Ted Roof Bend but don't Break defense

[GTech63]

I think PJ has told Roof not to give up any more big plays, in other words long touchdown passes. As a result we play to keep everything in front of us and do not take many chances . We never jump the outside route and play the run to limit the QB and as result we let the RB's have too much. I know we are limited personnel wise but we really need to rethink our defensive strategy. What we are doing is not working. This seems to be an epidemic on many college campuses. Alabama and Mississippi are about the only teams I have watched this year that really seem to play defense well.

Go Jackets!

From what CPJ said on presser Pitt must be pretty darn good on D

 

[Techster]

I heard this the other day (and I'm sure its been mentioned before) that, when recruiting defensive players, opposing coaches constantly mention how bad it is for defenses to practice against our 3O offense in daily practices and most of our top guys turn away. Any truth to that?

It's been brought up by opposing coaches...even Cutcliffe mentioned it a few weeks ago before we played them.

 

[GTech63]

It should be noted however, that Carolina's wide receivers did a fantastic job of sealing the outside lanes and blocking our corners.

Yep we could learn from them about staying on your feet and maintain contact.

 

[GTech63]

The 'let the other team score' bit is more interesting to me as a strategy. I never faced a situation that would potentially warrant that call as a coach, so I'm not sure how I'd play it.

I'm not sure of the timing of the last drive but we can imagine a few situations. They need 2 points to win- at what point and where on the field do you let them score a touchdown?

Do they need to get past the 50 yard line? The 30, such that all they need is a 46ish yard field goal? The 20?

In retrospect, Monday morning quarterbacking, the coaching decision could be "damn it go all out for an interception, play tight, play tough, aggressive, jam them, gamble with early break to the ball.. If they break one we will hopefully have time to score again our selves". This is easy to say 48 hours later and sitting in your living room knowing what the outcome was.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

At least you are acknowledging that for this to really be a strategic decision for a coach to make he has got to really play it just right or else he is basically telling his D and their coaches that he thinks they blow and has zero faith in them to do what they always aim to do, namely, stop the opponent's offense.

When your head coach is also the offensive coordinator then I would think not provoking a locker room split of O versus D becomes a more serious concern for you to factor in as well. We are talking about non-professional 18-22 year olds after all.

I'm sure every person on the team knows that the D sucks. By definition giving up 7 TDs in an 11 possession game is sucky. CPJ has said the D sucks in a more polished way because it is a fact. Kids respect you less when you don't tell them something they know is true. They respect you when you tell them the truth.

We should have done whatever gave us the best chance to win. That would have been Smelter going down at the 14 or so ... enough for two sets of downs and score at the end with very little time and UNC without timeouts. Of course it was a risk we wouldn't score, but UNC had already scored with ease 6 times and our D was totally gassed. The only chance we really had on stopping UNC was another turnover. We had to be the team which shot last because NEITHER D was likely to stop the Os out there.

 

[IronJacket7]

Didn't we let an opponent score "too fast" on purpose a few years back so we could work the clock in our favor?

UGA

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I heard this the other day (and I'm sure its been mentioned before) that, when recruiting defensive players, opposing coaches constantly mention how bad it is for defenses to practice against our 3O offense in daily practices and most of our top guys turn away. Any truth to that?

No.

 

[33jacket]

I heard this the other day (and I'm sure its been mentioned before) that, when recruiting defensive players, opposing coaches constantly mention how bad it is for defenses to practice against our 3O offense in daily practices and most of our top guys turn away. Any truth to that?

It is a total truth that opposing teams say this to recruits. It is 100 percent true negative recruiting tactic. And it does affect our recruits i think last year a defensive recruit mentioned it i cant recall who. Even cutcliffe says it.

Is it true its harder on a defender to practice against. No. Is it true all spring and summer your fast live reps are vs our O and not a prostyle offense. Yes of course.

Is it true once the season starts most reps the defense has are against the scout team and other team offenses. Yes.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The 'let the other team score' bit is more interesting to me as a strategy. I never faced a situation that would potentially warrant that call as a coach, so I'm not sure how I'd play it.

I'm not sure of the timing of the last drive but we can imagine a few situations. They need 2 points to win- at what point and where on the field do you let them score a touchdown?

Do they need to get past the 50 yard line? The 30, such that all they need is a 46ish yard field goal? The 20?

I for one would never choose to give up a score or even an inch of ground purposely. But I can see the reasoning with the way our D was going vs. UNC. As for that particular game and team...if I were to entertain the strategy....it would only be inside the 20. The UNC kicker has been horrid and I would have liked our chances if he had to kick more than a 30 yarder.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We should have done whatever gave us the best chance to win. That would have been Smelter going down at the 14 or so ... enough for two sets of downs and score at the end with very little time and UNC without timeouts. Of course it was a risk we wouldn't score, but UNC had already scored with ease 6 times and our D was totally gassed. The only chance we really had on stopping UNC was another turnover. We had to be the team which shot last because NEITHER D was likely to stop the Os out there.

Sorry Nuke, but even though what you use to support your argument is true, it's not enough to support your argument. You just cannot refuse to score on purpose, especially late in the game, on the road, when you are BEHIND. That's just insane. You'd have your entire defense give up on you for the rest of the season and rightfully so. Imagine the backlash in the media if it backfired. CPJ would have been crucified not only on the boards but all across the media landscape and rightfully so. We'd be the laughing stock of the college football world and we'd be a dumpster fire right now. Hell, even if it worked, we'd be the laughing stock.

