Roof Out as DC

[g0lftime]

Not sure how long PJ plans to coach but this staff change may be his last big chance for major improvement. Not expecting any changes out of him anymore. He is what he is for better or worse. He has brought in good kids to the program and that is worth a lot to me. I hope we hit a home un with our new DC.

 

[PBR549]

CPJ pretty much gave it away on his last call-in show, when he said he can't coach everybody. I think he was tired of having to tell Roof over and over again to get aggressive.

I love CPJ and the triple option offense but he's trying to save his own skin. It's not anything new. It's exactly what happens to every head coach eventually from Bobby Bowdon to Mark Richt and everyone in between. When faced with firing a coordinator or being shown the door yourself you either stand by your guy or you do what you have to do. I don't judge the guy who fires his coordinator, for the most part he's earned the right. In this case however I don't believe it will save his skin. It's too difficult to recruit good players at Tech. The deal is you do what you have to do to provide for your family. That's just the way it is. As a GT fan it's a path that leads to a dead end IMO. Putting Band-Aids on a major would doesn't heal the wound.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

CPJ does more with less on offense, I’d much rather do that on D as well.

I won't argue that Roof, or his scheme, were the "best" for GT. Even though I would have preferred he stay another year, I can completely understand those in the fan base that desired change. My only contention is this statement of yours. CPJ overcomes lack of top tier talent on O via the "scheme." I am not certain there is a comparable "scheme" for D that allows us to do more with less. D is heavily dependent on talent.

Now, maybe this new scheme, and the new DC coaching it, can get results we have not previously seen here at GT under CPJ. I certainly hope so. But if he does, I don't think it's indicative of the new "scheme" being the answer, but rather that we will finally have a DC than can fit all the parts together well enough to be consistent.

 

[GTL]

I love CPJ and the triple option offense but he's trying to save his own skin.

Really? You mean he's not trying to, you know, like, win games and championships?

 

[33jacket]

I won't argue that Roof, or his scheme, were the "best" for GT. Even though I would have preferred he stay another year, I can completely understand those in the fan base that desired change. My only contention is this statement of yours. CPJ overcomes lack of top tier talent on O via the "scheme." I am not certain there is a comparable "scheme" for D that allows us to do more with less. D is heavily dependent on talent.

Now, maybe this new scheme, and the new DC coaching it, can get results we have not previously seen here at GT under CPJ. I certainly hope so. But if he does, I don't think it's indicative of the new "scheme" being the answer, but rather that we will finally have a DC than can fit all the parts together well enough to be consistent.

O will always have a scheme advantage so doing more with less talent players is easier to see.

So on O. We have been top 15 with top 55 talent. Big jump.

On D. We have been typically around 70 in fei with roof with top 55 talent, but actually most of our better recruits are on d historically so it’s probably more like top 45 d talent.

A d scheme can maximize who you have and how you recruit to it. What type of cb. Or de. A system on d can give you the advantage of finding the right fit players. Like we do on O. Secondly what most of us are saying is not to be top 15 like we can be on O. Rather take these top 50 classes and just be, top 50 at least and with good scheme and coaching be top 40 in fei consistently.



Not too much to ask. At gt the scheme has to fit who you can recruit. D schemes can absolutely get more out if their players with good design and coaching. Not the same as O. But still it can be done. Not all blitzes are equal. Just like not all option plays are. There is alot more we can do. Cover 2. Then there are variants of cover 2 to confuse. We did none of that. Again. Not all coverages are equal.

We will see with woody. But some concepts he runs i can see working here. But there is alot more to coaching and the assistant hire will be key. So we will see

 

[PBR549]

O will always have a scheme advantage so doing more with less talent players is easier to see.

So on O. We have been top 15 with top 55 talent. Big jump.

On D. We have been typically around 70 in fei with roof with top 55 talent, but actually most of our better recruits are on d historically so it’s probably more like top 45 d talent.

A d scheme can maximize who you have and how you recruit to it. What type of cb. Or de. A system on d can give you the advantage of finding the right fit players. Like we do on O. Secondly what most of us are saying is not to be top 15 like we can be on O. Rather take these top 50 classes and just be, top 50 at least and with good scheme and coaching be top 40 in fei consistently.



Not too much to ask. At gt the scheme has to fit who you can recruit. D schemes can absolutely get more out if their players with good design and coaching. Not the same as O. But still it can be done. Not all blitzes are equal. Just like not all option plays are. There is alot more we can do. Cover 2. Then there are variants of cover 2 to confuse. We did none of that. Again. Not all coverages are equal.

We will see with woody. But some concepts he runs i can see working here. But there is alot more to coaching and the assistant hire will be key. So we will see

Talk to me in two years!

 

[PBR549]

Really? You mean he's not trying to, you know, like, win games and championships?

That's what he needs to do to save his job! We'll see but I believe it's a long shot.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

O will always have a scheme advantage so doing more with less talent players is easier to see.

