Why Georgia Tech likely will never adopt the shotgun again

[ATL1]

http://www.myajc.com/sports/college...opt-the-shotgun-again/qNysiwJmovLbFhxOPav8yN/

Why Georgia Tech likely will never adopt the shotgun again
GEORGIA-TECH


By Ken Sugiura

4

STREETER LECKA/GETTY IMAGES
CLEMSON, SC - OCTOBER 28: TaQuon Marshall #16 of the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets signals to his team against the Clemson Tigers during their game at Memorial Stadium on October 28, 2017 in Clemson, South Carolina. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
Posted: 10:49 a.m. Tuesday, December 12, 2017



With the disappointment of Georgia Tech’s recently completed season, suggestions have returned on social media that coach Paul Johnson incorporate shotgun elements into his option-based spread offense. The success of former Johnson aides using the shotgun at Army (Jeff Monken) and Navy (Ken Niumatalolo) has only reinforced the notion that placing the quarterback five yards behind center, rather than under center, will improve the offense’s efficiency. (Kennesaw State, under the direction of former Tech assistant Brian Bohannon, plays from under center.)

However, it shouldn’t be a surprise if Johnson never uses the shotgun in any extensive manner. More accurately, if he uses it again. In 2013, after having spent the spring and preseason working on it, the Yellow Jackets occasionally ran plays out of the shotgun with quarterback Vad lee.

“It was a mistake,” Johnson said in an interview with the AJC last December.



GEORGIA TECH
• Why Georgia Tech likely will never adopt the shotgun again

• GHSA facing backlash from road teams after decision on state title games

• Pressley Harvin named to freshman All-America team

• In the end, Army-Navy uplifts us all

• Army-Navy game rosters feature 21 players from metro Atlanta

CLICK HERE FOR MORE JACKETS
Johnson said it was an attempt to help Lee make reads and also play to his talents. In the spring of 2013, Tech began using the “diamond” formation, with the quarterback five yards behind center flanked by both A-backs and the B-back two yards behind him.

Tech debuted it to great effect against Duke in the second game of the 2013 season, a 38-14 win, but used it sparingly the rest of the season.

“It gives you a little better (blocking) angles sometimes, especially if you’re trying to get linebackers,” Johnson said at the time. “You’ve got a little better run and go at them coming downhill. It also doesn’t hit as fast, so there’s tradeoffs both ways.”

Ultimately, Johnson decided that running the offense both from under center and out of the shotgun was counterproductive.

“I don’t think you can do hodgepodge,” he said last year. “It’s just my opinion. You try to find something that you can do and get good at it and be better at it than (your opponent is at defending it).”

To Johnson, for his run-heavy offense, the shotgun is inferior to having the quarterback under center. When he made the comment in 2013 about the tradeoffs, it seemed he may have already recognized that, for his scheme, the shotgun was easier to defend than his preferred style.

“I’ve had several coaches remark – defensive coaches – that this hits so much faster than the gun stuff that you almost have to play it differently,” Johnson said last December.

The staple play of the offense – the triple option – is a different play from under center than out of the shotgun. When the quarterback is under center and the B-back right behind him, the mesh handoff happens virtually right behind the line, forcing the defensive end to either commit to the dive or contain the quarterback.

That decision is what makes the triple option work. Based on whether the defensive end chooses between pursuing either the B-back or the quarterback, the quarterback gives or keeps, taking the end out of the play and creating an 11-on-10 advantage for the offense. But running it out of the shotgun – where the mesh point is perhaps five yards behind the line of scrimmage – gives the end more time and space to commit. A significant advantage is lost.

“I think in a league like the ACC, it’s more beneficial to go under center, because you’re more likely to come up against an end who’s athletic enough to take the give and the keep from the shotgun,” said former Tech offensive lineman Trey Braun, who started eight games in the 2013 season and 26 in the two seasons after it.

The same would hold on a called B-back or quarterback run up the middle. With the quarterback under center, the quarterback and the B-back can hit the line more quickly, so the defense has less time to react and the offensive line can do its job with a quick surge at the snap.

For Tech, the shotgun was a one-year experiment. Lee transferred after the 2013 season to James Madison, setting the stage for Justin Thomas to take the starting job. The Jackets returned strictly under center in the spring of 2014.

When it became clear in the spring of 2014 that the shotgun was not coming back, Braun approved, for the same reasons that Johnson prefers it, that it hits quicker and that Tech was not served by running two different schemes.

While it would be a stretch to conclude that it was the primary factor in the Jackets’ 11-win season that fall, it would also be disingenuous to say the two were unrelated.

Braun has taken note of the cry on Twitter and elsewhere for Tech to incorporate the shotgun. He has seen the line of thought that, if the primary offense (under center) isn’t working, then there should be an alternative offense available to try (the shotgun).

