I am not knowledgeable enough to appreciate the wrinkles CPJ may implement. I fancy myself logical enough to think that there was a reason for the triple option being used to run short side a couple of times with the three wideouts, and to think that the reason for that lineup had nothing to do with the first drive of the Tulane game, and more to do with the future. So, I would not be surprised to see a wrinkle or 2, 3 or 4, sequentially as adjustments are made defensively, using that formation. Or not.
I think an a-back pass in this offense is more of a one-time pony than what I would consider a wrinkle. I suppose if some unique set of circumstances arose then PJ could implement it for a play, but not more. I would think there would have to be a fairly specific defensive alignment, together with a predictable tendency in order to make calling that play sensible. No one reasonable wants to have an a-back throw a pass for anything less than a meaningful touchdown, and I just can't see many risk-reward scenarios where that call makes sense at the same time the defense and predictable tendency all align. It's not like this is a high school offense, after all.
If GT is unsuccessful at what it does best on Saturday, it is unlikely to win and if it is successful, it is likely to win, or at least that is my take. Believe me, I get as carried away as the next guy, but about Tuesday evening I sober up and am reminded of how much better it is to be excited about a game week than not.
