In at least some cases could the missed blocks,/whiff blocks be attributed to improved defensive scheme? Is it just the players?
Say they locate dl lb in a place that makes a it seem obvious whovtakes him , but then he takes actotal different rush angle. Do this in a ?? spot that is unclearc and then dl takes an unexpected angle and he has a clear path to the ball.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,004
We all need to just chill and let the season play out, if UM, VT, and UGA, all crush our offense too then we will have lots to discuss in the offseason...
 

Yaller Jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
991
This is just maddening. Often Boomer's dissection tells me things I didn't see, but in this case, I saw a whole lot of what he describes when watching live. Clemson players who were not supposed to be blocked because they shouldn't have been able to make a play. But Clemson's defensive players were so fast they got there and made the tackle. Or our players ignoring a defender as if he wasn't there to take someone else, when you could plainly see the player ignored was gonna make the tackle.

So how did we got 6 or 7 years of a minimum of this kind of thing then suddenly last year it's a major factor? Then again this year. We always have a mix of levels of experience on the lines, or so it seems to me. What is different now? Does Clemson's speed make us lose our heads?
 

Longestday

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
2,856
This is not something new... blocking has always been a factor. It did seem like we got some of the best MLB blocking since CPJ in 2014. We have not been a 11 win team every year and 7 to 8 is very possible this year. I think the 3-9 possibility has everyone on edge.
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,897
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
This is not something new... blocking has always been a factor. It did seem like we got some of the best MLB blocking since CPJ in 2014. We have not been a 11 win team every year and 7 to 8 is very possible this year. I think the 3-9 possibility has everyone on edge.
While I haven’t lost faith yet, 7-8 wins while losing games because of how atrocious our blocking has been is unacceptable. I’m ok with 7-8 wins if we’re just getting beat but we’re losing these games because we don’t know what the hell we’re doing on offense and that’s inexcusable.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,241
I did it. I didn't want to do it, but I did it. I watched most of the offensive snaps out of morbid curiosity. I just couldn't stand the idea of not understanding the debacle better than I did leaving the stadium. I could make this a really long posting of great detail, but truthfully it would just sound very repetitive. The truth is, that Clemson did about what I expected on defense. They fired their corners a good bit and they blitzed the A gap some, but for the most part, they kept it simple for their kids. Most likely they felt their defensive players were good enough to have a succesful day without trickeration, which would have been correct. Much of the time they kept one safety back and used the other flying up in run support. They didn't give our WRs a ton of respect. When they fired corners they rolled their safety over without a care in the world about the match up.

The Clemson players are very good all over the field. It would be really hard to find a weak spot. I give them a ton of respect because they are a hard bunch to block, even when executing well, which, unfortunately, we didn't do much of the time. The battle on the inside, you may feel was very one-sided. They gave us a tough time, but I don't think it was as one-sided as I felt it was leaving the stadium. They defeated some blocks to make tackles, they fooled our reads with quickness when left unblocked intentionally, and they made us look blind and stupid out in space trying to get a hat on them. Quite often we just passed up a would be tackler, preferring to run ahead and block somebody 5 yards further away, which makes no sense to me. I do not know what the assignments are on a given play because we use so many variations, but I feel sure they are never to let one guy run through from the second level while two of our guys take a different second level defender at the same time (after releasing). I don't have enough fingers on one hand to count the number of times that happened. I probably also don't have enough fingers one hand to count the number of plays where at least three of our players blocked nobody. Now, I am not talking about getting defeated on a block attempt. I am talking about blocking nobody, you know, running around in space and choosing nobody (or not touching anybody). You do the math, when you include unblocked players by design and add three others unaccounted for, it doesn't end well. Later on, we started running the ball effectively by slamming it up the gut, where at least, our guys seemed to know who to block. It was the only thing that worked. We did some pulling on unbalanced playside and switched with outside guys blocking down a few times to relative success, but all this stuff was happening after the game was decided. By this point, it didn't look like option football, but block every player football.

I didn't watch to the end. Maybe we got a few successful option plays in for the latter stages. I was in a daze when I left the stadium so I really don't know. You can fill me in.

What do I take away from this? Well, that Clemson is very good and they will be hard to beat. It will be interesting to see how they do against L'ville. But I also take away that we still are not executing our offense. Its maddening to be honest. We have personnel issues in places, but just plain lack of experience in others. Personally, I think the O-Line talent is there if we can develop some cohesiveness. We have a lot of guys who can run with the football pretty darned well, but if you ever wondered why CPJ put such a premium on AB and WR blocking, now you know. It gets atrocious pretty fast when it doesn't happen.
I'm a little confused by your last point. The main point of your post, I thought, was that the OL were passing up targets and hitting nobody. Then you say at the end it was the skill guys. Was it both? If so, we're in a whole world of hurt I didn't expect.

I also noticed two times when we had obvious passing situations and totally turned loose the guy on the end. I mean nobody laid a finger on him or even looked his way.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,144
We had people open during the game. JT either didn't see them - it was usually the second option receiver - because he was under a strong rush or the play was schemed for a long gain. That caused a problem because Jeune was usually double covered. That he doesn't have the best hands in the universe also didn't help. I think one of the main difficulties against Clemson was that the passing game is predicated on a decent run threat. If we run well, then we should - and usually do - have people open all the time. If we don't and the other side can handle us with 7 people - like Clemson did - then the passing game has problems too. The O is schemed to take advantage of the very problems it creates. No created problems = many fewer opportunities.

This aspect of our game is the reason I get such a kick out of watching our games. Figuring out why things do and don't work is fun, especially for an old OL. Mind, it's more fun when the O is humming.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,241
If I had really good corners and fast linebackers that can run with our Abacks, I wouldn't fear our passing game either. I'd bring the safeties down and shoot the corners all night and give the GTO fits.
 
Top