What I'll miss about Tech football … and what I hope to see

[Skeptic]

Almost all conventional spread Os in college football are dependent on putting superior athletes into one-on-one matchups with D players. There's plenty of scheming for this to get the right matchups, but the great spread Os depend on superior athletic talent making plays.

The TO Paul runs is fundamentally different. What it depends on (I'm using the present tense, btw, because I expect to see Paul running it again) is placing D players in positions where they are outnumbered at the point of attack. It isn't a matter of having superior athletes one-on-one, though no one would turn that down. Instead, it a matter of designing the plays to actually disarm the athletic ability of the D players by forcing them into mistakes. That's why opposing Ds hated playing us. It wasn't the cut blocks; it was the way their best D instincts betrayed them.

I think this post shows pretty clearly that you haven't understood this.

Yet, it is true is it not, that the run and shoot element was designed to put WRs ibe-on-one downfield and let the guy go make a play. I am certain I recall a couple of pieces that had Johnson explaining this when he recruited WRs. (It started when he re-recruited Demaryius Thomas when he ws hired. As I recall he showed him a DVD of receivers downfield and Thomas signed on.)

 

[ibeattetris]

No disrespect to CPJ, but Andy Demetra’s Job is going to be 1,000 times easier with CGC! He probably doesn’t know what to do with a football coach who is engaged in an interview and happy to be in front of a camera.

CPJ and Gaudin never seemed to have any issues. Their chemistry was amazing.

 

[ibeattetris]

Yet, it is true is it not, that the run and shoot element was designed to put WRs ibe-on-one downfield and let the guy go make a play. I am certain I recall a couple of pieces that had Johnson explaining this when he recruited WRs. (It started when he re-recruited Demaryius Thomas when he ws hired. As I recall he showed him a DVD of receivers downfield and Thomas signed on.)

The passing plays are meant to put WR 1-1, but it is the running plays meant to give numbers advantages. Most shotgun spread teams run game is focused on getting athletes in space and winning 1-1 matchups. Of course there is more nuance (just like there is more nuance to flexbone than just trying to get numbers), but the premise is winning 1-1's.

RPO is an interesting innovation because it looks to attack numbers through both the ground and the air. I am not sure on the actual numbers and how it works fully.

 

[Vespidae]

If you have the same O as everybody else, how is our O going to be better than the other team O.

It's an interesting question. I read about a coach who had inherited a losing HS team and win the state championship the next year. His response was along the lines of "We have the same players but we're better at calling plays that put them in a position to win."

Play-calling is becoming a lost art. This coach re-iterated over and over ... (paraphrasing) ... our job is to put our kids in a position to make the fewest mistakes. If we do that, we'll win. (Bear Bryant said something similar.)

I suspect we'll be seeing an entirely different approach to game strategy.

 

[pbrown520]

CPJ and Gaudin never seemed to have any issues. Their chemistry was amazing.

Agreed. CPJ never had issues with wes either. I think it was a combination of PJ losing all interest and frankly Demetra isn't that good.

 

[Skeptic]

The passing plays are meant to put WR 1-1, but it is the running plays meant to give numbers advantages. Most shotgun spread teams run game is focused on getting athletes in space and winning 1-1 matchups. Of course there is more nuance (just like there is more nuance to flexbone than just trying to get numbers), but the premise is winning 1-1's.

RPO is an interesting innovation because it looks to attack numbers through both the ground and the air. I am not sure on the actual numbers and how it works fully.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Skeptic]

It's an interesting question. I read about a coach who had inherited a losing HS team and win the state championship the next year. His response was along the lines of "We have the same players but we're better at calling plays that put them in a position to win."

Play-calling is becoming a lost art. This coach re-iterated over and over ... (paraphrasing) ... our job is to put our kids in a position to make the fewest mistakes. If we do that, we'll win. (Bear Bryant said something similar.)

I suspect we'll be seeing an entirely different approach to game strategy.

