#VTvsGT Homecoming Postgame Thread

[cthenrys]

Under center- the QB has to turn and meet the Rb at the mesh at roughly 3-3.5yds then the RB still has to get to the ball and get the LOS

VS

SHOTGUN- ball is snapped & gets to the QB .5 sec mesh is at 5yds and RBs hits LOS a lot faster


You’re literally arguing proven scientific data bc you’re upset with a call

I don't like the call - it doesn't look like a good way to gain short yardage. But..... everyone does it and this is a good point. I think this is one where the experts know more than me (there may be a lot of these if I'm honest).

 

[Ibeeballin]

I don't like the call - it doesn't look like a good way to gain short yardage. But..... everyone does it and this is a good point. I think this is one where the experts know more than me (there may be a lot of these if I'm honest).

I don’t like the playcall either bc VT previously gave up 171 yds to Cuse QB. You don’t call a run play there that eliminates Sims there as threat to keep the ball

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

All I know is there are over 100 teams better than us in 3rd down conversion percentage. They can’t all have more talent and older than we are.

 

[yeti92]

I don’t like the playcall either bc VT previously gave up 171 yds to Cuse QB. You don’t call a run play there that eliminates Sims there as threat to keep the ball

Its almost like snapping from the shotgun and handing it to the running back 5 yards deep gives the defense ample time to see who has the ball and target them. If only there was some way to lineup where the quarterback doesn't have to decide to give/keep/pass and the defense doesn't know who will have the ball until they are nearly at the line of scrimmage...

 

[slugboy]

I don't like the call - it doesn't look like a good way to gain short yardage. But..... everyone does it and this is a good point. I think this is one where the experts know more than me (there may be a lot of these if I'm honest).

I'm more frustrated with us getting into that position.

I'll have to go back and look at the play, but when you're down to one shot, I'd like some sort of pre-snap option at least--a bubble screen or something if the defense looks weak to the outside, or a dive with a QB keep or end-around option. Or even a "glance" route where if VT is crashing, you hit the slot receiver for a quick 5.

Again, all I remember is that we ran behind the guard.

 

[UgaBlows]

I don’t like the playcall either bc VT previously gave up 171 yds to Cuse QB. You don’t call a run play there that eliminates Sims there as threat to keep the ball

I didn’t understand why we went with SUCH a predictable playcall on a crucial 4th down. Yes i can understand the CPJ attitude of if we can’t get this then we don’t deserve to win but you’ve gotta be smarter than that when there’s been very limited success all year with our power run game.

I truly don’t understand why we aren’t calling planned Sims run plays a whole lot more he is devastating when he breaks loose

 

[Ibeeballin]

Its almost like snapping from the shotgun and handing it to the running back 5 yards deep gives the defense ample time to see who has the ball and target them. If only there was some way to lineup where the quarterback doesn't have to decide to give/keep/pass and the defense doesn't know who will have the ball until they are nearly at the line of scrimmage...

So there is a fail proof offense?

 

[LibertyTurns]

So there is a fail proof offense?

It’s called whatever our opponent is running.

 

[Richard7125]

This contract, to me, is only second to Paul Hewitt's golden parachute as far as idiocy goes.

Georgia Tech has always sucked at sports contract/funding and that is your real problem.

I really like ADTSTAN, but allowing a seven year contract to be written is bad. Making it 4 years 100% guaranteed is borderline inexcusable.

It seems like half the fanbase complains we don’t pay enough to attract top coaches while the other half complains how Collins’ contract shackles our program. If you want the flexibility to replace a coach in 4 years, you either need to hire a bargain basement coach or you better be prepared to eat a lot of contract money. Look at the contracts Tennessee and FSU have been eating. Collins’ contract is peanuts compared to those.

 

[Animal02]

It seems like half the fanbase complains we don’t pay enough to attract top coaches while the other half complains how Collins’ contract shackles our program. If you want the flexibility to replace a coach in 4 years, you either need to hire a bargain basement coach or you better be prepared to eat a lot of contract money. Look at the contracts Tennessee and FSU have been eating. Collins’ contract is peanuts compared to those.

Average coaching span of a D1 coach is five years. 7 was ridiculous, especially with the buy out terms for someone with 2 years HC experience (at a G5 school no less) TStan bought the hype hook line and sinker......as did so many posters. As I posted earlier....there were people claiming we had to give him a 7 year contract in order to keep him from jumping ship......this from a guy that claimed this was his dream job.

 

[g0lftime]

Its almost like snapping from the shotgun and handing it to the running back 5 yards deep gives the defense ample time to see who has the ball and target them. If only there was some way to lineup where the quarterback doesn't have to decide to give/keep/pass and the defense doesn't know who will have the ball until they are nearly at the line of scrimmage...

We don't seem to ride the RB into the line. They stand there and then he makes the decision to keep or handoff from a dead stop. Not sure who he is reading MLB? The defense is not forced to react to a fake. WF runs the read option really well. Ball is kept in the belly until the RB almost hits the hole. If WF can field a competitive team then so can we with good coaching. We have advantages they don't have.

 

[g0lftime]

Pretty obvious even with all those elite recruits at Clemson that you better have those that are really elite in the right positions. They are winning with defense.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Under center- the QB has to turn and meet the Rb at the mesh at roughly 3-3.5yds then the RB still has to get to the ball and get the LOS

VS

SHOTGUN- ball is snapped & gets to the QB .5 sec mesh is at 5yds and RBs hits LOS a lot faster


You’re literally arguing proven scientific data bc you’re upset with a call

FWIW, under center mesh midpoint is roughly 1.5 yards from LOS. In this play, snap point was just short of the 30, midmesh is just past the 28.

