Revisionist History

daBuzz said:
We have tendencies that they exploit too. Just as an example, I went back and rewatched the Georgia game the other day. At one point, they stopped Godhigh for a short gain on a rocket toss and the announcer pointed out, "Notice how Georgia watches and, everytime they see Godhigh come in motion, they crash the play side safety up to stop the toss."

Theoretically, the play to call in that situation would be to throw it deep to the zone vacated by the safety, which we did early in the game. For some reason, we stopped throwing the ball as much in the second half...maybe we were trying to protect a lead instead of trying to be as aggressive and score more points.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
GTLiebs said:
I guess I have a little of a hard time believing that. I don't think I ever hear coaches going away from their base offense set just because their QB isn't good at it yet. This isn't accounting for a weak arm or poor mobility or some other talent-related issue. Maybe some players can guess on instinct better than others but option proficiency is all in the head, it can be taught.

In another thing, why should any particular amount of time matter in this? It's not like there is a steady accumulation of execution ability or something once a coach is hired, at least not in college where there is a constant rotation of players in and out. There is nothing that says that just because this year ended and next year began that our execution or talent or w/e is suppose to get better. Getting better each time is what everyone wants to see, but it isn't always feasible. Only place I would say that has been in the system long enough to disappoint on the execution is the O-line in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Coaches adjust to the strengths or weaknesses of players all the time. CPJ adjusted play calling when Nesbitt went down and called more double option for Tevin when he could not handle triple option and even more predetermined runs. As Tevin mastered the offense more he opened things up gradually. Fridge clearly adjusted play calling when Godsey took over for Hamilton as well. Godsey looked positively inept in backup duty for Hamilton but thrived when the play calling played to his strengths.

And why shouldn't a particular amount of time matter in achieving a level of job performance? Five years is often quoted as the amount of time allowed a college football coach to prove what he can do these days, and that is long by some programs' standards. That is enough time to recruit a full team that you select and teach them your system. If five years is not enough time to get a team familiar with your system then you have a system that is not workable for college players because that is all the time you will ever get. ( I can't help but think of the Groh analogy here. If the system is too complex for players you selected to master then you need another system or a way to get players who can master and execute it. )

The GSU faithful were on here in force during CPJ's early years gushing about how much better things would get when Johnson got "his players" and had time to teach them the right execution. I don't think I was alone in buying into that expectation of gradual improvement from past experience at other schools. Are we off schedule or are the accusations that this system only works well at military academies with teams full of players with military discipline and against FCS competition? I hope the former.
 
GTJackets530 said:
Yep. I noticed the same thing, especially on the 3rd down toss to Godhigh in 2OT that went for a loss. I probably have watched that play 20 times. Right when Godhigh went in motion, the cornerback he was heading towards completely sold out against the run.

(...)

If that was a pass play off the motion, Vad could have lobbed the ball to the corner of the end zone for a wide open TD to Summers. Or hit the other A-back on a little curl route in the spot vacated by the LB.
Click to expand...

I believe we did exactly both of those things in the first half off toss sweep motion, did we not?
 
1NYJacket said:
50 years ago, it was possible to change the play or even the formation at the LOS and communicate how to attack the defense and execute.

It can also be done today.

Watch Auburn when they play FSU.
Click to expand...

In a man-blocking option scheme such as ours, each player is doing that very thing after the snap. Who blocks what is not predetermined in our offense, it is dictated by alignment. If we do it right, there's no need to change the blocking at the LOS because the blocking changes itself. I'm not saying we do it right all the time, but that's how it's supposed to work.

You should spend some time learning about the thing you're criticizing before you criticize it. Your opinions on this subject are pretty amateur, even for me, and I'm an amateur.
 
beej67 said:
I believe we did exactly both of those things in the first half off toss sweep motion, did we not?
Click to expand...

I believe we did. My point was that UGA anticipated that we were definitely going to keep the ball on the ground there, and weren't afraid we were going to run one of those pass plays like we did in the first half. They defended that play like they knew the exact play call.

No idea what to make of it, just saying they sold out against the run on the play. But that's obviously something we couldn't have anticipated pre-snap unless they were doing that the entire drive.
 
Well I think it was a terrible play call in general. At 3rd and 2, we should have run 2 QB sneaks, or run that QB Power we were running with Tevin last year. But that's not a complaint about the offense, it's a complaint about a particular play call. I'm sure CPJ wishes he could go back and change the play too. Find me a coach somewhere in the whole country who doesn't make play calls in every game that look bad in retrospect.
 