Yet, I recall that just this past season Ted Roof now at NC State explained away a loss by saying the players "were in the right position" but didn't make the play. A not very subtle way of tossing the players under the bus. So now we will hear that the calls were better but the players failed? I know, that is snarky. But I watched all of one Temple game and half another -- YouTube is a delightful site I have found -- and I do not recall a single play that was anything but the garden variety shotgun spread. They did attempt a reverse, but I consider that par for the course in any offense. Collins may be touting attacking at all times ... but does he think that will be new in 2019? Shoot, I had the feeling at times that Johnson would chase a defense into the locker room to attack them. The initial reaction to all new coaches in any sport is to import wonderful properties heretofore undemonstrated. I want to see this team next fall and decide. And I still think it a bad break he draws Clemson in Death Valley for his opener.

 

[Vespidae]

Yet, I recall that just this past season Ted Roof now at NC State explained away a loss by saying the players "were in the right position" but didn't make the play. A not very subtle way of tossing the players under the bus.

Good point. I recall Vince Lombardi drilling the sweep over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ... until ... it was a lock. There's no sense learning 200 plays if you can't execute any of them.

 

[4shotB]

. I want to see this team next fall and decide. And I still think it a bad break he draws Clemson in Death Valley for his opener.

I'm not sure. We lose 35 - 3 or 48 -20, people will shrug their shoulders and say "IIWII". OTOH, a competitive loss, even 31 - 17 with a close game in the 4th quarter, will make people take notice. A win (I know about the probability) would certainly draw attention, good or bad.

 

[Animal02]

Yet, I recall that just this past season Ted Roof now at NC State explained away a loss by saying the players "were in the right position" but didn't make the play. A not very subtle way of tossing the players under the bus.

Is it throwing them under the bus or is it a nice way of saying they were " out athelted"? A 250lb DE may be in the right position, but with a 320lb OL in his face he will not make the play. Same with a safety that is two steps slower than the WR he is supposed to defend.

 

[knoxjacket]

Almost all conventional spread Os in college football are dependent on putting superior athletes into one-on-one matchups with D players. There's plenty of scheming for this to get the right matchups, but the great spread Os depend on superior athletic talent making plays.

The TO Paul runs is fundamentally different. What it depends on (I'm using the present tense, btw, because I expect to see Paul running it again) is placing D players in positions where they are outnumbered at the point of attack. It isn't a matter of having superior athletes one-on-one, though no one would turn that down. Instead, it a matter of designing the plays to actually disarm the athletic ability of the D players by forcing them into mistakes. That's why opposing Ds hated playing us. It wasn't the cut blocks; it was the way their best D instincts betrayed them.

I think this post shows pretty clearly that you haven't understood this.

That is the same concept used in designing every running play. No OC tries to set up a play without a numbers advantage at the point of attack.

The history of offense is trying to get numbers advantages and there are multiple ways to do so. Do you guys seriously think old style pro running teams were just leaving a DT or ILB unblocked and telling their RB to beat them?

The level of understanding this board has for other offenses is shockingly low.

 

[Bibb Stinger]

Fantastic post.
I will totally miss Johnson's in game decision making. First ACC game at Boston College, BC driving for a TD before the half. On third down CPJ calls time to see their formation, just like basketball. BC fails, goes for field goal, then he ices the kicker. BC misses the field goal. I'm thinking "Holy Cow CPJ had 2 time outs in his pocket. Entirely new offense, QB and he's holding timeouts?"
Remember when Tech had to burn a timeout coming out of a timeout? For years we never had a timeout by early 2nd quarter.
BY far best my Favorite in game adjustment ( I know of!), flattening out the pitch, second half, in Athens, his first year.
By the way, back to the Boston College game, CPJ's first year, second half. BC goes to 2 two deep zone. CPJ runs option away, pitch, 70 yard TD, Tech wins.
His second game, Tech manufacturers a win, at BC, 7 point underdog.
There was a new Sherriff in town.

 

[Skeptic]

Fantastic post.
I will totally miss Johnson's in game decision making. First ACC game at Boston College, BC driving for a TD before the half. On third down CPJ calls time to see their formation, just like basketball. BC fails, goes for field goal, then he ices the kicker. BC misses the field goal. I'm thinking "Holy Cow CPJ had 2 time outs in his pocket. Entirely new offense, QB and he's holding timeouts?"
Remember when Tech had to burn a timeout coming out of a timeout? For years we never had a timeout by early 2nd quarter.
BY far best my Favorite in game adjustment ( I know of!), flattening out the pitch, second half, in Athens, his first year.
By the way, back to the Boston College game, CPJ's first year, second half. BC goes to 2 two deep zone. CPJ runs option away, pitch, 70 yard TD, Tech wins.
His second game, Tech manufacturers a win, at BC, 7 point underdog.
There was a new Sherriff in town.

