Spring Practice 2016 News & Notes

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
redmule said:
Last year should have taught us all that the usual metrics about the OL doesn't apply in this offense. Last year this time I think we would have all said that we have size, experience, and numbers coming back on the OL. Didn't matter. Maybe you only need two good OL guys in this offense. The first is center to make sure the exchange is good. The other guy has to be someone that you can usually get 2 yds behind when you have to have it. The other three OL are just there to occupy space. CPJ said as much when he talked about how poorly the OL outside of Mason played in 2014. If we take CPJ at his word, then the real reason for 2014 was talent, experience, and numbers at the skill positions. That would explain why we recruit so many A Backs and QBs. The speed of execution is the advantage. There will be a crease somewhere between the tackles. You just have to have a B Back that can find it instantly and get thru it (ie Laskey not Skov). There will be room to the outside if the lead A Back does his job. The other A Back has to be able to find that space and get thru it. That's why first year players are generally ineffective. When the skill players are gashing the defense, then the OL becomes a force multiplier as in 2014.

Maybe what we saw last year was what we all knew but didn't want to see. Our OL and DL will always be outmanned along the line of scrimmage with rare exceptions. Our success depends on misdirection, skill, timing, execution, and scheme. That means QB, WR, AB, BB. Navy could never outman anyone on the OL and DL, but their skill players perform great.
Click to expand...
I am still puzzled by his reference to 2014 line play. Either he has incredible, off the chart standards, impossible to grade out on, or maybe you're right. One or two really good ones are what is needed. I don't believe that, but I don't believe the '14 line play was that bad, either. Guess it's a good thing he is the coach.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,794
Location
Huntsville,Al
33jacket said:
we have 10 cheese...TEN. Thats not missing on 1-2. That is being short 5-6 with 3 coming in. Its more than a miss. Its a poor system of recruiting IMO.

as you know, we have this problem a ton. When a problem rinses and repeats...its generally behavior driven. We simply don't take or give or whatever it is enough OL ships each year...so we never have backups and never anticipate attrition and we are left in the cold a ton. Its a systematic approach problem IMO

and with recruiting...if you miss one year...the next you add that number and try to make it up. We miss year after year it seems...its just getting so frustrating to watch this disfunction for 8 years now on the OL. I am throwing up my hands.

In fact...this bothers me more than Roof does as our DC....and that says alot. Because this seems it can simply be fixed in approach...roof you have to fire and thats not always easy to do.
Click to expand...

it is more than OLs, the DTs have been down FOREVER--I know its hard to recruit very good DTs esp, but our default tactic in recruiting is to get ANOTHER back if we can't get enough/good enough DLs and really OLs also . We don't need to be 3 deep at A and B back at the loss of Line depth.(we are now FIVE deep at Bback and have 7 scholly guys at Aback)Take a chance on LINEMEN instead of A/B backs!
 

Deltajacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
71
alagold said:
it is more than OLs, the DTs have been down FOREVER--I know its hard to recruit very good DTs esp, but our default tactic in recruiting is to get ANOTHER back if we can't get enough/good enough DLs and really OLs also . We don't need to be 3 deep at A and B back at the loss of Line depth.(we are now FIVE deep at Bback and have 7 scholly guys at Aback)Take a chance on LINEMEN instead of A/B backs!
Click to expand...
We actually have decent depth on the DL if you take a look at the spring roster. I counted 5 scholarship DTs and 7 scholarship DEs. That's 12 scholarship guys to cover 4 spots. One or two of them bounce back and forth between DT /DE. I'll agree with you that DT is a tough spot to fill, but don't forget that we only play two of them at a time. OL wise depth is always seems to be an issue in the spring. Our guys seem to cross train at multiple OL positions but when you have to put 5 on the field every down, you certainly need more than the 11 scholarship guys that we show for spring. With Burden out and Griffin hobbled, it forces walk-on's to play a substantial role. I know we've had several scholarship OLs quit the team for various reasons over the past two years, but that type thing should be expected and accounted for in recruiting. I agree with you completely on the running backs. We put two A backs and one B back on the field at a time. Yet we have 12 scholarship A and B backs available for spring. Percentage wise our recruiting looks a little skewed. I hope we focus more on the big men in the trenches in this upcoming recruiting cycle.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
alagold said:
it is more than OLs, the DTs have been down FOREVER--I know its hard to recruit very good DTs esp, but our default tactic in recruiting is to get ANOTHER back if we can't get enough/good enough DLs and really OLs also . We don't need to be 3 deep at A and B back at the loss of Line depth.(we are now FIVE deep at Bback and have 7 scholly guys at Aback)Take a chance on LINEMEN instead of A/B backs!
Click to expand...
What football needs is a Moneyball revolution. Get those analytics in motion and do away with recruiting.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,125
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Deltajacket said:
We actually have decent depth on the DL if you take a look at the spring roster. I counted 5 scholarship DTs and 7 scholarship DEs. That's 12 scholarship guys to cover 4 spots. One or two of them bounce back and forth between DT /DE. I'll agree with you that DT is a tough spot to fill, but don't forget that we only play two of them at a time. OL wise depth is always seems to be an issue in the spring. Our guys seem to cross train at multiple OL positions but when you have to put 5 on the field every down, you certainly need more than the 11 scholarship guys that we show for spring. With Burden out and Griffin hobbled, it forces walk-on's to play a substantial role. I know we've had several scholarship OLs quit the team for various reasons over the past two years, but that type thing should be expected and accounted for in recruiting. I agree with you completely on the running backs. We put two A backs and one B back on the field at a time. Yet we have 12 scholarship A and B backs available for spring. Percentage wise our recruiting looks a little skewed. I hope we focus more on the big men in the trenches in this upcoming recruiting cycle.
Click to expand...