So on O. We have been top 15 with top 55 talent. Big jump.

On D. We have been typically around 70 in fei with roof with top 55 talent, but actually most of our better recruits are on d historically so it’s probably more like top 45 d talent.

A d scheme can maximize who you have and how you recruit to it. What type of cb. Or de. A system on d can give you the advantage of finding the right fit players. Like we do on O. Secondly what most of us are saying is not to be top 15 like we can be on O. Rather take these top 50 classes and just be, top 50 at least and with good scheme and coaching be top 40 in fei consistently.



Not too much to ask. At gt the scheme has to fit who you can recruit. D schemes can absolutely get more out if their players with good design and coaching. Not the same as O. But still it can be done. Not all blitzes are equal. Just like not all option plays are. There is alot more we can do. Cover 2. Then there are variants of cover 2 to confuse. We did none of that. Again. Not all coverages are equal.

We will see with woody. But some concepts he runs i can see working here. But there is alot more to coaching and the assistant hire will be key. So we will see

IMO, the key difference in CPJs O is that the scheme allows recruits that other schools would bypass to succeed. In major FBS (P5) football, we are the ONLY school that runs our offense, so we are at a recruiting advantage against other "option" teams, like the academies, when trying to find athletes that fit our system. On Defense, however, there really isn't a "triple option" scheme that "no one runs anymore." We will be competing against other P5 schools that run similar defenses for the guys that "fit" the scheme. So while, yes, the different D schemes utilize different player fits to different advantages, I still don't think there is a defensive version of the "triple option" out there for us to grab hold of. It's still going to come down to landing better talent on D, no matter what scheme we run.

I agree with you completely about the DFEI rankings. I also think that getting into the top 50 would help dramatically.

 

[UgaBlows]

Maybe i'm crazy but i think 2014's team with Smelter and a little better of a defense could have won a Natty.

 

[33jacket]

IMO, the key difference in CPJs O is that the scheme allows recruits that other schools would bypass to succeed. In major FBS (P5) football, we are the ONLY school that runs our offense, so we are at a recruiting advantage against other "option" teams, like the academies, when trying to find athletes that fit our system. On Defense, however, there really isn't a "triple option" scheme that "no one runs anymore." We will be competing against other P5 schools that run similar defenses for the guys that "fit" the scheme. So while, yes, the different D schemes utilize different player fits to different advantages, I still don't think there is a defensive version of the "triple option" out there for us to grab hold of. It's still going to come down to landing better talent on D, no matter what scheme we run.

I agree with you completely about the DFEI rankings. I also think that getting into the top 50 would help dramatically.

So I disagree a bit here. Again, I will say it. We have top 45 D talent. Therefore just by having a better staff, and scheme we can improve greatly on D without having to land better talent. And there are schemes to help us do that with the type of kid we get here.

I am not sure if I can be any simpler with my point. I agree, there is nothing as dramatic as pauls triple O on D we can "find". But there is enough on D we can do with who we have and who we recruit to be alot better.

its quit a simple point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

See you are just going off a feeling, which I’m perfectly fine with, we all have our opinions. However, you are acting as if it’s more than a feeling with absolutely no facts to back yourself up. That’s why, when I ask for proof you give me an answer of talk to me in two years, because it’s just a feeling with no proof. Let me ask you this, if GT brakes out of the 60’s in FEI what will you say? Because that has never been done under Roof at GT. That’s nothing against Roof, I don’t mind the guy at all and I think he is a class act. I’m just curious to what you will say if our D in year 1 under Woody outperforms all 5 years under Roof?

 

[33jacket]

Talk to me in two years!

I was right preseason roof predictions.
I was right about roof in general.
Eat your crow and move on.

Now you are grasping at 2 year straws knowing thats when pauls contract is basically over. Quite a convenient selection in timing and funny as heck actually. If paul gets fired, it won't be because roof is not here, and I am fairly certain the new DC won't be any worse than roof by year 2 anyway.

Whats even sillier, is roof, this great asset to the program, was here a half a decade yet still couldn't crack the top 60 or so in fei, recruiting classes are about the same they have always been. Yet, somehow you tie the success of this program to this one guy like he mattered when 5 years of data suggest he doesn't at all.

Here is what the deal is. GT is a tough place to recruit to. Period. No assistant is going to fix that. Nor any head coach; its a program hurdle. So the only way to be successful here is run good systems on O and D. We have one on O. We need one on D that fits tech; may be we finally got one that at least produces to par of what the general talent level seems to be.

 

[iceeater1969]

Maybe i'm crazy but i think 2014's team with Smelter and a little better of a defense could have won a Natty.

