Why Georgia Tech likely will never adopt the shotgun again

[UgaBlows]

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.

I wonder why our Defense has such a hard time figuring out who to tackle when facing shotgun read-option teams?

 

[jgtengineer]

I wonder why our Defense has such a hard time figuring out who to tackle when facing shotgun read-option teams?

I answered this earlier in the thread but I will explain it again.

When running a zone option, the unblocked defender is less of static player and more a zone. Usually its the last defender on the line is unblocked, this messes with the concept of "assignments" because on any given play "the pitch man" becomes the inside read key. At its base the zone option does what we do with blocking change-ups. Simply running what we do from the gun isn't really going to work. ( see georgia southern this year or fritz when he would attempt to run flexbone style reads out of the gun instead of zone). Zone option offense typically also uses positioning instead of trail motion for the pitch man. where he runs ahead ofthe qb and then gets into position like running a flat or swing route. This is to allow the QB to ride the RB enough to force a commit from the read key. Second Level blocking is usually inferior in these schemes as its based on combo blocks and congestion. In most Zone Read schemes the QB is the primary carrier of the ball. In the flexbone it's truly designed to try to be 25 30 45 in favor of the a backs qb and bb.

It also requires a different type of offensive lineman. This is the big key. Lateral mobility such as pulling and ripping to the second level aren't as big of a deal as drive blocking and being a bigger body. Splits are closer to try and create more room on the edge for the QB read keep.

If someone could ever have enough players and tiem to run both schemes you'd have a pretty unstoppable option. Both schemes work. Ours has a little more in the way of answers if the defense starts defeating the base play. Zone schemes usually rely on a short passing game to try and change it up, when that doesn't work. (Auburn vs clemson, auburn vs uga II)

 

[vamosjackets]

I answered this earlier in the thread but I will explain it again.

When running a zone option, the unblocked defender is less of static player and more a zone. Usually its the last defender on the line is unblocked, this messes with the concept of "assignments" because on any given play "the pitch man" becomes the inside read key. At its base the zone option does what we do with blocking change-ups. Simply running what we do from the gun isn't really going to work. ( see georgia southern this year or fritz when he would attempt to run flexbone style reads out of the gun instead of zone). Zone option offense typically also uses positioning instead of trail motion for the pitch man. where he runs ahead ofthe qb and then gets into position like running a flat or swing route. This is to allow the QB to ride the RB enough to force a commit from the read key. Second Level blocking is usually inferior in these schemes as its based on combo blocks and congestion. In most Zone Read schemes the QB is the primary carrier of the ball. In the flexbone it's truly designed to try to be 25 30 45 in favor of the a backs qb and bb.

It also requires a different type of offensive lineman. This is the big key. Lateral mobility such as pulling and ripping to the second level aren't as big of a deal as drive blocking and being a bigger body. Splits are closer to try and create more room on the edge for the QB read keep.

If someone could ever have enough players and tiem to run both schemes you'd have a pretty unstoppable option. Both schemes work. Ours has a little more in the way of answers if the defense starts defeating the base play. Zone schemes usually rely on a short passing game to try and change it up, when that doesn't work. (Auburn vs clemson, auburn vs uga II)

Whoever you are, you know what you're talking about.

 

[UgaBlows]

The Fridge actually ran very few plays out of a lot of formations. Most of the pre snap movement was to get a read on how the D was defending. Johnson tries to run his plays out of very few formations to not give away anything to the defense.

Johnson isn't stubborn. He's calling plays he think will work. His disciples run different formations because they have their own preferences.

When he's losing sometimes i think he becomes very hardheaded, he seems to take the attitude that if we can't execute this/these plays then we deserve to lose- Then proceeds to hammer it for 3 and outs for the rest of the freaking game instead of making an adjustment.

 

[GTRX7]

If Army and Navy manage to incorporate some shotgun into their offenses, using it some even when not in desperate third- and fourth-and-forever situations, I as a mere fan confess to finding it perplexing that Tech can't (or won't) manage to have a shotgun package to use in those 3rd-and-15+, and particularly 4th-and-forever situations when a drive must be maintained, a score must be had on the possession, or else the game will be lost. All the moreso if the QB has been getting pressured all game, and he could really use that extra second to look over things, to have a few more yards distance from the defense when the ball is snapped. One need not revamp the entire offense just to have a special package of plays ("series") from a particular formation to use in a specific situation, under certain distinct conditions.

There are plusses and minuses to each. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Tech is usually top 25 in converting on 3rd and 10+. This is due, at least in part, because we leave open the option to either run our base offense or pass, and this is done by starting under center. Once we go into the shotgun, we totally lose that advantage. I bet nearly a third of our 3rd and long conversions have been QB draws and A-back pitches instead of passes. Another huge percentage of our 3rd and long conversions are off of play action passes, which aren't as effective out of the gun.

Just this year, I can think of the 3rd and 18 conversion against VT, where we hit a wide open Stewart on a 60 yard pass off of play action under center. Last season, I can remember at least the 3rd and 11 conversion to a wide open Searcy off a play action pass from under center and the 4th and 19 "must" conversion to Searcy again from under center against Boston College. If those plays start in the gun instead of under center, the defense plays them completely differently and maybe those plays don't work.

I am just saying, before folks start saying we need to move to the gun to be effective in these 3rd and long situations, how about providing some stats that show we aren't effective in those situations? I don't think the data would back that up. I think we actually do pretty well there.

 

[GTRX7]

When he's losing sometimes i think he becomes very hardheaded, he seems to take the attitude that if we can't execute this/these plays then we deserve to lose- Then proceeds to hammer it for 3 and outs for the rest of the freaking game instead of making an adjustment.