 

[rfjeff9]

Under center- the QB has to turn and meet the Rb at the mesh at roughly 3-3.5yds then the RB still has to get to the ball and get the LOS

VS

SHOTGUN- ball is snapped & gets to the QB .5 sec mesh is at 5yds and RBs hits LOS a lot faster


You’re literally arguing proven scientific data bc you’re upset with a call

First, there is no proven science in GT football, so defending a read option from shotgun on 4th and short would require a much higher success rate than the available empirical data we have on the books and that we actually witnessed firsthand. In short, “going by the numbers” we either call a different play, go for 3 , or punt. Has this season’s experience proven otherwise? From what we have all seen firsthand?

And secondly, to clarify I am not against the call to go for it, I just don’t like the play called when the D has a pretty darn good idea of what’s coming.

A 90 - 110 degree turn to a back (maybe add a -0.5 yards) moving at close to top speed 2 yards behind the LOS is a far shorter delay in time to hit the LOS than a read 4 yards behind the LOS BEFORE the back even starts to move forward. There is NO QUESTION this is true.

And why would the QB run back 3 - 3.5 yards to handoff to a back that is whisking by him Laskey speed? There is no drop back 3.5 yards to hand to a back or even decide to keep the ball and follow him through. Hell, just have a FB lead and hand to Gibbs, there is no mesh, it’s just a handoff fundamental play that even pee wee league has perfected. Even do a Maryland I-formation, and use muscle to push it in. I remember O’Leary using on the goal line, it worked fine.

In this scenario, both instances have a mesh. One is 1.5 yards back and the other is 4 yards back. Under center, the back is close to top speed headed downhill. In the gun, the back is pausing after the snap before he begins to move forward. And you argue the shotgun back hits the LOS first?!?!?!?!?

This notion you just posted that a read option 5 yards back from the LOS hits the LOS a lot faster than any other play under center is ridiculous. At this point I just think you are trolling me and am not sure I can even take your implication serious. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume I misunderstand your argument. Please elaborate if this is the case, we can restart the discussion with a clean slate.

Quote posted here for clarification…

Under center- the QB has to turn and meet the Rb at the mesh at roughly 3-3.5yds then the RB still has to get to the ball and get the LOS

VS

SHOTGUN- ball is snapped & gets to the QB .5 sec mesh is at 5yds and RBs hits LOS a lot faster

 

[00Burdell]

The Margin: 3 uncovered WRs = 17pts & a VT win

Terrible holding call took away a TD.

Time for a few guys on the defense to put up the for sale sign on their residence

Are we so thin that we can't substitute? What's the point of the ATL chart if nobody is looking at it?

 

[bobongo]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this, but honestly I was hoping to see Yates in the second half. I just think he's better at spotting and hitting receivers. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but it might have been something to try. And what do we have to lose by trying some new people at DB?

 

[cthenrys]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this, but honestly I was hoping to see Yates in the second half. I just think he's better at spotting and hitting receivers. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but it might have been something to try. And what do we have to lose by trying some new people at DB?

Coach would be losing face ?

 

[bobongo]

First, there is no proven science in GT football, so defending a read option from shotgun on 4th and short would require a much higher success rate than the available empirical data we have on the books and that we actually witnessed firsthand. In short, “going by the numbers” we either call a different play, go for 3 , or punt. Has this season’s experience proven otherwise? From what we have all seen firsthand?

And secondly, to clarify I am not against the call to go for it, I just don’t like the play called when the D has a pretty darn good idea of what’s coming.

A 90 - 110 degree turn to a back (maybe add a -0.5 yards) moving at close to top speed 2 yards behind the LOS is a far shorter delay in time to hit the LOS than a read 4 yards behind the LOS BEFORE the back even starts to move forward. There is NO QUESTION this is true.

And why would the QB run back 3 - 3.5 yards to handoff to a back that is whisking by him Laskey speed? There is no drop back 3.5 yards to hand to a back or even decide to keep the ball and follow him through. Hell, just have a FB lead and hand to Gibbs, there is no mesh, it’s just a handoff fundamental play that even pee wee league has perfected. Even do a Maryland I-formation, and use muscle to push it in. I remember O’Leary using on the goal line, it worked fine.

In this scenario, both instances have a mesh. One is 1.5 yards back and the other is 4 yards back. Under center, the back is close to top speed headed downhill. In the gun, the back is pausing after the snap before he begins to move forward. And you argue the shotgun back hits the LOS first?!?!?!?!?

This notion you just posted that a read option 5 yards back from the LOS hits the LOS a lot faster than any other play under center is ridiculous. At this point I just think you are trolling me and am not sure I can even take your implication serious. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume I misunderstand your argument. Please elaborate if this is the case, we can restart the discussion with a clean slate.

Quote posted here for clarification…

Under center- the QB has to turn and meet the Rb at the mesh at roughly 3-3.5yds then the RB still has to get to the ball and get the LOS

VS

SHOTGUN- ball is snapped & gets to the QB .5 sec mesh is at 5yds and RBs hits LOS a lot faster

Just center the ball straight to the rb.

 

[bobongo]

Coach would be losing face ?

He lost face when he lost the game. I think fans would be glad to see him at least TRY something different, even if it didn't work.

 

[rfjeff9]

Just center the ball straight to the rb.

TBH, that is an actual alternative play than the one that we seem to always call that never works.