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
Was our defense hamstrung in the past?
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="bobongo" data-source="post: 566821" data-attributes="member: 3893"><p>Man, I have come down on both sides of this argument (I might be just wishy-washy). But here's how it looks to me:</p><p></p><p>On the one hand, it seems intuitive that practicing against the scout team (simulating the opponent), or practicing against the first- and second-team offense (running the option) is not optimal. Against the scout team, the offense your seeing is just nowhere near as good as the one you'll see on game day, and against the option offense, it won't be the same offense you'll see on game day.</p><p></p><p>However, there are the examples of option teams that put good defenses on the field (Georgia Southern led its conference in defense, and Army ranked #8 in the nation in defense, and far better than us in FEI). So it's proven that you<em> can</em> put a good defense on the field with an option offense.</p><p></p><p>So here's the conclusion I've come to at long last (until I change my mind again): Preparing a defense on a team that runs an oddball offense is not optimal, but the <em>more important factor is personnel</em>. The players we've had were roughly the same caliber on offense and defense, but the offense had a scheme that gave us an advantage. The defense didn't have that same luxury. Call the defense vanilla or whatever, but the more important factor is that we just haven't had the horses, and couldn't mask that fact on defense as we could on offense by a superior scheme that could neutralize the personnel disadvantage. Sure, we could have had better DC's (I think in particular Roof and Groh were lacking), and the offensive scheme hampered us somewhat. But the more important factor has been personnel.</p><p></p><p>Now, the question is why were Georgia Southern and Army able to come up with better personnel (<em>relative to their level of competition</em>) than us. <em>Perhaps</em> the answer to that is that it's easier to recruit to that level (FCS for Ga. Southern and G5 for Army). The oddball offensive scheme just doesn't effect those schools like it does at the P5 level, one reason being that far fewer of the players at the lower levels are going to have pro ball in their sights. Now, as for whether we could have done a better job recruiting than we did - well, I think we could have (I don't think our staff was made up of particularly good recruiters), but the oddball scheme does seem to have much more of an adverse effect on recruiting at the P5 level.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bobongo, post: 566821, member: 3893"] Man, I have come down on both sides of this argument (I might be just wishy-washy). But here's how it looks to me: On the one hand, it seems intuitive that practicing against the scout team (simulating the opponent), or practicing against the first- and second-team offense (running the option) is not optimal. Against the scout team, the offense your seeing is just nowhere near as good as the one you'll see on game day, and against the option offense, it won't be the same offense you'll see on game day. However, there are the examples of option teams that put good defenses on the field (Georgia Southern led its conference in defense, and Army ranked #8 in the nation in defense, and far better than us in FEI). So it's proven that you[I] can[/I] put a good defense on the field with an option offense. So here's the conclusion I've come to at long last (until I change my mind again): Preparing a defense on a team that runs an oddball offense is not optimal, but the [I]more important factor is personnel[/I]. The players we've had were roughly the same caliber on offense and defense, but the offense had a scheme that gave us an advantage. The defense didn't have that same luxury. Call the defense vanilla or whatever, but the more important factor is that we just haven't had the horses, and couldn't mask that fact on defense as we could on offense by a superior scheme that could neutralize the personnel disadvantage. Sure, we could have had better DC's (I think in particular Roof and Groh were lacking), and the offensive scheme hampered us somewhat. But the more important factor has been personnel. Now, the question is why were Georgia Southern and Army able to come up with better personnel ([I]relative to their level of competition[/I]) than us. [I]Perhaps[/I] the answer to that is that it's easier to recruit to that level (FCS for Ga. Southern and G5 for Army). The oddball offensive scheme just doesn't effect those schools like it does at the P5 level, one reason being that far fewer of the players at the lower levels are going to have pro ball in their sights. Now, as for whether we could have done a better job recruiting than we did - well, I think we could have (I don't think our staff was made up of particularly good recruiters), but the oddball scheme does seem to have much more of an adverse effect on recruiting at the P5 level. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Was our defense hamstrung in the past?
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