Traditional passing vs option pitches/tosses

[dressedcheeseside]

The main thing missing here is that the sine qua non of our O's passing is a sound running game. The reason we do so many long passes - when we do - is because the D has been drawn in by the need to stop the run. That's also why taking a 5 count to get the pass off or starting under center isn't always that big a deal; the other side is staying in place to stop the run and almost all our passes are play action.

This does not mean that I don't think a slightly better passing game wouldn't help. I'm sure that Coach would agree since over the last few years Tech has brought in a bevy of QBs who are true dual purpose backs. One is starting right now (TM's senior year = 1376 passing, 18 tds, 1436 running, 12 tds), but it is obvious that he can help us more with his feet then his arm. Next year's QB - whoever that might be - will be bigger and have a better arm. But we'll just have to wait on that.

Not if it’s Tobias.

 

[GTRX7]

the UGA 2016 drive you mentioned started with 9 minutes left and we were not hurrying it up though we did have to pass to win.
A better one would be the one to win it that started at midfield with 3 mins left in that same game after that Jacob Eason Christ INT.

The 2014 ACC CG vs FSU drive you cite is the best example.

The Southern 2014 drive started at 8:49 mark and was mostly a series of run plays. Not at-all a hurry-up offense that we're talking about though it was a pass that won that near-disaster.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400547773

So 4 years since we've successfully run a hurry-up.

Not that I don't trust your gut, but I would be interested to see real data before making conclusions. In the last five years, how many times have we gotten the ball back in a 2-minute like scenario (with between 2:30 and :30 left on the clock to end a half or a game) and what was the result? Then, it would be good to know how that conversion rate compares to other teams. I suspect the conversion rate for most teams is not great and, from past analyses of these kind, I remember Tech doing pretty average (not great, but not terrible).

I looked at just this year. Here is how many times that situation has come up, and the result.
Alcorn - didn't come up
USF - 4th qtr, got ball at own 30 with 2:13 left. Result: 12 plays, 69 yards, clock ran out on the 1yd line
Pitt - 2nd qtr, got ball at own 26 with 0:32 left. Result: 4 plays, 39 yards, missed 52yd field goal.
Clem - didn't come up
BG - 4th qtr, got ball at own 29 with 1:30 left. Result: ran clock out.
UL - didn't come up, but did get ball in 2nd qtr at own 38 with 2:41 left. Result: 9 plays, 62 yards, TD.

Just based on this season, I can't say that we look horribly miserable in the "2-minute" offense.

 

[YJMD]

I don't give a flip about balance or whether pitches and tosses are equivalent to short passes. It's quite clear that when we are executing well (making the right reads and physically not getting beat), the scheme works and in my opinion works better than anything else. Stylistically, it's less drives per game which I don't prefer most of the time, but much of that is choice to be deliberate and only somewhat fewer clock stoppages.

I do think that there are some ways people defend us that technically we can beat with all we got but put more pressure on us to execute and not get beat physically. I think those schemes have some weaknesses that might be easier to attack, e.g. in the pass game. I'm ambivalent about whether we should try, though.

 

[Skeptic]

I will comment that I have noticed that in all of college football, QB's only have a count of three (maybe) to get their passes off. In other words, no one pass blocks really well. Most teams counter this with a short passing game so their QB can throw the ball quickly. Since our routes are all long, it stresses our pass blocking even more. But, in truth, I think our QB's need to release MUCH more quickly on their passes. Holding it for a 5 count waiting for a route to open up just doesn't work well. Gotta take a chance and throw it sooner as opposed to taking a sack.

If the objective is to throw it quick and short, well. The point has been made that our option game does that already. (I have to note I recorded and watched the Clemson game. Their throws to the boundary, one after another, reminded me of our dives up the middle in the sense that you get anxious to do something else. But it loosened WF up, as our game works. When they got the linebackers defending the boundary and the safeties up, Clemson threw one deep TD and had several very long runs off the now open tackle/DE hole. But I could sense the Clemson crowd getting antsy with all that sideways throwing.)

 

[Dustman]

A VPI game about 7 years ago as our season opener, where we drove the length of the field to tie it in regulation (losing in OT) is literally the last time I can recall us successfully scoring late in a game that mattered.

Boston College 2016?