As Braun considers it, if the scheme that Tech devotes most or all of its time to perfecting doesn’t work, then it doesn’t logically follow that another scheme that gets less attention would be any more effective.

“I’m pretty sure that’s not how football works,” Braun said.

Rather than a failing of scheme, he saw recent disappointing seasons for Tech as an indication of the improvement in the level of competition in the ACC.

“I do think the sentiment isn’t so much ‘We should run shotgun’ than it is ‘We need to win more games,’ which I agree with,” Braun said.

That said, having both schemes would not be attempting the impossible. Army and Navy have made it work. But Johnson likely won’t be joining them.

The season with the diamond “taught me if you do a lot of things, you ain’t worth an (expletive) at any of them,” Johnson said. “Which I’ve always known.”

 

[Milwaukee]

I just wanna know Ken's font, cause I swear he reads this board.

 

[jgtengineer]

This is pretty much what i've seen. One of the problems Georgia Southern had this year running form the gun, besides the QB not making the correct reads, was the dive play was completely non-existant. Auburn's ends were basically able to play both the QB and the Dive on every play. Fritz's offense also ran into this issue despite being more successful ( mostly due to southern having a phenomnimal GCG that year and the year after). Navy only went 6-6 this year operating primarily out of gun formation sbecause Abey and Perry both couldn't really run the under center stuff well.

Monken has always had one or two shotgun formations that he has used everywhere he has gone. However those formations are usually not used for option plays outside of outside zone and usually are used for a few short passes. He put them in his playbook when he had shaw. Ran none of them his first year at army and only ran some of it this year due to bradshaw being his primary and only real homerun threat. The only formation monken likes to use that i think we could use is the short pistol flex formation. I think we could do a bit with that but really if you can do the under center read you don't really need that one.

also to add about monken, he used none of them when he had mckinnon and ellison takign snaps

 

[Coloradojacket]

The reason Army and Navy ran plays from the gun was that their main ball carriers for the season had been the two quarterbacks and in the snow, there weren't likely to be a lot of option plays. We saw the gun in 2013 and it didn't work.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So the argument is the DE has to commit to either the qb or the bback when the plays are run under center thus preventing his ability to play both players. Our qb couldn't read the DE from under center so this point is moot. Next year's qb better get that read down no matter who he is or we'll see a repeat of '17.

 

[takethepoints]

I like what we run now and always have. It has some drawbacks in the slop, but we usually don't have to worry about that. What I hope for is that we find a Mills replacement. A real roughneck BB is what makes the O really work. Benson could develop into one if he quits making cuts at the line and runs to the hole. Let's hope that a year's experience makes that more likely.

 

[takethepoints]

So the argument is the DE has to commit to either the qb or the bback when the plays are run under center thus preventing his ability to play both players. Our qb couldn't read the DE from under center so this point is moot. Next year's qb better get that read down no matter who he is or we'll see a repeat of '17.

If I'm not mistaken (a rebuttable presumption if ever there was one), the way we run TO plays calls for two reads: one at the mesh where the DL read can vary with the hole and one on the DE or LB at the edge for the pitch. That's what makes it difficult to learn what to do.

That's why I don't have many trepidations about QB play next year. Everybody will have had another year to get things straight. Whoever takes over - and TaQuon has the inside track - will be another year further along. We'll see.

 

[slugboy]

There are a couple of questions here:

1. Can you run the flexbone successfully out of shotgun? Army, Navy, and UCF all ran the flexbone successfully out of shotgun, so yes. (Possibly, it gives a passing advantage)
2. Are there reasons you'd prefer to run it under center? Yes, there are some blocking angles that you get from running under center that give you an OL advantage. Plus, it's an extra three feet to make up.
3. Does running under shotgun free the DE from having to choose whether to take the B-Back or the QB? The article says yes, but every time I've seen a read-option out of the shotgun (Carolina Panthers, Auburn, Ohio State, Florida), the DE does seem to have to choose and often gets burned. Why this situation is different is beyond me.
4. Do we have enough time to train to be good in both shotgun and under center? Apparently not.
5. Why don't we go to shotgun full time? Because CPJ likes under center better, and it's a lot easier to get one yard on fourth down that way.
6. Are opposing defensive coordinators being honest with CPJ when they comment on what is challenging to defend in the flexbone? Your guess is as good as mine.
7. Will we run shotgun again? Probably, just not under CPJ.

 

[ATL1]

Truthfully there has to be a want to. CPJ just doesn't want to run plays from the gun. Simple as that.

