Run Pass Ratio

WracerX

WracerX

Dr. Dunkingstein
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
26,315
By my unofficial count, the run pass ratio in the first half of the miami game was about 1-1. The second half was 2-1. I think the scoring drive in the first half was also 2-1.

OT was obviously all runs.
 
All the hard work Patenaude has put in crafting and perfecting this offense and you just cracked the code for the rest of the slate. I hope you're proud of yourself :facepalm:
 
The real issue is the blueprint was obvious before we started trying to put square pegs in round holes.

When you run the ball for a decade and haven't recruited for anything else, why would you come out and say "we're doing what fits our personnel" and try to throw.

Run the damn ball for the next 2 years while you recruit and put in the rest of the scheme. I'm sure DP's playbook contains at least a few running plays he can be calling. At least we will win a few more games, somebody with a citadel degree can back me up.
 
gambler said:
The real issue is the blueprint was obvious before we started trying to put square pegs in round holes.

When you run the ball for a decade and haven't recruited for anything else, why would you come out and say "we're doing what fits our personnel" and try to throw.

Run the damn ball for the next 2 years while you recruit and put in the rest of the scheme. I'm sure DP's playbook contains at least a few running plays he can be calling. At least we will win a few more games, somebody with a citadel degree can back me up.
Click to expand...

You are making a lot of assumptions. First and foremost is can we recruit if we are running the ball all the time. I dont think so.
 
GTCrew said:
You are making a lot of assumptions. First and foremost is can we recruit if we are running the ball all the time. I dont think so.
Click to expand...

What about the 4 star WR committing this morning? Or the other 4 star WR currently committed?
 
GTCrew said:
You are making a lot of assumptions. First and foremost is can we recruit if we are running the ball all the time. I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Imma throw BeBe in here too since he never played a snap for Gailey and decided not to transfer.

s-l400.jpg


s-l400.jpg

$_1.JPG

s-l400.jpg
 
I'm surprised he's trying to force us into 50:50 as well. We need to be about 60:40 or more towards run, just in general. Maybe even run on passing downs more often.
 
beej67 said:
I'm surprised he's trying to force us into 50:50 as well. We need to be about 60:40 or more towards run, just in general. Maybe even run on passing downs more often.
Click to expand...

You can only get towards 1:1 when you can reliably hit the short passes. Our pass protection isn’t consistent enough yet to do that, so we need to run to get to 3rd and short.

There are some decent passes out of that two back shotgun option set if you can get the safety to commit early. Getting A Brown behind the safety would be beautiful since no one is going to catch him from behind.

Efit: I agree. I haven’t liked the play calling until the Miami game with the exception of the TO option offense we ran against Citadel and Temple (excluding the fumbles).
 
GCdaJuiceMan said:
What about the 4 star WR committing this morning? Or the other 4 star WR currently committed?
Click to expand...
Well, we are NOT running the ball all the time.

So his assumption is not being tested. If we had focused on our team strength of running as he suggested, and displayed a heavily run based offense, who knows if we get those guys.

I dont think anyone wants to argue against that we could be more competitive this year and possibly even win a few more games if we ran a lot more. But winning isnt everything. Not right now.

Clearly we are recruiting historically well doing things the way we are doing them now. I see a lot of people who think everthing must happen independently, and that we can change all kinds of things they dont prefer without affecting the things that are going well. That is a huge assumption.

The 2019 narrative about GT, with the balanced offense and subsequent losses, is that the losses are just to be expected considering the major overhaul to a conventional O. Recruits are being told and reinforced that we are abandoning the triple. They see we are all in.

If we ran heavily, and won some, people would constantly question our commitment to leave the triple behind. It would be a narrative. People and recruits would wonder "how long?" In particular, we do not have the OL talent to be top 25. That had to be our top priority. Do we get those guys if the word on GT is they will continue to be a run-run-run team until they get all the pieces in place? I dont think we do. I think to land/keep top Tackle recruits we needed to prove we were going to throw it.
 
A 2:1 run pass ratio isn’t bad. It is certainly within the norm for run first pro and college teams. CPJ was generally 4:1, so it isn’t like we could be mistaken as a 3O team.

I’m not sure our record would be much different at this point if we had run this offense all year. We would have probably beaten the Citadel and scored with our O on Temple. The Duke and UNC games would have been more respectable. But we still would only be 3-4. We’ll see how it goes now that Pitt has plenty of film on us running the two back set.
 
GTCrew said:
Well, we are NOT running the ball all the time.

So his assumption is not being tested. If we had focused on our team strength of running as he suggested, and displayed a heavily run based offense, who knows if we get those guys.

I dont think anyone wants to argue against that we could be more competitive this year and possibly even win a few more games if we ran a lot more. But winning isnt everything. Not right now.

Clearly we are recruiting historically well doing things the way we are doing them now. I see a lot of people who think everthing must happen independently, and that we can change all kinds of things they dont prefer without affecting the things that are going well. That is a huge assumption.

The 2019 narrative about GT, with the balanced offense and subsequent losses, is that the losses are just to be expected considering the major overhaul to a conventional O. Recruits are being told and reinforced that we are abandoning the triple. They see we are all in.

If we ran heavily, and won some, people would constantly question our commitment to leave the triple behind. It would be a narrative. People and recruits would wonder "how long?" In particular, we do not have the OL talent to be top 25. That had to be our top priority. Do we get those guys if the word on GT is they will continue to be a run-run-run team until they get all the pieces in place? I dont think we do. I think to land/keep top Tackle recruits we needed to prove we were going to throw it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't initially interpreting his assumption as basically running the same offense we had been but I am understanding that now. I think WracerX said it best above.
 
GCdaJuiceMan said:
I wasn't initially interpreting his assumption as basically running the same offense we had been but I am understanding that now. I think WracerX said it best above.
Click to expand...
It doesnt have to be the exact same offense. Most people wont look into the nuance.
 
Duke was the only game we slung it a ton, though, it seems like. I mean, we were 70-30 run against Clemson. I agree that we have seemingly figured out the right package of plays our guys can execute, but I think ratio is overrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top