I've been reading some garbage about people being upset with Richt's use of timeouts in the 2nd half against Tech.
REALLY?
How seriously are you hurting for something to complain about when you try to attach the use of 2 timeouts in the 3rd quarter to "bad clock management"? The big issue seems to stem from the fact that Georgia called two timeouts within two plays and one yard of one another.
Now, forgive me as I am not at home and can not look at the DVR of the game right now, but I don't recall the situation behind the FIRST of the two timeouts. I know Chapas had just made a run to the 2 on 1st down. So, we're at 2nd and goal from the 2. I don't know if Murray or Richt called the 1st timeout. If it was Murray, then it would have been because he didn't like the playcall given the defense. I just don't know.
Of course, it's doubtful that with 2 minutes remaining in the 3rd quarter, people would be all up in arms about using the first of 3 timeouts. No, people are upset because a little more than a game-minute later, with 55 seconds remaining in the 3rd, Richt called the second timeout. I remember this one well. I remember Richt running down the sideline and calling the timeout. And I know WHY he did it.
Ealey had just been stoned on two up-the-middle runs to the endzone. His knee touched before he got the ball across on the first play, and he failed to extend the ball on the second. The team lined up quickly on 4th and goal from the 1. My guess is that the call was to run the dive again. Richt saw that it was not going to work, so he called the 2nd timeout. What was the result? We got the right play called, Ealey went off to the right instead of up the middle, and Georgia took a 28-21 lead with 40 seconds remaining in the 3rd.
Oh, and what of that pesky third timeout? We never used it. Didn't need to.
People think that timeouts are there just to prolong the end of a tight game...that you MUST save them in order to give yourself a chance to win it at the end.
Because Richt called that 2nd timeout, we took a lead which we never surrendered and didn't NEED additional timeouts at the end of the game.
But no, I don't expect Joe Fan to understand that.
Go Dawgs.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Grantham's Defense Year One: Much Room to Improve
The above graph shows how Grantham's new 3-4 defense performed against the ten "competitive" teams we played this season. I couldn't bring myself to include ULL or Idaho State. In the graph, the statlines in white are our defense's production, and the statlines in yellow are the teams' avg per-game production for the entire season (our games included). Statistics in RED are areas where our numbers were worse than the average defense against our opponents' offenses. What you'll notice shouldn't suprise you if you've been watching the season.Grantham has some serious work to do when it comes to defending a spread/option attack.
- 3/5 spread teams ran more plays against UGA than their average.
- 4/5 spread teams ran more running plays against UGA than their average.
- 4/5 spread teams had more rushing yards against UGA than their average.
- 4/5 spread teams scored more points against UGA than their average.
When Richt first announced the Grantham hire, and that he'd be bringing the 3-4 to UGA, there were two major things pointed out. First, that this would give Georgia a chance to put more athletes on the field to defend the potent high-talent spread type offenses. Second, with only 3-down linemen, the defense could become pourous against high-talent spread type offenses.
Georgia was definitely better against the PASS out of the spread than against the spread-run...but not by much.
The Georgia defense's biggest problem this season? Getting OFF THE FIELD on third down. What does that result in? You guessed it - the opposing offenses getting to run more plays. Against spread offenses, there wasn't a game where any combination of YPA or YPC would result in the opposition not being in position to pick up first downs. That's attrocious. We can chalk it up to personnel to some degree - we definitely haven't had a dominating front-3 which is a requirement of success in this scheme. Still, there were a number of instances (especially versus Georgia Tech) were our guys were in position to make stops either at or behind the line of scrimmage, and the opposition was able to keep moving forward.
Against Traditional offenses, the running defense was actually pretty good, but the passing D still needs work.
5/5 Traditional offenses had LOWER YPC against UGA than their average.
4/5 Traditional offenses had FEWER running plays against UGA than their average.
4/5 Traditional offenses had FEWER rushing yards against UGA than their average.
4/5 Traditional offenses had BETTER YPA against UGA than their average.
3/5 Traditional offenses had MORE passing yards against UGA than their average.
** It is important to know that much of TN's success came in garbage time.
The defense "got off the field" MUCH better against Traditional Offenses
Only two Traditional teams played more plays against UGA than their average, with each running 3 more total plays.