 

[jgtengineer]

There are a couple of questions here:

1. Can you run the flexbone successfully out of shotgun? Army, Navy, and UCF all ran the flexbone successfully out of shotgun, so yes. (Possibly, it gives a passing advantage)
   1. Passing out of the gun on these systems uses different concepts. Run and shoot passing relies also on QB misdirection of safeties you don't get that out of the gun
   2. The reads are different and the blocking schemes different out of the gun.

1. Are there reasons you'd prefer to run it under center? Yes, there are some blocking angles that you get from running under center that give you an OL advantage. Plus, it's an extra three feet to make up.
2. Does running under shotgun free the DE from having to choose whether to take the B-Back or the QB? The article says yes, but every time I've seen a read-option out of the shotgun (Carolina Panthers, Auburn, Ohio State, Florida), the DE does seem to have to choose and often gets burned. Why this situation is different is beyond me.
   1. What they run is a two read read option off of zone blocking. It's a different play. The line blocks zone and the dive read is the only read. Its a slower hitting play that forces the DE to take either the QB or running back. In a triple option that read has ot be much faster so you can get it to the pitch back on the move. This is what allows a de to play both ( this can also happen if the QB gets to much depth under center like on a belly triple.
   2. The way teams get aroudn this when running the read option is they add a quick pass component to theis usually with a slot back or wr. the QB reads the end, if the end crashes he keeps if he comes up he gives, if he stays in no mans land he throws the swing OR he keeps then makes him commit and throws the swing, oregon made a living with this.
3. Do we have enough time to train to be good in both shotgun and under center? Apparently not.
   1. This is a two fold problem, We actually run more plays than any of the service academies. We may dril 10 or so plays a week that CPJ feels are the best plays to win the game but we have a lot more variety in what we do than army or navy does.
   2. We often play talent over experience, when talented freshman come in we give them a shot to win. The academies often are playing juniors and seniors who have been in system for a long time. It would not surprise me if they do a building block approach by year.
   3. Most college teams are usually exclusive now in scheme, either under center or in the gun. A few of them may have mutliple formations but only one or 2 plays out of that formation. Our offense is designed to allow us to run everything from every formation so as not to tip our hat. One of the problems with the Gun formations and the flexbone is it removes variation plays like the midline, standard, and outside veer as what sets these plays apart is the mesh location.
4. Why don't we go to shotgun full time? Because CPJ likes under center better, and it's a lot easier to get one yard on fourth down that way.
5. Are opposing defensive coordinators being honest with CPJ when they comment on what is challenging to defend in the flexbone? Your guess is as good as mine.
6. Will we run shotgun again? Probably, just not under CPJ.

my response in italics

 

[Techster]

There's no one "right" way. Every coach has their take on it (seriously, look at the offensive FEI and rushing offense leaders....some teams like to go shotgun, some do direct snap, some mix both in). Even CPJ mentioned the what he perceives as advantages or disadvantages. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong...CPJ believes what he believes and he's been successful doing it his way. Others feel they can do the opposite and be successful, and they're also correct.

That being said, I think too many GT fans take what our coaches say as gospel and want to say that is the only correct way, or it's the best way for GT. It's certainly not because other coaches are doing differently (via shotgun) and they're having great success running the ball...and wait for it...AND throwing the ball. Look at what Florida Atlantic is able to do. They are #12 in Offensive FEI, #6 in Rushing Offense, #14 Total Offense, #81 Passing Offense.



If you look at what they do, it's not much different than what we do. Dives, toss plays, speed options, etc. They just do it out of the gun, and there's times they do it from under center. Their passing isn't as good as a traditional Lane Kiffen passing attack is, but they're effecient in passing at #29 in the nation...which is something we like to bring up when talking about passing. Don't need to throw for 400 yards, but when you do pass, you have to be efficient at it.

FAU isn't the only one skinning the cat differently, but it does go to show you that flexibility in how you do it can pay off. Lane Kiffen, wonder boy of passing and "Pro style" offense, was actually doing most of his damage running it this year. When he needed to pass, he made opponents pay. That philosophy is similar to what we do, but the approach is different. Like I said, it's not the only way, it's just a different way to the same end.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Title of the post is incorrect or incomplete.

“.... as long as CPJ is the HC.”

It has become patently obvious that, as often as not, we can not recruit players smart enough to run this system at even the ACC level. A GT math major could not begin to calculate the number of times “missed assignments” has been the stated analysis for failures to win games in the last 10 years.

And Especially when dirty Sewak is never under any fear of having to produce.

And also when it obviously hurts our D so as not to be able to recruit or play to a certain level.

 

[iceeater1969]

So the argument is the DE has to commit to either the qb or the bback when the plays are run under center thus preventing his ability to play both players. Our qb couldn't read the DE from under center so this point is moot. Next year's qb better get that read down no matter who he is or we'll see a repeat of '17.