I agree it was a poor play call. The only defense is that everyone probably expected us to go inside.
 
lonestarjacket said:
And why shouldn't a particular amount of time matter in achieving a level of job performance? Five years is often quoted as the amount of time allowed a college football coach to prove what he can do these days, and that is long by some programs' standards. That is enough time to recruit a full team that you select and teach them your system. If five years is not enough time to get a team familiar with your system then you have a system that is not workable for college players because that is all the time you will ever get. ( I can't help but think of the Groh analogy here. If the system is too complex for players you selected to master then you need another system or a way to get players who can master and execute it. )

The GSU faithful were on here in force during CPJ's early years gushing about how much better things would get when Johnson got "his players" and had time to teach them the right execution. I don't think I was alone in buying into that expectation of gradual improvement from past experience at other schools. Are we off schedule or are the accusations that this system only works well at military academies with teams full of players with military discipline and against FCS competition? I hope the former.
Click to expand...

That is what is often said and that is what I am against. How in the hell could the same amount of time make sense for every school? Different challenges for recruitment, different situations the coaches are entering, different locations, but 5 years is enough for everyone?

For the other part, maybe that's true if the only problem is learning the system, but to me the only place where I might say that is the O line this year, everywhere else seemed to make sense for how many years they had been here/experience they had.

In a way, I think I will agree with the "off schedule" part a bit. Related to what I meant about different circumstances entering, I don't think I've ever heard of a coaching hire expected to crash and burn as strongly as I heard from the media when we hired Johnson and I think that really hurt us in the middle-ish part of Johnson's time here.
 
GTCrew4b said:
I agree it was a poor play call. The only defense is that everyone probably expected us to go inside.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what he was thinking, but the truth is that even if they expected us to go inside, we could still have punched it in in two tries. It's really öööö hard to prevent this offense from getting 1 yard if we start from under center.

Regardless, we could have completed the pass on 4th down and won the game anyway, and nobody's second guessing the 3rd down call, and 1NYJacket doesn't show up here talking about how great Auburn is for changing blocking schemes at the line.
 
beej67 said:
I'm sure that's what he was thinking, but the truth is that even if they expected us to go inside, we could still have punched it in in two tries. It's really öööö hard to prevent this offense from getting 1 yard if we start from under center.

Regardless, we could have completed the pass on 4th down and won the game anyway, and nobody's second guessing the 3rd down call, and 1NYJacket doesn't show up here talking about how great Auburn is for changing blocking schemes at the line.
Click to expand...

All I said was watch what Auburn does when they run their version of the option from the spread. It is much different than what we do and they keep the defense off balance most of the time.
 
1NYJacket said:
All I said was watch what Auburn does when they run their version of the option from the spread. It is much different than what we do and they overpower the defense with superior players most of the time.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
I like Auburn's offense. A lot, actually. But the difference between them and us is talent, plain and simple. I think PJ would have had a decent shot of being in the NC game by now, had he left us for Auburn in 2009.
 
johncu said:
Fixed.
I like Auburn's offense. A lot, actually. But the difference between them and us is talent, plain and simple. I think PJ would have had a decent shot of being in the NC game by now, had he left us for Auburn in 2009.
Click to expand...

Maybe but he has not shown a lot in his DC picks though CTR is a possible exception yet to be proven. I liked a lot of what the D showed this year but consistency is not there yet
 
hdtvfan said:
Maybe but he has not shown a lot in his DC picks though CTR is a possible exception yet to be proven. I liked a lot of what the D showed this year but consistency is not there yet
Click to expand...

Funny that you mention Roof, because he did win the NC at Auburn. He's certainly better than anything we've had under PJ.
 
johncu said:
Funny that you mention Roof, because he did win the NC at Auburn. He's certainly better than anything we've had under PJ.
Click to expand...

As a coach, the improvements in fundamentals on defense as well as defensive ranking suggest CTR is doing a good job. I suspect he will have a positive influence on recruiting, as well, but we won't know for sure for couple years.
 
Who was the very successful coach who said the following? There is not much difference between the top 50 college football teams. Some have a few extra special skilled players. But, any of the top 50 is capable of beating each other on any Saturday. The team that normally wins is the team best prepared and makes the fewest mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top