While only three Spread/Option offenses ran more plays against UGA than average, they ran 10, 7 and a whopping 25 more plays than average. When you're looking at a LOW of 4.6 yards per play, that's a whole lot of additional yardage/time to be giving up to these offenses. Also, 4/5 of these offenses ran more RUNNING plays, to the tune of 9,12,10,19 more plays. Again, at a low of 4.6 yards per rush, that's alot of time/yards.
We were told the 3-4 would create more turnovers, and it did.
Last year, the Georgia Defense took the ball away 12 times. This year, 24. The 14 interceptions are up from 11 last season, and we still have a game to go. And the 10 fumble recoveries compared to last year's 1? Well, I guess we got the lucky bounces we didn't last season. What I hate is that there were at least three more (two in the FL game alone) that we DID NOT capitalize on.
Personnel makes a difference.
It certainly made a difference against GT. Without big Sanders Commings on the edge, Tech was able to rattle off outside runs by collapsing Brandon Smith. I think Smith is a Nickel corner in Grantham's defense, and probably will do better to get alot of work as a speed man on the offensive side of the ball. Grantham and Lakatos want BIG DBs for a reason. As they come in and develop, you'll see a difference on the edge. Also, with bigger, more dominating play on the defensive line, our linebackers will be more free to make plays. That is ESSENTIAL in this defense. We haven't had spectacular line play against the Spread, and indeed, it's difficult to have. When you only have 3 men on the line, you're at an immediate disadvantage to the blocking scheme. Also, the the Spread/Option is an OPTION for a reason. The play isn't designed to go only in one place, it's designed to take what the defense gives it. When you have only three on the line and they aren't dominant, the O-Line can more easily dictate where the ball is going. If you call a Pinch, the line can collapse it, the QB can pull the ball out, and take it around the end. If you rush hard contain, the dive will be there. Having a stal-wart D-Line is paramount. This will be Grantham's primary focus of the next four weeks.
This ain't the NFL
Grantham had been in the NFL for 10 years. In the NFL, he faced traditional pro-style offenses on a weekly basis. Now, he's in the SEC. He is going to have to work to alter his scheme to stop the spread/option style defenses he will see. Next season brings similar challenges. We still have FL, AU, MSST, and GT on the schedule. We lose spread-style Colorado and traditional-style Arkansas. We pick up Ole Miss, who could be either offense in 2011, depending on who Nutt has at QB. We'll also face Boise State who is a pro-spread team. So, we'll likely have a 50/50 traditional/spread split again or perhaps even 40/60 favoring the spread/option style.
The mark of improvement usually happens in season 2
There is a great deal of evidence showing improvements in second seasons for head-coaches in the SEC. Let's hope the same holds true for defensive coordinators. Richt, Meyer, Saban, Miles, Chizik...all had great success in year 2. Hopefully Grantham will get to work on recruiting, signing, scheming and teaching...because we have to be much better in 2011. We just HAVE to.
GO DAWGS
Why the final Ealey TD happened...
A few bloggers and friends of mine have asked why the running play to Ealey was ever even called. They are unhappy with the fact that Johnson's "strategy" was allowed to play out, because they believe Richt could have knelt his way to victory.
The Ealey score was on 2nd down. Murray had knelt the ball on 1st down, and Johnson called a timeout.
Now, I'm the first to say the game is never over until it's over. Still, conventional wisdom holds that with under two minutes to go, having only one timeout, and behind....you're done. But, Johnson, being the "winner" that he is, decides to give his team a chance. So, the timeout.
Now, it's 2nd down and there is 1:35 on the clock. That's 95 seconds. If we snap the ball and take a knee on 2nd and third down, we'll snap the ball on 4th with about fifteen seconds left. At the least, ten seconds. That means that even a field goal would not run out the clock. So, at some point, you're going to have to run an honest-to-God football play if you want to possess the ball until time runs out. So, Bobo called a simple ISO play. Bobo did not expect Johnson's defense to allow Ealey to run straight through. He expected the play to burn enough time off the clock to get the Bulldogs back ahead of the playclock-gameclock differential, and thus be able to kneel the ball once an then walk off the field.