Agree! The qb should get all the reps the whole year if he is missing the reads.

18 will determine 19 and beyond.
If we can't do it in 18, it ain't going to happen.

Don't watch the Duke GAME Every offensive play or you will get sick.

 

[buzzinanut69]

There could be a minor recruiting advantage in running it from the gun. Not saying right or wrong but probably would be a factor. Kids see flexbone and shotgun with split backs differently even if the play is exactly the same.

 

[lv20gt]

Truthfully there has to be a want to. CPJ just doesn't want to run plays from the gun. Simple as that.

This.

 

[alagold]

The ONE big advantage that the gun gives is--the QB does not have to fake then retreat 7 yds to set up to throw.You can not tell me that passing is not easier from the gun except with UNUSUAL QBs.We need a better passing game. (is that an understatement) Without effective passing ,this OFFENSE usually works well only on-- dry fields,vs DEfs that haven't see it much, vs non-overwhelming DEFs, and with a seasoned QB that makes the correct readsThat reads funny but funny it is not .

I know plenty of guys will disagree. but-We have had 2 LOSING seasons -(one bad, and probably would have been 5-7 this yr) of last 3.The Offense is the engine for this train.It didn't really get it done.Any partial change that helps will be appreciated.

 

[Sideways]

There are a couple of questions here:

1. Can you run the flexbone successfully out of shotgun? Army, Navy, and UCF all ran the flexbone successfully out of shotgun, so yes. (Possibly, it gives a passing advantage)
2. Are there reasons you'd prefer to run it under center? Yes, there are some blocking angles that you get from running under center that give you an OL advantage. Plus, it's an extra three feet to make up.
3. Does running under shotgun free the DE from having to choose whether to take the B-Back or the QB? The article says yes, but every time I've seen a read-option out of the shotgun (Carolina Panthers, Auburn, Ohio State, Florida), the DE does seem to have to choose and often gets burned. Why this situation is different is beyond me.
4. Do we have enough time to train to be good in both shotgun and under center? Apparently not.
5. Why don't we go to shotgun full time? Because CPJ likes under center better, and it's a lot easier to get one yard on fourth down that way.
6. Are opposing defensive coordinators being honest with CPJ when they comment on what is challenging to defend in the flexbone? Your guess is as good as mine.
7. Will we run shotgun again? Probably, just not under CPJ.

Addressing number 6 I think they are being honest to the extent that it is the speed at which that fullback is coming at the defense is hard to replicate in practice and as a typical defense today you see the spread option from the gun all the time but this offense is seldom seen. Any offense to be successful requires play makers and we do not have them on the perimeter.

 

[Lavoisier]

The negatives of the gun are offset if you can pass more efficiently. If you can force the defense to back off because they respect a passing game then it is a wash. Ideally you would want a team that can pass well while under center so you get the best of both worlds, but you generally have to pick and choose.

 

[jacketup]

When Friedgen was here, we ran multiple offenses (including option) from different formations. We weren't "worth an (expletive) at any of them"?

Riiiiight.... Maybe it's the coach who isn't "worth an (expletive)" at anything other than "his" offense.

I discussed the shotgun with someone who knows Johnson well. He explained why we won't run shotgun. Because "Johnson is stubborn" is the explanation he gave.

And with regard to the diamond and Vad Lee, as the article points out, we beat Duke 38-14 and rarely ran it again. It didn't work? Another GTSwarm myth. I guess losing to Duke while they outscore us 40-6 is a "better option".

 

[Sebastian GT]

When Friedgen was here, we ran multiple offenses (including option) from different formations. We weren't "worth an (expletive) at any of them"?

Riiiiight.... Maybe it's the coach who isn't "worth an (expletive)" at anything other than "his" offense.

I discussed the shotgun with someone who knows Johnson well. He explained why we won't run shotgun. Because "Johnson is stubborn" is the explanation he gave.

And with regard to the diamond and Vad Lee, as the article points out, we beat Duke 38-14 and rarely ran it again. It didn't work? Another GTSwarm myth. I guess losing to Duke while they outscore us 40-6 is a "better option".

Agreed. This is the kind of crap that drives me nuts about Johnson. Unlike Friedgen who was willing to run just about anything in an effort to put Tech in the best position to win Johnson only seems to want to win if it's running his same handful of mostly option plays under center and is totally against going outside of that. It's like he is bound and determined to prove the whole world wrong regardless of the consequences to the program and the athletes he's recruited. I find it funny that most all of his disciples that are head coaches have taken his offense and expanded on it in some very creative ways. I guess "it is what it is" until either he decides to move on or Stansbury decides to move on from him. Being stubborn as hell and intellectually lazy is not a good way to run a power 5 football program.