refrigeratormover
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Messages
- 6,488
Why are you trying to make sense GTY?
Outschemed?.....
- Thread starter law_bee
- Start date
FWIW, I was listening to a Raleigh station yesterday and they had the guy from ACC Sports Journal on, David Glen. His take was that Tenuta's schemes rely on the DL at least holding their own at the LOS. When they were manhandled by the Clemson OL, there wasn't really much of anything left to do. As he said, WTTE, schemes don't matter much when you get beat man to man.
He also had the opinion that no other OL in the ACC can do what Clemson's did to Tech. It was a bad matchup for us in his opinion that isn't likely to be repeated.
He also had the opinion that no other OL in the ACC can do what Clemson's did to Tech. It was a bad matchup for us in his opinion that isn't likely to be repeated.
GT65_UGA89
Not hitting the portal
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2005
- Messages
- 12,679
ncjacket said:
It was the opinion of Jeff Van Note as well that GT's line just did not match up well with Clemson and that this would not likely be repeated with any other OL in the ACC. Noter should (and does) know his line play ...really enjoy him in the booth along side of Wes.
beej67
new around here
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2002
- Messages
- 56,571
Haha! Awesome!
Yeah, but the halftime stats were nearly as bad as the end-of-game stats, with the exception of score. They outgained us like 200 yds to 70 yds in the first half. The only difference was the two turnovers that kept us in it.
This is a bit of a truism. Pretty much all defensive schemes rely on the DL to at least hold their own at the LOS.
So back to the box score analysis -
What were Clemson's biggest run plays? How many "big" runs did they have? What would the box score have looked like with those taken out?
I'm wondering if the game stats would have been dead even if we took 4 or 5 plays away from Clemson. Not saying they would - just wondering..
Just cause something's a truism doesn't mean it isn't true. His point was that when your DL is dominated you're going to get beat no matter what schemes a DC tries. There's really no way to adjust around that big hole in the middle of the line.
beej67
new around here
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2002
- Messages
- 56,571
Actualy, just because something's a truism means it's obviously true, so obviously in fact that it doesn't need to be mentioned. So saying a specific coach's defensive schemes rely on their DL not being completely dominated is dumb.
And it is a good point.
I went to the game with a bunch of my Clemson buddies and had four main reasons we did so poorly:
1. The offense did not mix up passes and runs effectively, and did not include any quick routes that would have slowed down the rush. Way too many calls for Tashard up the middle on first and second downs.
2. It seemed like each of our possessions in the first half was handicapped by a stupid penalty.
3. Our defense is susceptible to a cut-back running game. UNC did it a couple of years ago and Wake did it one year before that. They run the same play again and again and we don't seem to have the ability to adjust to this. (This is my only complaint about Tenuda - he seems to have no answer for this style.)
4. Our tackling in the second half was the worst I've seen in a long time. Until this game, I thought this was one of the best-tackling teams we have ever had. Fatigue had a great deal to do with this, partly due to the no-huddle.
I hope Nix looks at some old film from the Friedgen days when we were able to keep defenses off-balance. Clemson loaded the box and we had nothing to make them pay.
1. The offense did not mix up passes and runs effectively, and did not include any quick routes that would have slowed down the rush. Way too many calls for Tashard up the middle on first and second downs.
2. It seemed like each of our possessions in the first half was handicapped by a stupid penalty.
3. Our defense is susceptible to a cut-back running game. UNC did it a couple of years ago and Wake did it one year before that. They run the same play again and again and we don't seem to have the ability to adjust to this. (This is my only complaint about Tenuda - he seems to have no answer for this style.)
4. Our tackling in the second half was the worst I've seen in a long time. Until this game, I thought this was one of the best-tackling teams we have ever had. Fatigue had a great deal to do with this, partly due to the no-huddle.
I hope Nix looks at some old film from the Friedgen days when we were able to keep defenses off-balance. Clemson loaded the box and we had nothing to make them pay.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,398
GT65_UGA89 said:
...and it is not likely to be different in a rematch unless we change the front look and have a different strategy...
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
ramblinwise1 said:
In case we do play cu in jax and actually fix the butt whippin' problem both of our lines endured, how would that be possible? Seriously, we just got bullied, right?