As for "Why didn't Ealey just kneel the ball?"
Washaun Ealey is a 19 year-old kid who has been told, on every play of his life other than that one play, that his goal is to get into the end-zone and score the touchdown. He hasn't been in this position. Our offense hasn't been in this position. It's safe to say that the coaches haven't likely been in this position either. Once upon a time in a game of NCAA football on PS3, I took the "Johnson Gamble" and it paid off for me, and even I didn't see that one coming.
Basically, that's why the touchdown happened. Bobo had to waste a little time, so he called the ISO. Johnson told his defense not to play the down, on the off-chance that the offense had called an actual play. Ealey did what he's been taught to do for his entire life.
Oh yeah, and we won the frikkin game by 8 points. Go Dawgs.
The Ealey score was on 2nd down. Murray had knelt the ball on 1st down, and Johnson called a timeout.
Now, I'm the first to say the game is never over until it's over. Still, conventional wisdom holds that with under two minutes to go, having only one timeout, and behind....you're done. But, Johnson, being the "winner" that he is, decides to give his team a chance. So, the timeout.
Now, it's 2nd down and there is 1:35 on the clock. That's 95 seconds. If we snap the ball and take a knee on 2nd and third down, we'll snap the ball on 4th with about fifteen seconds left. At the least, ten seconds. That means that even a field goal would not run out the clock. So, at some point, you're going to have to run an honest-to-God football play if you want to possess the ball until time runs out. So, Bobo called a simple ISO play. Bobo did not expect Johnson's defense to allow Ealey to run straight through. He expected the play to burn enough time off the clock to get the Bulldogs back ahead of the playclock-gameclock differential, and thus be able to kneel the ball once an then walk off the field.
As for "Why didn't Ealey just kneel the ball?"
Washaun Ealey is a 19 year-old kid who has been told, on every play of his life other than that one play, that his goal is to get into the end-zone and score the touchdown. He hasn't been in this position. Our offense hasn't been in this position. It's safe to say that the coaches haven't likely been in this position either. Once upon a time in a game of NCAA football on PS3, I took the "Johnson Gamble" and it paid off for me, and even I didn't see that one coming.
Basically, that's why the touchdown happened. Bobo had to waste a little time, so he called the ISO. Johnson told his defense not to play the down, on the off-chance that the offense had called an actual play. Ealey did what he's been taught to do for his entire life.
Oh yeah, and we won the frikkin game by 8 points. Go Dawgs.
Really? Still attacking Bobo?
Bobo's offense had 11 possessions, and scored touchdowns on five of them. One possession was the kneel-down possession to end the game. Drew Butler only punted twice. The other possessions ended on King's fumble at the GT 9 and Murray being spotted short of the line-to-gain twice (once after a fumbled snap).
In truth, only twice can you say that Bobo could even be remotely to blame for any offensive woes in this game, and that was on the two punt possessions. The drive where King fumbled featured two big runs, and then the fumble. The drives resulting in 4th down stops were a 65 yard drive with two very interesting ball spots (personally I thought Durham had made it on 3rd) and a thirty-eight yarder that ended because Murray didn't handle the snap well enough to even give the offense a chance on 4th.
On the Dawg's first possession of the game, Bobo called one run, and then two passes where Murray couldn't find a receiver and was tackled for no gain twice. Apparently he diagnosed the coverage that Al Grogh was giving him, because the next drive featured 4 passes, 3 complete, and covered 95 yards and scored a touchdown.
Bobo's offense did not punt again until the fourth quarter when Grogh called his first (only?) blitz of the game, and was able to sack Aaron Murray on third down.
So....tell me, Bobo-haters...where's the indictment of his inability to coach?
Go Dawgs.
In truth, only twice can you say that Bobo could even be remotely to blame for any offensive woes in this game, and that was on the two punt possessions. The drive where King fumbled featured two big runs, and then the fumble. The drives resulting in 4th down stops were a 65 yard drive with two very interesting ball spots (personally I thought Durham had made it on 3rd) and a thirty-eight yarder that ended because Murray didn't handle the snap well enough to even give the offense a chance on 4th.
