What is the best scheme for a Tech defense?

[elwoodgt]

Full disclosure: I love the option, I think PJ is a fine coach, and I hope he retires here. An offensive scheme that depends on smart, quick players and misdirection can defeat bigger, stronger players. It plays to the strengths of the kind of athletes that will come to Georgia Tech.

I think Ted Roof is a fine man and coach, but the scheme he's using depends on size, strength and execution at the point of attack. It's fine against players who are no bigger, faster or stronger than ours, but in my opinion it does not play to the strengths of the players we have.

Funny, this is a contrast to the Gailey years, when we ran a pro-style offense that relied on size and strength, had mediocre results at best, and was only really successful with a guy like Calvin Johnson playing receiver. At the same time our defense played a zone blitz scheme that relied on smart, quick players and misdirection. By playing to the strengths of the kind of athletes Tech could recruit, Coach Tenuta won a lot of games.

Now, maybe the zone blitz is obsolete these days, what with all the spread stuff going on. I don't know, I'm certainly no expert. But I do think we'd be more successful with a defensive scheme that didn't leave us constantly wishing for the mythical 300lb NFL-caliber defensive tackle to make it all work. The kind of player we will rarely if ever actually sign.

I guess what I'm asking is, What's the best defensive scheme for a place like Tech? What's the defensive version of the Option? And how do we get there?

 

[Ash]

Whatever Bud Foster does with smaller players. That seems like it would work for us.

 

[ChasonBaller]

open up the checkbooks and lower academic standards

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

open up the checkbooks

Probably not going to happen...

lower academic standards

definitely not going to happen

 

[GTFLETCH]

TED Roof Scheme is the best fit. SEE 2014...

 

[AE 87]

TED Roof Scheme is the best fit. SEE 2014...

Our D was awful in 2014. Our O was just that much better.

 

[GTFLETCH]

Our D was awful in 2014. Our O was just that much better.

We created a ton of turnovers and these were not the kids he recruited... I think 2017 and 2018...Ted Roof D will get some love from the fans. I already see improvement... It is just not consistent yet... But we are young..

 

[gtg936g]

IMO Tenuta's cover 3 zone scheme.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I would like to see a 4-3 as our base Deffense, with a lot of movement, shifts from the D line, stunts ect. I would like to see some zone man in coverage. I think it's best to let the type of guys we get just pin their ears back and play hard down hill football, less thinking and more attacking. To me it seems as if the players are playing to "careful" and just letting the game come to them instead of attacking. Imo we need to do as much as possible to confuse the opposing offense with coverages and blitzes.

 

[tech_wreck47]

We created a ton of turnovers and these were not the kids he recruited... I think 2017 and 2018...Ted Roof D will get some love from the fans. I already see improvement... It is just not consistent yet... But we are young..

I would like to know what those improvements are? Also turnovers are just a small part of defense, and that's about all we did good in 2014. I've said it before but if our D was better at ypp and the other things that matter in 2014 we would have been undefeated more than likely.

 

[AE 87]

I would like to see a 4-3 as our base Deffense, with a lot of movement, shifts from the D line, stunts ect. I would like to see some zone man in coverage. I think it's best to let the type of guys we get just pin their ears back and play hard down hill football, less thinking and more attacking. To me it seems as if the players are playing to "careful" and just letting the game come to them instead of attacking. Imo we need to do as much as possible to confuse the opposing offense with coverages and blitzes.

I actually would like our base to be a 3-4/3-3-5. I think we recruit athletes better than DL. I want the 4th guy in pass rush to be coming from anywhere.

 

[Fatmike91]

Bend don't break allows our opponent to increase their time of possesssion.

We need to have a style of defense that minimizes opponents time of possession.

Imagine we keep the ball for 8 minutes and score. Then go all out in defense blitzing, etc and get a stop (or give up a touchdown). Then we run our O back out against their defense after :45 seconds to face another 16 plays and 8 minutes of offense.

What opponent will have a defense that can still stand in the fourth quarter?

Our defense will still be fresh.

So I think Tanuta's style would complement our O best.

/

 

[tech_wreck47]

I actually would like our base to be a 3-4/3-3-5. I think we recruit athletes better than DL. I want the 4th guy in pass rush to be coming from anywhere.

Only issue with this imo, is you better have a BIG and STRONG D line.

 

[Boomergump]

Bend don't break allows our opponent to increase their time of possesssion.

We need to have a style of defense that minimizes opponents time of possession.

Imagine we keep the ball for 8 minutes and score. Then go all out in defense blitzing, etc and get a stop (or give up a touchdown). Then we run our O back out against their defense after :45 seconds to face another 16 plays and 8 minutes of offense.

What opponent will have a defense that can still stand in the fourth quarter?

Our defense will still be fresh.

So I think Tanuta's style would complement our O best.

/

Agreed. Minimize the opponent's possession time. We can deal with a couple runouts per game. It is the sustained drives that kill us. There are several schemes to do this. It is attitude and play calls that are the difference.

 

[Cam]

I made a post about this in the Ted Roof job thread. I feel like on paper, a highly aggressive defense would be the best fit. Exactly what @Fatmike91 just wrote, you have an offense that's designed to grind out long drives and eat clock. Right now, we're slowing the game down on defense and still getting scored on (even holding to field goals adds up like against Pitt). You put a defense out there that plays to attack and maybe they'll get burned on a deep pass for a 60 yard TD. But you might also end up with a huge sack for a 6 yard loss or a forced fumble/errant throw. The latter forces a fear in the QB and the offense as a whole. Momentum is a huge part of college football. Not to mention the opposing defense would be on the field all game.