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,398
Well to beef up the DL front I would go to a 5 man line with a nose tackle. Slide Anoai to nose and push Oliver to weakside DT and play Micheal Johnson on the weakside too. That would leave 2 backers, 2 corners and 2 safeties. And my strong safety would have to bring the wood in run support, maybe put Wheeler back there and leave KMike and Guyton inside.
For the OL... uh. uh you gotta stay with the best you got so I would make sure my QB was well or I would have a bunch of 3 step drop slant passes or quick dinks to the TE to neutralize the rush. I would also throw down the middle of the field at least once every 8 off plays to keep the safeties honest and back and help the run. Most of these would be towards CJ. I would do a lot of trips with CJ, JJ and Grant wide. CJ would go on various deep routes clearing the safety, JJ would do the shorter sideline routes man to man with the corner and Grant would be a safety valve or come underneath on the tunnel screen. They'd have to commit a backer out there or go nickle, also helping the run. Overall just try to spread them out creating some blocking angles. Wider splits on the line.
For the OL... uh. uh you gotta stay with the best you got so I would make sure my QB was well or I would have a bunch of 3 step drop slant passes or quick dinks to the TE to neutralize the rush. I would also throw down the middle of the field at least once every 8 off plays to keep the safeties honest and back and help the run. Most of these would be towards CJ. I would do a lot of trips with CJ, JJ and Grant wide. CJ would go on various deep routes clearing the safety, JJ would do the shorter sideline routes man to man with the corner and Grant would be a safety valve or come underneath on the tunnel screen. They'd have to commit a backer out there or go nickle, also helping the run. Overall just try to spread them out creating some blocking angles. Wider splits on the line.
Yes, Klimpson has a good Oline. And yes Tech has a good D line.
But Tech was not dominated that badly on the D line.
I saw exactly what I feared going into the game. And that is our linebackers would blitz or quickly rush and get held up, out of position, in the wrong gaps, and Davis and Spiller would not be tackled or slowed much by the LBs.
THAT is what happened.
Blitzing and anticipating has a huge downside if: it is picked up, and if you have a good Oline, and if you have a good running game.
Also, our D got tired in the third and fourth, and this caused missed tackles, like the TD run by Spiller when KMike and KScott missed. That was fatigue.
Our D lost on some matchups, but more so on strategy.
Our O lost on other factors and that is another story.
We lost to a good home team, matchups, and strategy last Sat, and that is all.
I can see VT playing close, or beating Klimpson tomorrow. The line is only 4 points, which proves my point.
We beat Klimpson the last 2 years and we can beat them in Jvill in December.
That game is game is over, and we just need to prepare for Miami.
But Tech was not dominated that badly on the D line.
I saw exactly what I feared going into the game. And that is our linebackers would blitz or quickly rush and get held up, out of position, in the wrong gaps, and Davis and Spiller would not be tackled or slowed much by the LBs.
THAT is what happened.
Blitzing and anticipating has a huge downside if: it is picked up, and if you have a good Oline, and if you have a good running game.
Also, our D got tired in the third and fourth, and this caused missed tackles, like the TD run by Spiller when KMike and KScott missed. That was fatigue.
Our D lost on some matchups, but more so on strategy.
Our O lost on other factors and that is another story.
We lost to a good home team, matchups, and strategy last Sat, and that is all.
I can see VT playing close, or beating Klimpson tomorrow. The line is only 4 points, which proves my point.
We beat Klimpson the last 2 years and we can beat them in Jvill in December.
That game is game is over, and we just need to prepare for Miami.
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
Re: RBwise
Outstanding! That is some hope. can radical adjustments like this be made during a game?
Outstanding! That is some hope. can radical adjustments like this be made during a game?
I don't know man. Our DL was getting pushed around pretty good as far as I could tell. I agree that the LBs blitzing so much was taking them out of position, but if the DL had been able to hold their ground, the blitze was designed to get penetration and stop the play early. I do think it was our DL as much as anything.
B
beej1953
Guest
They have a game tracker on RR.com if you would like to see the actual numbers on the game.[/quote]
Is this any better than following the game via GameTracker or GameChannel? - I've tried both and, even with DSL, updates are very slow.
Is this any better than following the game via GameTracker or GameChannel? - I've tried both and, even with DSL, updates are very slow.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,398
Re: RBwise
Only if you work on them in advance, in practice.
pocket_watch said:
Only if you work on them in advance, in practice.