On the Dawg's first possession of the game, Bobo called one run, and then two passes where Murray couldn't find a receiver and was tackled for no gain twice. Apparently he diagnosed the coverage that Al Grogh was giving him, because the next drive featured 4 passes, 3 complete, and covered 95 yards and scored a touchdown.
Bobo's offense did not punt again until the fourth quarter when Grogh called his first (only?) blitz of the game, and was able to sack Aaron Murray on third down.
So....tell me, Bobo-haters...where's the indictment of his inability to coach?
Go Dawgs.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thoughts on Boise State and the Dawgs
Let me begin by saying this won't be a "hating on the Blue" post. Those who live in the past and believe that the "Major Conference" schools are by nature better football teams than those in smaller conferences are simply ignorant. Today's college football world is filled with incredible athletes at all levels. Yes, the major programs attract more of these elite athletes than the smaller schools do, but it doesn't take a roster full of five-star players to create a good team. Boise State has developed talent and has a few key players who are absolutely fantastic. That being the case, they have built themselves into one of the premiere programs in the country. Say what you will about their ability to hang with the big boys (and you won't have much of a leg to stand on given their BCS bowl history and a win over VT to open this season), but high-school kids all over the country know who Boise State is.
Now, not many people were happier to see them lose than I was last night. The loss affirmed what I've been saying all year long, that it isn't Boise State's talent as a football team that I question - but their ability to survive a season against similar competition. Boise State has climbed to the level they have mostly by dominating lesser competition. This year, against the only other quality team in the WAC, they couldn't play a full four quarters and win. In the second half, Boise State had two big plays - a 79-yard screen pass TD and a deep bomb with 9 seconds to go, which resulted in a missed field goal attempt. Other than that, the offense did nothing in the final 30 minutes. In overtime, they again did nothing. As the game wore on, you could see it on the faces of the Broncos defense - they simply weren't ready for this kind of a battle. Nevada, on the other hand, was dictating the game and doing exactly what they wanted to do.
Boise State is not likely to end up in a BCS bowl. In my opinion, they HAVE to be ranked below Nevada in the new rankings. Perhaps Nevada jumps to 12 and Boise falls to 13, I don't know. I just don't see how you can rank Boise ahead of Nevada when Nevada is the WAC champion, and just beat Boise. But, the media loves the orange and blue, and there's no telling what they'll do. Still, I beieve this is the beginning of quite a reality-check for Boise State. Next season, Boise opens with Georgia. They will play TCU in-conference. They will play Air Force and Fresno State and Nevada as well. This is not the same cupcake schedule they've been dealing with for the past few years.
Now, for our Dawgs, we can't take them lightly. What I noticed about defending against the Boise State offense was simple. PRESSURE. When you pressure Kellen Moore, he becomes very average. The other thing you have to do? Run with their receivers. The Boise State offense is basically built on Moore dropping back, having time, and heaving deep passes. When you take that away from them, they lose a good bit of potency. What does this mean for the Dawgs? We already have to improve in both of these areas. Our deep coverage has not been great, and our pass rush has been less than stellar.
The Chick Fil A kickoff will be a barometer for how Grantham improves his squad over the next nine months. We must bring in some size on the defensive line. Our line this year has been serviceable, but we're losing Demarcus Dobbs, Kiante Tripp and Brandon Wood. All of these guys have been contributors, and filling the spots vacated will not be simple. Grantham is reportedly looking to do some JC moves, which is a smart - and would have been a great move last winter. Now, it's basically a necessity. He needs kids who are familiar with a 3-4 defense, have collegiate level experience, and are ready to make an immediate impact. Then, the defensive backfield. I don't know much about the young talent on this team, but I think Lakatos is pretty comfortable with Boykin. Ogletree is coming along, but he and Rambo need to be a much more solid duo. Also, finding a solid corner on the other side of the field is going to be paramount. Commings looked pretty good in his work this year, and Brandon Smith is a good Nickel Corner. The LB corps will be strong, even stronger if Grantham convinces Houston to give it one more go.
Overall, I think the defense will improve with a year under their belt and another full offseason under Grantham. Lakatos is getting some more BIG Dbs this year, which is something we need badly to be able to compete with the giant wideouts who are beginning to litter this league.
