Upon Further Review

CornerBlitz

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
160
So I sat down and watched the tape this afternoon with my Dad, whom I regard as the best D Coordinator in the state since GOL left for ND. He's also a former GT player with a ton of coaching experience.

The question we tried to answer is (1) were we out schemed and if so, is it correctable or (2) were we just not that good defensively. We think their is evidence both ways, but the answer likely lies in the middle. Here is our $.02.

1. CTR left the A gap open all afternoon, often stacking the ILBs on the tackles (3 technique). This was a scheme problem all day long and exploited well by Wofford. Case in point the 93 yd TD. Once the safety over pursued, it was over. No idea what the thinking is here.
2. Our defensive ends looked terrible. Too much indecisiveness on the TO. many times they simply played themselves out of the play. They were obviously trying to slow play the option as opposed to making a decision then playing fast and aggressive.
3. Neely did not play well at all. Thought he looked confused. OL was reaching him all day, sometimes before he even took a step. Curious to know what his reads were, likely not all his fault. Still has a very difficult time shedding blocks.
4. Demond Smith and IJ looked pretty good overall. Glad to see IJ back healthy.
5. Little push from the DTs. This is not a good sign.

Thank goodness we don't play anymore TO, because, we did not scheme or execute well.

Thoughts on O.
1. Smelter is a beast. Wondering who is better WR this side of Amari cooper. He may be out there, but I haven't seen him.
2. Love the way JT settled down. His quickness running and getting rid of the football is fantastic. Missed some reads, which is to be expected. Have high hopes for him.
3. Laskey runs tough, but missed a lot of lanes that were there or that he simply didn't have the wheels to get to. Tough kid, but not Dwyer or AA.
4. Other than Mason, OL play was average. Center had a difficult time getting across DT. Chamberlain played better than initial impression I had.

In summary, I expect CTR to clean some of the defensive alignment issues up this week and hope to see improvement vs. Tulane. Will have problem getting pass rush all season, which means a blitz heavy attack is on order. Really looking forward to maturation of JT. Think he has a chance to be special.
 

CrackerJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
348
Location
Corpus Christi, TX
Agree Neely was a real disappointment. Ok from side-to-side but when o-linemen came right at him he couldn't fight them off. Although you cite safety play in Wofford's 90+ yard TD run, I recall an o-lineman taking Neely completely out of the play. Don't they teach LBs to use their arms fight off those big uglies?
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,522
Location
Georgia
on #1, because I don't totally follow what you are trying to say...

a 3 tech is an alignment over the guards shoulder. a 5 tech is over tackles shoulder...a 4tech is inside tackles shoulder. If a LB is over guard and on the LOS (not off the line but on the line) its called a 30tech. If over tackle a 50tech. At least that was the terminology we used...i think is pretty common....

So are you saying you guys saw in our scheme the LB's lining up in a 50tech alot? Or are you saying you saw them flow that way after the ball was snapped? I saw our single ILB flow poorly a ton...but he was lined up over center alot...

Untitled.jpg


on the 92 yarder, the ILB was right up over center ....he flat out just played it bad....This was not an alignment or scheme issue IMO. It was a poor play by two players, the mlb and S

agreed on the other points....but on the DT point 5 watch gotsis on alot of the plays again. He was out of position a ton...overpursuing...trying to do too much. in fact on this 92 yarder he took himself out of the play almost instantly

Bottom line...it was just ugly for some plays of the game.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Messages
8,665
Location
Marietta, GA
The D line play is what frightens me the most...

thought the DB's did a good job in coverage most of the day. It'll be interesting to see them against some "higher level" competition.
 

CornerBlitz

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
160
Agree Neely was a real disappointment. Ok from side-to-side but when o-linemen came right at him he couldn't fight them off. Although you cite safety play in Wofford's 90+ yard TD run, I recall an o-lineman taking Neely completely out of the play. Don't they teach LBs to use their arms fight off those big uglies?
Correct in that Neely got sealed, but safety also got out of position. He got sucked into the flow with nobody over top.
 

txsting

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
129
I think a blitz heavy attack is a good scheme idea when you are outmanned. Take chances and try to get the other team off schedule. If you fail, at least you get your defense off the field quick and you can get right back to grinding down the opposition D. We don't usually need a ton of stops in order to win a ball game.
 