You are right.
Ken posted an article on this.
I feel we were lucky to end season against fsu that had novice dc , uga ditto, and msu who had db coiach as dc. If our defense had been more aggressive we would have had the ball back sooner. They could not stop but we slowly didnt stop them. . If the aggressive d got us a few turn overs, we would have looked great. Asking freshman keshan freeman to bull rush the giant orcs on fsu was insane. They just threw him out of way for dalvin cook to run off tackle .
Our defense l strategy of bull ruysh and read react with our smaller players has hurt our offense.
We are 5 years late in getting a defense to match our talent.
Thats a head coach issue

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'll be happy if our D can play at their talent level, not below. Anything better is gravy.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So I disagree a bit here. Again, I will say it. We have top 45 D talent. Therefore just by having a better staff, and scheme we can improve greatly on D without having to land better talent. And there are schemes to help us do that with the type of kid we get here.

I am not sure if I can be any simpler with my point. I agree, there is nothing as dramatic as pauls triple O on D we can "find". But there is enough on D we can do with who we have and who we recruit to be alot better.

its quit a simple point.

I don't think we're very far apart here. I think our talent on D has improved dramatically the last few years. I would say top 50 easily. I think the distinction is that we have to have top 50 talent to field a top 50 D, so, in essence, the D's success depends on talent as much as scheme. We've had the talent, but the implementation of the scheme has lacked. My point was more that we aren't going to outscheme our way out of the talent gap on D as easily as we can on offense, mainly due to the fact that there is no D scheme similar in nature to the O scheme CPJ runs.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I won't argue that Roof, or his scheme, were the "best" for GT. Even though I would have preferred he stay another year, I can completely understand those in the fan base that desired change. My only contention is this statement of yours. CPJ overcomes lack of top tier talent on O via the "scheme." I am not certain there is a comparable "scheme" for D that allows us to do more with less. D is heavily dependent on talent.

Now, maybe this new scheme, and the new DC coaching it, can get results we have not previously seen here at GT under CPJ. I certainly hope so. But if he does, I don't think it's indicative of the new "scheme" being the answer, but rather that we will finally have a DC than can fit all the parts together well enough to be consistent.

I posted another post saying you probably cant offset as much on D as you can with our O but you definitely can offset talent to an extent on D. The main thing is confusing the offense, you do this and that offsets a talent gap. We were not very exotic is our blitz, stunts, or coverages under Roof, but that’s something you can definitely do. If the QB is confused about a coverage then that offsets talent, or if the OL is confused about who to pick up on a blitz or pre snap movement confuses them on who to pick up you will end up offsetting the talent gap to an extent.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't think we're very far apart here. I think our talent on D has improved dramatically the last few years. I would say top 50 easily. I think the distinction is that we have to have top 50 talent to field a top 50 D, so, in essence, the D's success depends on talent as much as scheme. We've had the talent, but the implementation of the scheme has lacked. My point was more that we aren't going to outscheme our way out of the talent gap on D as easily as we can on offense, mainly due to the fact that there is no D scheme similar in nature to the O scheme CPJ runs.

Where does a #50 talent level put us compared to the rest of the ACC? Coastal?

 

[33jacket]

I don't think we're very far apart here. I think our talent on D has improved dramatically the last few years. I would say top 50 easily. I think the distinction is that we have to have top 50 talent to field a top 50 D, so, in essence, the D's success depends on talent as much as scheme. We've had the talent, but the implementation of the scheme has lacked. My point was more that we aren't going to outscheme our way out of the talent gap on D as easily as we can on offense, mainly due to the fact that there is no D scheme similar in nature to the O scheme CPJ runs.

my point is we can outscheme our way on D FAR more than we have with who we got....maybe not to top 10 consistently no freaking way

but no reason to not be top 40 or 45 with some peaks (top 25) and some valleys (top 65) because at tech generally thats how it works.

what we have now are peaks at 60. and valleys at 110 (aka roof factor)

anyway, kinda beating a dead horse.

I got what I wanted. Roof gone. Lets hope woody is a good hire. Certainly on tape I like his fronts...

AND, the best part is, it really is who paul wanted to hire from day 1. Where as in the past it was not so easy or clean

 

[dressedcheeseside]

my point is we can outscheme our way on D FAR more than we have with who we got....maybe not to top 10 consistently no freaking way

but no reason to not be top 40 or 45 with some peaks (top 25) and some valleys (top 65) because at tech generally thats how it works.

what we have now are peaks at 60. and valleys at 110 (aka roof factor)

To have a good D you need good DT's, period. Woody, himself, wrote that his nose tackle is the key ingredient to his defense and that they are the hardest guys to get. When we start getting them, then we have a shot.

 

[33jacket]

To have a good D you need good DT's, period. Woody, himself, wrote that his nose tackle is the key ingredient to his defense and that they are the hardest guys to get. When we start getting them, then we have a shot.

its relative. We have 2-3 guys right now on tech that fit what woody does at nose to a T. I think/hope we will be pleasantly surprised at how different our DL looks when they are asked to attack one spot as hard as they can.