I don't think we are ever going to have a coach who could make game adjustments like Johnson. And that is not a cry for Johnson's return or a wail about the injustice of it all. Remember the guy who said once that GT had only about six plays? Johnson could run "the same play" four or five times in succession, and only the football purists among us could spot the changes in blocking assignments with each play: same back through the same hole but everything was happening away from the mesh. When Kam Chancellor was a senior safety for VT he made the mistake of saying he had "figured out" the offense and did not seem concerned over the upcoming game. Johnson ran a series of options at him that by my amateurish count had him blocked by four different positions when he came up to support. He could never figure out who to look out for, spent much of the game on his back, and GT won. Chancellor was a really good safety and very successful with Seattle until a neck injury ended his career. That remains one of my favorite Saturdays.

 

[Skeptic]

Is it throwing them under the bus or is it a nice way of saying they were " out athelted"? A 250lb DE may be in the right position, but with a 320lb OL in his face he will not make the play. Same with a safety that is two steps slower than the WR he is supposed to defend.

You may be right, but I read it as a guy saying that he coached great and they played bad. But I dunno.

 

[gthxxxx]

Almost all conventional spread Os in college football are dependent on putting superior athletes into one-on-one matchups with D players. There's plenty of scheming for this to get the right matchups, but the great spread Os depend on superior athletic talent making plays.

The TO Paul runs is fundamentally different. What it depends on (I'm using the present tense, btw, because I expect to see Paul running it again) is placing D players in positions where they are outnumbered at the point of attack. It isn't a matter of having superior athletes one-on-one, though no one would turn that down. Instead, it a matter of designing the plays to actually disarm the athletic ability of the D players by forcing them into mistakes. That's why opposing Ds hated playing us. It wasn't the cut blocks; it was the way their best D instincts betrayed them.

I think this post shows pretty clearly that you haven't understood this.

That is the same concept used in designing every running play. No OC tries to set up a play without a numbers advantage at the point of attack.

The history of offense is trying to get numbers advantages and there are multiple ways to do so. Do you guys seriously think old style pro running teams were just leaving a DT or ILB unblocked and telling their RB to beat them?

The level of understanding this board has for other offenses is shockingly low.

Bolded parts are mine.

[Edit: In case the point isn't clear, advantage from the viewpoint of X with respect to Y usually means X>Y, not X=Y or X<Y]

 

[ncjacket79]

110% agree on this post. Love the CGC attitude and energy, very concerned on what his OC pick will be and that he will decide based on what makes his brand look good vs what will be effective here.

Don’t understand. If he’s not effective how would his brand look good?

 

[Ash]

I will miss having a "unique identity". I am optimistic CGC will replace our old identity with a new one. I don't want to get lost in the mid pack shuffle of teams that are trying to break out to the next level.

 

[ncjacket79]

I will miss having a "unique identity". I am optimistic CGC will replace our old identity with a new one. I don't want to get lost in the mid pack shuffle of teams that are trying to break out to the next level.

But isn’t that where we are? We were just the only one running our offense.

 

[TampaGT]

But isn’t that where we are? We were just the only one running our offense.

Finishing 1 or 2nd 7 x doesn’t sound like mid pack to me.

 

[AlphaBuzz]

I will miss having a "unique identity". I am optimistic CGC will replace our old identity with a new one. I don't want to get lost in the mid pack shuffle of teams that are trying to break out to the next level.

I don't think many realize how much the offense was our national brand. Every game we played on TV, this was the first thing discussed and the discussion was always how hard we were to prepare for.

I suspect we will be just another team running the RPO from the shotgun and look like evrybody else. The hope (I suspect) is that the improved recruiting will provide the better players we need so we can win more of the 1 on 1 match ups.

Since CGC's background and focus in his career has been defense, it would seem reasonable to assume that he makes the D his signature here. If so, Jimmies and Joe's improvements there (thru recruiting) could pay off with a better D going forward.