Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
This WIN is a sneak peek of what CGC has in mind
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 648028" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>The Temple game wasn't horrible on offense except for constant turnovers. The strategy in the Clemson game seemed to be run with Oliver. Not a bad strategy because I don't think anything the team in the first game in a new system against a team as good and deep as Clemson would have done better than what happened in that game. The next few games had constantly changing QBs and running plays that didn't work, and didn't appear to have any chance of working. In the Citadel game, Oliver was moving the ball well. If he got in a third and long during a long drive, instead of seeing if Oliver could get a first or gain enough to be close enough to go for it on fourth, they sent in Johnson who was sacked a couple of times I think. It has appeared that when something starts working, they quickly went away from it and tried plays that didn't play off of the successful plays. In the second half of the Duke game, it was like playground ball, just take long shots on every play. It worked on three drives, but two or three other drives were three and out so it left the defense on the field for a very long time.</p><p></p><p>In the Miami game, there were issues and mistakes. However,(this is just my opinion from watching the game live) the play calling consistently used what was working. They put in an extremely quick slant pass. They put in that jet sweep--forward pitch pass play. Mason ran really well, and they used his running to set up pass plays. They used option concepts more. They put in motion that could have been used for a rocket toss. They put Graham under center on some short yardage plays. </p><p></p><p>In short it appeared to my untrained eyes as though the game plan was better thought out than in previous games. I don't think all of the progress on offense in this game was due to players playing better. I think at least part of it was due to the offensive coaches putting them in better positions to get good results. The play ratio was 60/40 run/pass. There were three sacks, so it was probably 55/45 play selection. I think a lot of what some people have been complaining about with respect to Patenaude has been the appearance of trying to force 60/40 pass/run with players who can't do that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 648028, member: 2426"] The Temple game wasn't horrible on offense except for constant turnovers. The strategy in the Clemson game seemed to be run with Oliver. Not a bad strategy because I don't think anything the team in the first game in a new system against a team as good and deep as Clemson would have done better than what happened in that game. The next few games had constantly changing QBs and running plays that didn't work, and didn't appear to have any chance of working. In the Citadel game, Oliver was moving the ball well. If he got in a third and long during a long drive, instead of seeing if Oliver could get a first or gain enough to be close enough to go for it on fourth, they sent in Johnson who was sacked a couple of times I think. It has appeared that when something starts working, they quickly went away from it and tried plays that didn't play off of the successful plays. In the second half of the Duke game, it was like playground ball, just take long shots on every play. It worked on three drives, but two or three other drives were three and out so it left the defense on the field for a very long time. In the Miami game, there were issues and mistakes. However,(this is just my opinion from watching the game live) the play calling consistently used what was working. They put in an extremely quick slant pass. They put in that jet sweep--forward pitch pass play. Mason ran really well, and they used his running to set up pass plays. They used option concepts more. They put in motion that could have been used for a rocket toss. They put Graham under center on some short yardage plays. In short it appeared to my untrained eyes as though the game plan was better thought out than in previous games. I don't think all of the progress on offense in this game was due to players playing better. I think at least part of it was due to the offensive coaches putting them in better positions to get good results. The play ratio was 60/40 run/pass. There were three sacks, so it was probably 55/45 play selection. I think a lot of what some people have been complaining about with respect to Patenaude has been the appearance of trying to force 60/40 pass/run with players who can't do that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
This WIN is a sneak peek of what CGC has in mind
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top