As it is, we just got beat and life goes on. You play to win with your TEAM. You win and lose as a team. Each unit, each player doing their part to contribute to the outcome. whatever it may be. That's just not football, that's any team sport.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Is it true all spring and summer your fast live reps are vs our O and not a prostyle offense. Yes of course.

How many teams run a "pro style" offense? How many pro teams still run a pro style offense? Defensive players need individual skills and skill development that happen regardless of the offense they may or may not face in practice. Besides, I highly doubt they only see the flexbone all of spring and fall camp, too.

 

[danny daniel]

I'm sure every person on the team knows that the D sucks. By definition giving up 7 TDs in an 11 possession game is sucky. CPJ has said the D sucks in a more polished way because it is a fact. Kids respect you less when you don't tell them something they know is true. They respect you when you tell them the truth.

We should have done whatever gave us the best chance to win. That would have been Smelter going down at the 14 or so ... enough for two sets of downs and score at the end with very little time and UNC without timeouts. Of course it was a risk we wouldn't score, but UNC had already scored with ease 6 times and our D was totally gassed. The only chance we really had on stopping UNC was another turnover. We had to be the team which shot last because NEITHER D was likely to stop the Os out there.

I agree with your thought process if we were less than a FG ahead. But since we were behind we had to hope that Smelter scored. We should have rushed 7 on every down on NCs last drive to either get a stop or give up a long/quick score so that we had time for a chance to score ourselves. With only needing a FG there was too much time and too little yardage needed by NC for the winning FG if we play soft/safe D.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree with your thought process if we were less than a FG ahead. But since we were behind we had to hope that Smelter scored. We should have rushed 7 on every down on NCs last drive to either get a stop or give up a long/quick score so that we had time for a chance to score ourselves. With only needing a FG there was too much time and too little yardage needed by NC for the winning FG if we play soft/safe D.

Yes, yes, yes.

 

[slugboy]

Isn't our main problem at DT? If Kallon had lived up to even half the hype he had gotten before coming to Tech it would make the job for everyone else on the defensive line a lot easier. Not trying to bash the kid just saying that to me our main weakness is DT.

DE is more of a need than DT. We lost our starting DE to graduation, his replacement to academics, plus we never got Whitehead for this year, so we started the season down three DE's (plus other losses, too).

Kallon wasn't hyped by the coaches. He has a lot of potential, but it's the message board crowd that hyped him.

 

[awbuzz]

Would be great to see 4* Kallon have a breakout 2nd half of the season. Unfortunately don't see it happening.

 

[GT Man]

I think PJ has told Roof not to give up any more big plays, in other words long touchdown passes. As a result we play to keep everything in front of us and do not take many chances . We never jump the outside route and play the run to limit the QB and as result we let the RB's have too much. I know we are limited personnel wise but we really need to rethink our defensive strategy. What we are doing is not working. This seems to be an epidemic on many college campuses. Alabama and Mississippi are about the only teams I have watched this year that really seem to play defense well.

Go Jackets!

You've touched on something I've noticed across the college football landscape. Defensive play isn't what it once was. Offenses are dominating the game nowadays. Any low-scoring games are usually a result of poor offensive play by both teams. It's not the same slugfest it once was. I'm thinking these new rules are causing the defensive players to play with less intensity.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

You've touched on something I've noticed across the college football landscape. Defensive play isn't what it once was. Offenses are dominating the game nowadays. Any low-scoring games are usually a result of poor offensive play by both teams. It's not the same slugfest it once was. I'm thinking these new rules are causing the defensive players to play with less intensity.

Consider just the one rule change in intentional grounding. Watch a few games this weekend and I am certain you will see 3 or 4 instances in every game of the ball being airmailed towards no one in particular without penalty. The QB having total freedom to throw whenever he is outside the tackles. Ten or 12 years ago, all those plays would have been sacks, hurried throws likely to be intercepted, or intentional grounding fouls. I realize all this is for qb safety considerations, but you are right, the defensive players HAVE TO PLAY WITH LESS INTENSITY, or risk roughing, targetting, ejections, etc. Things are skewed to the offense. Ohio State is about to score 50 in five straight game for the first time since 1903.

 

[B Lifsey]

Consider just the one rule change in intentional grounding. Watch a few games this weekend and I am certain you will see 3 or 4 instances in every game of the ball being airmailed towards no one in particular without penalty. The QB having total freedom to throw whenever he is outside the tackles. Ten or 12 years ago, all those plays would have been sacks, hurried throws likely to be intercepted, or intentional grounding fouls. I realize all this is for qb safety considerations, but you are right, the defensive players HAVE TO PLAY WITH LESS INTENSITY, or risk roughing, targetting, ejections, etc. Things are skewed to the offense. Ohio State is about to score 50 in five straight game for the first time since 1903.

The current intentional grounding rule, or lack thereof, is very frustrating to me. I hate to see pass rushers work hard to be right on the QB and he simply toss it 18 miles out of bounds.

 

[danny daniel]

The current intentional grounding rule, or lack thereof, is very frustrating to me. I hate to see pass rushers work hard to be right on the QB and he simply toss it 18 miles out of bounds.

I agree. This rule is too favorable to the O.

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

Would be great to see 4* Kallon have a breakout 2nd half of the season. Unfortunately don't see it happening.

Throw him out there and move Gotsis over to SDE and seal the edge. Let him at least be a big body out there in the middle, and bring more pressure from LBs behind him