I posted this in another thread not too long ago. Its a direct comparison between Clemson's roster and ours.

Clemson GT
QB 5 4
RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0
OL 14 13
DL 15 17
LB 10 10
S 5 5
CB/DB 12 12
ST 3 3
Total 86 85

A few things of note. Our numbers are similar across the board. We recruit more RB's, but less WR/TE. Go figure. Also, note that Clemson has 86 players listed on their scholarship breakdown. Tigernet has one of those players listed as a greyshirt.

Moral of the story: Our coaches seem to know how to manage a roster.
 
Boomergump

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,284
If you ask me, going over 14 ( maybe 15 absolute tops) is not really wise. OL players aren't worth much on most special teams. When you have more numbers at other positions they can help a lot on special teams where cover speed matters. Plus, OL players typically can play more than one position in a pinch. When you cross train, why do you need 3 deep on a 5 person position group? We need depth at skill athletic positions where combatting fatigue matters more. The further you get from the ball, the more you run your butt off during a game.

I rank the importance of going over 3 deep in the following position groups from most to least:

1. QB
2. LB
3. BB
4. AB
5. Safety
6. WR
7. CB
8. DL
9. OL
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
Boomergump said:
If you ask me, going over 14 ( maybe 15 absolute tops) is not really wise. OL players aren't worth much on most special teams. When you have more numbers at other positions they can help a lot on special teams where cover speed matters. Plus, OL players typically can play more than one position in a pinch. When you cross train, why do you need 3 deep on a 5 person position group? We need depth at skill athletic positions where combatting fatigue matters more. The further you get from the ball, the more you run your butt off during a game.

I rank the importance of going over 3 deep in the following position groups from most to least:

1. QB
2. LB
3. BB
4. AB
5. Safety
6. WR
7. CB
8. DL
9. OL
Click to expand...

I'm sympathetic to this but think we need more. We've had several that never cracked significant playing time, and our attacking style seems more prone to injury. We have had to rely on guys playing hurt because of lack of depth.
 
PBR549

PBR549

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
837
Guys the OL is coached fine and there is nothing wrong with the scheme. The difference between 14 & 15 was at wide receiver. In 14 defenses had to account for two guys who could take the top off and that left a lot of running lanes. Last year we didn't have the experience to do that and it showed. I like having two OL coaches in this scheme and I think it will help us but there wasn't anyone complaining about our OL coach or recruiting numbers in14! I'm looking for the wideouts to step up this year and that will make a big difference. CPJ knows this.
 

Declinometer

Banned
Messages
1,178
PBR549 said:
Guys the OL is coached fine and there is nothing wrong with the scheme. The difference between 14 & 15 was at wide receiver. In 14 defenses had to account for two guys who could take the top off and that left a lot of running lanes. Last year we didn't have the experience to do that and it showed. I like having two OL coaches in this scheme and I think it will help us but there wasn't anyone complaining about our OL coach or recruiting numbers in14! I'm looking for the wideouts to step up this year and that will make a big difference. CPJ knows this.
Click to expand...
Precisely why CPJ is working directly with the WRs!
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,609
SidewalkJacket said:
Would you prefer we fill the "missing" OL spots with guys who aren't talented enough to make an impact here? As much as I love our offensive style, it can be a hard sell to NFL-minded recruits and we all know it. I don't think the answer is to just get more bodies. And as far as the DL goes, please tell me when GT last had a deep, stocked DL?
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I think if you look at the big factories that have an easy sell you'll see a ton of talented linemen, but when you look at most of the other programs you'll see a lot more talented guys at the skill positions. Honestly I think this is just because those big guys that are athletic are just more rare than the talented skill position guys. This means that you've just got fewer of hem spread amongst the same number of schools. Most people that weigh 300lbs aren't really the best athletes, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to stock up on guys that can't contribute.
 
Boomergump

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,284
What's more: if you don't get anything more out of a scholarship player than a walk on in terms of talent, why use a scholarship? Numbers at the position group are the numbers whether there is a scholly involved or not. If you use a scholarship it better be to secure an elevated talent difference that is pretty obvious. I have no idea what our coaches are running into in terms of recruiting OL. Hopefully we are signing most of the guys we really want, but there isn't a lot of wisdom in giving a schollarship to a kid who projects to fill the bottom of the depth chart for the sake of perceived depth.
 
Top