I'm looking forward to the Chick Fil A game like no season opener I can remember since actually suiting up for the Dawgs. Can't believe this season is over - and can't wait for the next one to get here. The offseason - hell for fans, but quite possibly just what the doctor ordered for this team.
Go Dawgs.
Now, not many people were happier to see them lose than I was last night. The loss affirmed what I've been saying all year long, that it isn't Boise State's talent as a football team that I question - but their ability to survive a season against similar competition. Boise State has climbed to the level they have mostly by dominating lesser competition. This year, against the only other quality team in the WAC, they couldn't play a full four quarters and win. In the second half, Boise State had two big plays - a 79-yard screen pass TD and a deep bomb with 9 seconds to go, which resulted in a missed field goal attempt. Other than that, the offense did nothing in the final 30 minutes. In overtime, they again did nothing. As the game wore on, you could see it on the faces of the Broncos defense - they simply weren't ready for this kind of a battle. Nevada, on the other hand, was dictating the game and doing exactly what they wanted to do.
Boise State is not likely to end up in a BCS bowl. In my opinion, they HAVE to be ranked below Nevada in the new rankings. Perhaps Nevada jumps to 12 and Boise falls to 13, I don't know. I just don't see how you can rank Boise ahead of Nevada when Nevada is the WAC champion, and just beat Boise. But, the media loves the orange and blue, and there's no telling what they'll do. Still, I beieve this is the beginning of quite a reality-check for Boise State. Next season, Boise opens with Georgia. They will play TCU in-conference. They will play Air Force and Fresno State and Nevada as well. This is not the same cupcake schedule they've been dealing with for the past few years.
Now, for our Dawgs, we can't take them lightly. What I noticed about defending against the Boise State offense was simple. PRESSURE. When you pressure Kellen Moore, he becomes very average. The other thing you have to do? Run with their receivers. The Boise State offense is basically built on Moore dropping back, having time, and heaving deep passes. When you take that away from them, they lose a good bit of potency. What does this mean for the Dawgs? We already have to improve in both of these areas. Our deep coverage has not been great, and our pass rush has been less than stellar.
The Chick Fil A kickoff will be a barometer for how Grantham improves his squad over the next nine months. We must bring in some size on the defensive line. Our line this year has been serviceable, but we're losing Demarcus Dobbs, Kiante Tripp and Brandon Wood. All of these guys have been contributors, and filling the spots vacated will not be simple. Grantham is reportedly looking to do some JC moves, which is a smart - and would have been a great move last winter. Now, it's basically a necessity. He needs kids who are familiar with a 3-4 defense, have collegiate level experience, and are ready to make an immediate impact. Then, the defensive backfield. I don't know much about the young talent on this team, but I think Lakatos is pretty comfortable with Boykin. Ogletree is coming along, but he and Rambo need to be a much more solid duo. Also, finding a solid corner on the other side of the field is going to be paramount. Commings looked pretty good in his work this year, and Brandon Smith is a good Nickel Corner. The LB corps will be strong, even stronger if Grantham convinces Houston to give it one more go.
Overall, I think the defense will improve with a year under their belt and another full offseason under Grantham. Lakatos is getting some more BIG Dbs this year, which is something we need badly to be able to compete with the giant wideouts who are beginning to litter this league.
I'm looking forward to the Chick Fil A game like no season opener I can remember since actually suiting up for the Dawgs. Can't believe this season is over - and can't wait for the next one to get here. The offseason - hell for fans, but quite possibly just what the doctor ordered for this team.
Go Dawgs.
ESPN and SEC: FIX THIS
I live in California. I've been here for 9 years now, and I still haven't fallen into the "I love the Pac-10" crap. The SEC is where the best football is played, hands-down. So, imagine how excited I was to find that the SEC Network exists here in Los Angeles. I paid the $120 for ESPN gameplan this fall, and rarely had to watch a Bulldawg game on the upper channels because it was often the early game on KDOC.