Animal02

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,054
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Critics state that we practice against the TO too much. Fans state that we were not prepared for the TO. I am scratching my head.:cigar:
I have never understood why people think the 1st string defense would practice against the 1st string office "too much" Even in H.S., we rarely had any live action against the 1st string D, we always practiced against the scout team.......as did the defense. Although I "knew" the our defense since I was a 3rd string DL (was 1st Center) We had about 75 on the team. I never keep track of much of the defensive schemes because the scrubs would play before they ever put me in....same with the defensive players playing O. I have to believe it is no different (if not more separation) between the O and D.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,625
on #1, because I don't totally follow what you are trying to say...

a 3 tech is an alignment over the guards shoulder. a 5 tech is over tackles shoulder...a 4tech is inside tackles shoulder. If a LB is over guard and on the LOS (not off the line but on the line) its called a 30tech. If over tackle a 50tech. At least that was the terminology we used...i think is pretty common....

So are you saying you guys saw in our scheme the LB's lining up in a 50tech alot? Or are you saying you saw them flow that way after the ball was snapped? I saw our single ILB flow poorly a ton...but he was lined up over center alot...

View attachment 354

on the 92 yarder, the ILB was right up over center ....he flat out just played it bad....This was not an alignment or scheme issue IMO. It was a poor play by two players, the mlb and S

agreed on the other points....but on the DT point 5 watch gotsis on alot of the plays again. He was out of position a ton...overpursuing...trying to do too much. in fact on this 92 yarder he took himself out of the play almost instantly

Bottom line...it was just ugly for some plays of the game.
33, I watched an ESPN show with ex coaches they explained the whole terminology of #techs. They said 0tech is heads up on the center (nose). Then they said each group of 3 numbers aligned with each OL out from center. For example 1tech, 2 tech and 3tech aligned with the guard, 4tech, 5tech and 6tech aligned with the tackle and 7tech, 8tech and 9tech aligned with the TE. Each was a little different based on inside shoulder - straight up - or outside shoulder alignment.

C........G.......T.......TE
0.......123...456.....789

By this explanation, a 5tech is heads up on the tackle.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,535
Location
North Shore, Chicago
In my highschool, our 1st string O was our 1st string D, so we never practiced against each other.

Other than that, when we scrimage in the Spring and during Fall camp, our 1's go against our 1's and 2's on 2's quite often. We should have been prepared for that offense. They were better prepared than us, and that doesn't really make much sense to me.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
They were better prepared than us, and that doesn't really make much sense to me.
What exactly are you basing this on? The score? How competitive the game was?

I usually reserve this kind of indictment for obvious problems in execution of schemes, certain penalties, etc. Just curious.
 

Animal02

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,054
Location
Southeastern Michigan
In my highschool, our 1st string O was our 1st string D, so we never practiced against each other.

Other than that, when we scrimage in the Spring and during Fall camp, our 1's go against our 1's and 2's on 2's quite often. We should have been prepared for that offense. They were better prepared than us, and that doesn't really make much sense to me.
That is a couple of scrimmages out of how many practices? It is not that much
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,535
Location
North Shore, Chicago
What exactly are you basing this on? The score? How competitive the game was?

I usually reserve this kind of indictment for obvious problems in execution of schemes, certain penalties, etc. Just curious.
I'm basing it on what I saw and the impression it left me with. We both run similar offenses and I thought Wofford played more disciplined that we did. We were better, which is why we won, but I think they (their D) were better prepared. Just my opinion.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,535
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That is a couple of scrimmages out of how many practices? It is not that much
You're right, but this type of O is our bread-and-butter. The players on the scout team were specifically recruited because their skills mesh with this system. We should have had an advantage in preparing for this Offense because our scout guys should be bigger and faster, thus slowing down the game for our D when playing Wofford. It didn't look that way to me.
 
Top