Additionally, we have always had trouble recruiting big defensive linemen. They're not easy to come by and when they are found, the factories are on them. What's a little easier to obtain are fast, smart, aggressive players. Might work better to our advantage to have a defense that takes advantage of having smart, quick players like what OP suggested. I just think we need to not just change the scheme, but also the type of player we bring in and the mindset/identity we have as a defense. But this is coming from a guy who has only been a spectator of football, never played, coached, or intensely studied it. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Attack attack attack.

4 quick tds and 2 turnovers are better than 5 slow tds and a punt.

Take risks, be hyper aggressive, bending does no good if you eventually break.

Attack and force the opponents to make big plays, especially early in games. If you get way up, then you can go more conservative.

 

[Vespidae]

Interesting thread. Here's my long-winded response. I'd appreciate any more knowledge input so I can refine my own thinking about the Tech game.

First, I'm a fan of both Neyland's Seven Maxims as well as Bill Connelly's Five Factors. They both attempt to define winning with key reminders of how to play the game, strategically. I know when I was younger, we did the same - recite five tenets before every practice. That said, I'm trying to define in my own head what playing football the Georgia Tech Way is all about. (Dodd did define it in the '50's, but the what's the 2016 version is my own question.)

Second, I researched articles, interviews, and videos with CPJ to see if this was summarized anywhere. I found some items where he did describe what he's looking for in a game, so that's a start. Ironically, I also researched similar items for Bill Belichick and found that the main themes were identical even if they run different offenses and defense.

Third, the stats. Paul and Belichick mentioned the same stats they look for in a game. They are ...

• Move the chains and sustain a drive. Both CPJ and Belichick said what they look for is simply to sustain a drive. And 3rd down conversions is the best metric to evaluate the ability to do that.
• Avoid mistakes on offense by making a big play. Most offenses, statistically, make a mistake in a 12 play drive ... fumble, missed assignment, etc. So, during a drive ... try to create at least one play for a big gain to reduce the chance for a mistake. Belichick called it making a big play, CPJ specifically said he looks for how many +20 yd gainers we have.
• Finish the drive and score. Both coaches said they wanted to score in the Red Zone. (Connelly doesn't like this metric because the percentages are very high, so the intel is of little importance. He prefers to look at scoring percentage once inside the 40 yd line ... the 4 down zone.) They also referred to Points per Offensive Drive as critical. (Which Connelly says, completely negates the need to go for FG's and one should always strive for the TD.)
• Play good defense and stop the other guy. Belichick specifically said he could care less about how many yards an opposing team drives on him. His thing is ... "Did they score?" CPJ has made similar quotes ... "I'd like to see them off the field, but did you see them score?" He didn't seem to stress over it. He did seem to think ... "Did we give them any big plays?" Both said what concerns them most is Red Zone Scoring.

What surprised me was that neither thought or opined very much on Field Position. I think Field Position is the most critical because it sets up how conservative or aggressive the offense can be. All things considered, I'd like to get out to the 40 asap to open up the TO. Just my thought.

So, in a nutshell ... Once you start, keep and sustain the drive (3rd down conversions are positive; fumbles, missed assignments, penalties are bad) ... Make Big Plays of 20 yards or more (and keep mistakes to a minimum) ... Score (points per drive) ... and don't worry about yielding yards, Don't Let the Other Team Score.

This is very different from the way say, Alabama plays, but it is clear. Belichick for example, said he only tracks Wins and to do that, you have to push Points. With a good offense, he doesn't worry about Defense much ... just stay ahead on points per drive and it will sort out. He doesn't care if he wins 7-6, 21-17, or 42-3.

Certainly tells me more why CPJ may not be so concerned about Bend but Don't Break.

Any thoughts? (And yes, I get it ... the NFL is a passing league and have given up on defense, but the quotes and phrases each used were almost word for word. So maybe there is something to it.)

 

[elwoodgt]

I would like to see a 4-3 as our base Deffense, with a lot of movement, shifts from the D line, stunts ect. I would like to see some zone man in coverage. I think it's best to let the type of guys we get just pin their ears back and play hard down hill football, less thinking and more attacking. To me it seems as if the players are playing to "careful" and just letting the game come to them instead of attacking. Imo we need to do as much as possible to confuse the opposing offense with coverages and blitzes.

So, I hear you, but I think you're saying two different things here. "Less thinking and more attacking" is what we have - a base 4-3 with cover 2, where the line is eating blocks or rushing the passer, and the LBs are running to the ball.

Movement and shifts and stunts require thinking and presnap misdirection and disguises. If we're doing much of that I'm not seeing it.

 

[MWBATL]

Count me in as a fan of the aggressive, blitzing from anywhere type of schemes Tenuta used. I am no expert, but I think Bud Foster does a very nice job of changing defenses, changing assignments, etc play-to-play. I think this confuses offenses and keeps them guessing. I have come to believe it is the ONLY way a less talented defense can work for us. And because we won't spend the bucks or change academic standards, that will really be our only option. And I completely agree with the comments about getting back off the field quickly....either they score or we stop them, but get them off the field quickly.

 

[tech_wreck47]

So, I hear you, but I think you're saying two different things here. "Less thinking and more attacking" is what we have - a base 4-3 with cover 2, where the line is eating blocks or rushing the passer, and the LBs are running to the ball.

Movement and shifts and stunts require thinking and presnap misdirection and disguises. If we're doing much of that I'm not seeing it.

When I say less thinking I mean after the ball is snapped I consider stunts ect pre snap thinking because once you know what the call is your just doing it not much thinking during the play imo.