BUT
The feed is standard definition - square and grainy. It's simply not very inspiring on our 50" Plasma HDTV. The players are fuzzy, and the camera crews are sub-par. For a while, I chalked this up to simply the fact that the less-stellar game crews were covering our early games. Then I watched SportsCenter. There they were, HIGH DEFINITION REPLAYS of the game I had watched on SD only hours earlier.
Something tells me these weren't George Lucas-style digitally remastered replays. No, in fact, there were HD crews AT THE GAME. WHAT THE HELL???? How is it that we can't get the HD feed?
I thought maybe it was because I watched the SEC Network feed on KDOC and not the Gameplan feed...so I flipped over, and it was the same grainy picture.
Come on ESPN. I, as well as millions of other fans, paid you $120, and that's going to auto-renew next fall. You have nine months. Find a way to bring us ALL the games in HD. These days, standard definition is about as enticing as watching the gametracker dots on ESPN.com.
At least I get to watch UGA wreck Tech in full HD tonight!
Go Dawgs!
BUT
The feed is standard definition - square and grainy. It's simply not very inspiring on our 50" Plasma HDTV. The players are fuzzy, and the camera crews are sub-par. For a while, I chalked this up to simply the fact that the less-stellar game crews were covering our early games. Then I watched SportsCenter. There they were, HIGH DEFINITION REPLAYS of the game I had watched on SD only hours earlier.
Something tells me these weren't George Lucas-style digitally remastered replays. No, in fact, there were HD crews AT THE GAME. WHAT THE HELL???? How is it that we can't get the HD feed?
I thought maybe it was because I watched the SEC Network feed on KDOC and not the Gameplan feed...so I flipped over, and it was the same grainy picture.
Come on ESPN. I, as well as millions of other fans, paid you $120, and that's going to auto-renew next fall. You have nine months. Find a way to bring us ALL the games in HD. These days, standard definition is about as enticing as watching the gametracker dots on ESPN.com.
At least I get to watch UGA wreck Tech in full HD tonight!
Go Dawgs!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Not just another running QB
I've been reading posts again. You know what that means...I'm about to do some complaining and airing of the differences!
SHUT UP ABOUT TECH HAVING A RUNNING QUARTERBACK.
Tech doesn't have a running quarterback. Paul Johnson's offense doesn't feature a running quarterback. It features a runner who takes the snap and occasionally throws the ball.
THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
People are pointing at the amount of damage running quarterbacks did against UGA this year. Those stats look like this:
Chris Relf 21 rushes, 97 yards, 4.6 ypc.
Tyler Hansen 10 rushes, 51 yards, 5.1 ypc.
Trey Burton 17 rushes, 110 yards, 6.5 ypc.
Cam Newton 30 rushes 151 yards, 5.0 ypc.
However, look at the season PASSING totals for these teams
Mississippi State - 1855, 12 TDs
Colorado - 2500+ , 19 TDs
Florida - 2200 yards, 11TDS
Auburn - 2100 yards, 22 TDs
Georgia Tech - 949 yards, 9 Tds.
Has Georgia had trouble with running quarterbacks? You could say we have. However, you should also note that the four teams who featured a running quarterback have fairly balanced offenses. They throw a good bit as well. With Florida, the majority of the throwing was done by Brantley while the running was handled by Burton, BUT, both guys were often on the field at the same time, causing mismatches by formation. This will not be the case with Georgia Tech. Newton was a danger because he took his snaps from shotgun, and was a threat to run, toss, or throw on any down. He could eat up a secondary that didn't respect his pass, and could dominate a line bent on simply speed-rushing him. This will not be the case with Georgia Tech.
Look folks, Tevin Washington has a 36% completion rate. Meanwhile, the Tech ground game (not including Nesbitt) has racked up 2776 yards on the ground and 15 touchdowns.
Simply put, they won't be throwing the ball. They are going to grind. They are going to work towards chewing ground and chewing clock. Paul Johnson is not going to suddenly create a spread passing attack. He's going to run, run, run.
So, what does Grantham do? Grantham spends his off week teaching these kids even more about ASSIGNMENT FOOTBALL. Against a good option attack, every defender has a very specific job, and he has to DO THAT JOB. This can be dangerous in a rivalry game when kids by nature want desperately to make a big play. That is what can kill you against the option. You keep seeing the same dive over and over and over, so you jump on it, trying to make that big hit that causes a fumble or something....then the quarterback keeps the ball and runs past you for a 35 yard touchdown. DISCIPLINE is what must be preached this week.