IMHO, I think that is silly. I think he runs the plays he thinks will give us the best chance to win. If those plays don't work, I agree that he will often say something like, "if we can't get two yards there, we don't deserve to win." But that is not the same thing.

 

[Milwaukee]

PJ walking into meetings like...

 

[Jacketman1]

You guys are right. Shotgun nono.

 

[awbuzz]

... I am just saying, before folks start saying we need to move to the gun to be effective in these 3rd and long situations, how about providing some stats that show we aren't effective in those situations? I don't think the data would back that up. I think we actually do pretty well there.

Specifically show any or multiple systems that are ALL - regardless of team - good at 3rd and long.

 

[RonJohn]

Specifically show any or multiple systems that are ALL - regardless of team - good at 3rd and long.

Any offense that was specifically good at third and long would never face a third and long. If it is trivial to convert a 3rd and 7, then the plays would be as follows: 1st and 10, 2nd and 3, 1st and 10, 2nd and 3..........

 

[awbuzz]

Any offense that was specifically good at third and long would never face a third and long. If it is trivial to convert a 3rd and 7, then the plays would be as follows: 1st and 10, 2nd and 3, 1st and 10, 2nd and 3..........

YEP! Exactly.

 

[GTRX7]

Specifically show any or multiple systems that are ALL - regardless of team - good at 3rd and long.

As clearly indicated by my post, I mean that in a relative sense. As I mentioned, I believe we are usually top 25 in the country at converting 3rd and 10+. I know that we converted 3rd and 10 at a 22% clip in 2016 (which is pretty good) and 3rd and 10 at a 29% clip in 2014 (which is great). (I previously looked up those stats, but cannot find them now. I think they are buried somewhere on the cfbstats.com website.)

In any event, my point was, before folks start saying we need to move to the gun to be effective in these 3rd and long situations, how about providing some stats that show we aren't effective in those situations relative to other teams? I don't think the data would back that up. I think we actually do pretty well there relative to other teams. (Better?)

Edited to say, maybe I misunderstood your point, awbuzz, but still wanted to clarify

 

[Ash]

As long as CPJ is at Tech we will not run anything out of the gun.

That also means we will probably never recruit an elite dual threat QB. Which is a shame since that is one thing that would make our offense hum.

 

[jgtengineer]

As long as CPJ is at Tech we will not run anything out of the gun.

That also means we will probably never recruit an elite dual threat QB. Which is a shame since that is one thing that would make our offense hum.

I don't think we are ever going to truly land an elite dual threat QB in the realm of APR and the rise of the NCAA Spread offense. I mean the closest we have gotten in the past was actually Reggie Ball and Nesbitt ( rated as such for both of these) but honestly Ball was so so as a dual threat, and nesbitt would not have worked in a clemson style offense and would have been horrible in Nix's offense.

 

[takethepoints]

As long as CPJ is at Tech we will not run anything out of the gun.

That also means we will probably never recruit an elite dual threat QB. Which is a shame since that is one thing that would make our offense hum.

Well … I'd say we need a real roughneck BB to make the O work. Once you are strong up the middle, there's plenty for even a so-so QB to do.

Or you could have a really good AB, like Orwin Smith. Tevin got a lot of mileage out of other teams having to watch out for Smith every play.

Or you could have JT and riverboat gamble your way to wins.

In short, I think there are a lot of ways to make the O work and it can be centered around a variety of positions. BB is the key, however, imho.

 

[slugboy]

I answered this earlier in the thread but I will explain it again.

... Simply running what we do from the gun isn't really going to work...

For what it's worth, I never said "back the QB up and run the same plays with the same blocking schemes". Would you have to change more than one thing to be successful with a shotgun flexbone? Probably, and I'm not sure how many changes are necessary. There are enough teams running a shotgun flexbone that you don't have to ask whether it's possible, but rather what changes we'd have to make and if we want to make them. Bringing up Army, Navy, and UCF, people have compared strength of schedule; according to the NCAA, our strength of schedule is 25th and most of them are in the 50's and 60's. But F+ factors that in, and ranks all three as better than us this year (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus). If you say it's just about offense, then FEI ranks Army and UCF way ahead of us and Navy about equal. Either they've got much more talent, or they don't have a major schematic disadvantage.
If you want to do a film school and contrast what we do to what they do, that's fine, but what they're doing is working.
I'm not saying we should change to a shotgun. If you look around at what I've said, that's pretty clear.
When I do talk about offensive changes, I say we should pass both more and more effectively, and I do wonder if our blocking schemes are causing us problems against the Clemson's and Miami's of the world (though maybe it's more us trying to run outside against teams that are way faster than us).
But there are counter-strategies to all the points you're bringing up, and the fact that smart coaches (including some off of CPJ's own coaching tree) are doing things differently speaks to that. I don't think Frost or Niumatalolo or Monken are making those choices out of flashiness or ignorance. I think the main reason that CPJ doesn't make many changes to his offense is because he's been doing it that way for 30 years and sees no reason to change--mainly, that he's dancing with the one who brung him.

 

[sidewalkGTfan]

Not to state the obvious but....If our O could just get back to being efficient on a regular basis, instead of being so hit and miss that we've been the last 4 years, the vast majority of our fans wouldn't care if our QB is under center or in the gun.

 

[g0lftime]

I learned a long time ago never to say never. It can shut the door on an already narrow recruiting door for some kids.

 

[iceeater1969]

2020 is the soonest Gt will run plays with the qb under center.

But we may have one that drops back to pass that looks like a qb who passes the ball. Instead turning his back to half the field and staring directly at his receiver , he will drop back look off a safety and zip the ball to a receiver.
In

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We would have been much better with Mills this year. The dive sets up the entire offense and we sucked at it.