Replay Study: GT Offense vs Clemson

[AE 87]

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.

I think this is mostly right, but I got the impression that CU often sent 8 against the run and got away with it because we didn't have time to pass either.

 

[Boomergump]

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.

It's both.

 

[Boomergump]

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.

Clemson was basically using 8 against the run.

 

[Dustman]

I think this is mostly right, but I got the impression that CU often sent 8 against the run and got away with it because we didn't have time to pass either.

I was surprised to see the safety on the Mills pass.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

We don't have, and very badly need, a speedster at WR to potentially threaten the D deep every play. I like our guys but both seem more of the possession type receivers. Speedsters open things up more and we missed that all last year. We have done much better this year so far IMO but have a long way to go still. Qua has filled that void a bit but we need it at WR consistently.

 

[jeffgt14]

Given the choice between an O-Line that blocks and a speedster receiver, 9999 times out of 10000 I will take the O-Line that blocks in our offense. The 1 is only in case that speedster receiver is Calvin Johnson.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We don't have, and very badly need, a speedster at WR to potentially threaten the D deep every play. I like our guys but both seem more of the possession type receivers. Speedsters open things up more and we missed that all last year. We have done much better this year so far IMO but have a long way to go still. Qua has filled that void a bit but we need it at WR consistently.

I thought the freshmen were speedy guys?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

Two words: Shaq Mason

 

[Skeptic]

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?

The distressing take from all this Clemson matchup talk -- and I think it is a great rivalry game and can't figure GT not selling out routinely with it -- is that Clemson is getting better and better and better and their recruiting is lights out at almost every position. Swinney is dead serious on being a NC contender every year. Majors in parks and recreation help a heap, of course. Just an observation that as a rivalry this may not be a top flight game again.

 

[Boomergump]

We don't have, and very badly need, a speedster at WR to potentially threaten the D deep every play. I like our guys but both seem more of the possession type receivers. Speedsters open things up more and we missed that all last year. We have done much better this year so far IMO but have a long way to go still. Qua has filled that void a bit but we need it at WR consistently.

Smelter wasn't all that fast, but he could cut, drive you deep and come back for the ball, and beat you for a contested ball. All of these things made him really effective going deep with the double move. CBs would get tired of giving up 14 yard comebacks or back shoulder throws and then, out of nowhere, he would hesitate and go, and it was over. Jeune may have similar speed, but he can't drive players off physically and hasn't really learned to get separation coming back either. People will cover you if you let them.

Waller wasn't all that fast either but he was tall. Opponents couldn't give safety help to both sides of the field. It was a real match up dilemma.

 

[alagold]

1.The offense does not have the WRs to beat CBs 1 on 1 .Therefore the Safeties can run free anywhere.--to help on pass, rush on bback,explode to outside on corner run
2. our Off line blocking is either too complicated or the guys are not good enough--way too many "non-blocks"
3.With no big TE (or tall Aback ) we can't burn LBss that cheat on rush ,with quick over the middle pass
4.JT is too short to see them even if they were open
5. The backs still only block well 50% of time AT MAX
These are huge problems vs good defs or even fair defs (see dook)
until this improves expect struggling Off and struggling team

 

[dressedcheeseside]

1.The offense does not have the WRs to beat CBs 1 on 1 .Therefore the Safeties can run free anywhere.--to help on pass, rush on bback,explode to outside on corner run
2. our Off line blocking is either too complicated or the guys are not good enough--way too many "non-blocks"
3.With no big TE (or tall Aback ) we can't burn LBss that cheat on rush ,with quick over the middle pass
4.JT is too short to see them even if they were open
5. The backs still only block well 50% of time AT MAX
These are huge problems vs good defs or even fair defs (see dook)
until this improves expect struggling Off and struggling team

I think fixing these problems can be simple. It can be a domino effect. First things first, come off the damn ball and hit somebody. If we do that, we can start making a little hay on the dive. Everything else builds or falls apart off of that.

 

[alagold]

I think fixing these problems can be simple. It can be a domino effect. First things first, come off the damn ball and hit somebody. If we do that, we can start making a little hay on the dive. Everything else builds or falls apart off of that.

you may be on to something--how can the OLs PASS BY guys and leave them to make the tackle? to me you've got to make 5 yds before you can make 25

 

[MWBATL]

you may be on to something--how can the OLs PASS BY guys and leave them to make the tackle? to me you've got to make 5 yds before you can make 25

My understanding is that on some plays the O lineman is designated to seek out and block a linebacker, which would mean he would deliberately run past a D lineman. I think it's called "the option".

 

[Boomergump]

My understanding is that on some plays the O lineman is designated to seek out and block a linebacker, which would mean he would deliberately run past a D lineman. I think it's called "the option".

Well, all I can say is, I know who the unblocked players are supposed to be on any option play we run. The run by mistakes I am talking about are NOT the unblocked players by design. If you run past the MLB (who makes the tackle in the pitch zone) while going for the safety, I have a problem with that. Bottom line is that there have been too many "fly by" errors lately. Unblocked second level players (not designated as pitch reads) are making plays in areas of the field that they shouldn't be.

 

[AE 87]

Well, all I can say is, I know who the unblocked players are supposed to be on any option play we run. The run by mistakes I am talking about are NOT the unblocked players by design. If you run past the MLB (who makes the tackle in the pitch zone) while going for the safety, I have a problem with that. Bottom line is that there have been too many "fly by" errors lately. Unblocked second level players (not designated as pitch reads) are making plays in areas of the field that they shouldn't be.

I think @flea77 or someone recently said that our OL are coached not to turn around or something like that. I agree that I've seen these "fly by" events but I'm not sure how much more than in the past. I now wonder if it's a case of firing off, losing leverage on target so then looking for someone else. I don't know.

 

[orientalnc]

Well, all I can say is, I know who the unblocked players are supposed to be on any option play we run. The run by mistakes I am talking about are NOT the unblocked players by design. If you run past the MLB (who makes the tackle in the pitch zone) while going for the safety, I have a problem with that. Bottom line is that there have been too many "fly by" errors lately. Unblocked second level players (not designated as pitch reads) are making plays in areas of the field that they shouldn't be.

I am sure our coaches are aware of this and working their fannies off to correct the problem.

 

[alagold]

My understanding is that on some plays the O lineman is designated to seek out and block a linebacker, which would mean he would deliberately run past a D lineman. I think it's called "the option".

then it looks like we optioning up to FOUR men on every play!

 

[TomOReilly]

I really like the term "fly bys"! To me, it seems our OL, AB and WR need blocking progressions to react to play dynamics.

 

[GTRanj]

1.The offense does not have the WRs to beat CBs 1 on 1 .Therefore the Safeties can run free anywhere.--to help on pass, rush on bback,explode to outside on corner run
2. our Off line blocking is either too complicated or the guys are not good enough--way too many "non-blocks"
3.With no big TE (or tall Aback ) we can't burn LBss that cheat on rush ,with quick over the middle pass
4.JT is too short to see them even if they were open
5. The backs still only block well 50% of time AT MAX
These are huge problems vs good defs or even fair defs (see dook)
until this improves expect struggling Off and struggling team

I'm gonna quote all these dumb things you said after the Miami win.