Will we see more 4-man fronts against this offense? It's possible. Personally, I'd love to see Grantham use some 4-4. It's highly unlikely that Johnson is going to call many plays that would require a 2-deep zone scheme. Having four Big Men in the middle as well as four athletic linebackers would change things dramatically from what Johnson has been preparing his boys for all week. Of course, Ogletree is about as big as some linebackers anyway, so perhaps we'll simply see him walking up into the box. That can cause even greater confusion...and confusion in blocking schemes is exactly what you want against the option.
The option offense is built on reads. If the quarterback is expecting a particular look to perform in a particular way, and suddenly a safety blitz or a dropping DE changes that look, his read will change. When the read changes, the play changes, and the QB is forced to make a decision he may not be ready to make. We could run a blitzing safety off the tail of a slanting DE. The QB would read the DE, and think he should keep the ball, but the safety would hem him up in a hurry. That's just one possibility. It's not nearly that simple to defend the option all day, but crafting these plays is what coordinating is all about. Option offenses require "taking what the defense gives you." The trick is to show them one thing, and then give them something completely different. It's kinda like a Miracle-Bra approach to defense.
Go Dawgs.
SHUT UP ABOUT TECH HAVING A RUNNING QUARTERBACK.
Tech doesn't have a running quarterback. Paul Johnson's offense doesn't feature a running quarterback. It features a runner who takes the snap and occasionally throws the ball.
THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
People are pointing at the amount of damage running quarterbacks did against UGA this year. Those stats look like this:
Chris Relf 21 rushes, 97 yards, 4.6 ypc.
Tyler Hansen 10 rushes, 51 yards, 5.1 ypc.
Trey Burton 17 rushes, 110 yards, 6.5 ypc.
Cam Newton 30 rushes 151 yards, 5.0 ypc.
However, look at the season PASSING totals for these teams
Mississippi State - 1855, 12 TDs
Colorado - 2500+ , 19 TDs
Florida - 2200 yards, 11TDS
Auburn - 2100 yards, 22 TDs
Georgia Tech - 949 yards, 9 Tds.
Has Georgia had trouble with running quarterbacks? You could say we have. However, you should also note that the four teams who featured a running quarterback have fairly balanced offenses. They throw a good bit as well. With Florida, the majority of the throwing was done by Brantley while the running was handled by Burton, BUT, both guys were often on the field at the same time, causing mismatches by formation. This will not be the case with Georgia Tech. Newton was a danger because he took his snaps from shotgun, and was a threat to run, toss, or throw on any down. He could eat up a secondary that didn't respect his pass, and could dominate a line bent on simply speed-rushing him. This will not be the case with Georgia Tech.
Look folks, Tevin Washington has a 36% completion rate. Meanwhile, the Tech ground game (not including Nesbitt) has racked up 2776 yards on the ground and 15 touchdowns.
Simply put, they won't be throwing the ball. They are going to grind. They are going to work towards chewing ground and chewing clock. Paul Johnson is not going to suddenly create a spread passing attack. He's going to run, run, run.
So, what does Grantham do? Grantham spends his off week teaching these kids even more about ASSIGNMENT FOOTBALL. Against a good option attack, every defender has a very specific job, and he has to DO THAT JOB. This can be dangerous in a rivalry game when kids by nature want desperately to make a big play. That is what can kill you against the option. You keep seeing the same dive over and over and over, so you jump on it, trying to make that big hit that causes a fumble or something....then the quarterback keeps the ball and runs past you for a 35 yard touchdown. DISCIPLINE is what must be preached this week.
Will we see more 4-man fronts against this offense? It's possible. Personally, I'd love to see Grantham use some 4-4. It's highly unlikely that Johnson is going to call many plays that would require a 2-deep zone scheme. Having four Big Men in the middle as well as four athletic linebackers would change things dramatically from what Johnson has been preparing his boys for all week. Of course, Ogletree is about as big as some linebackers anyway, so perhaps we'll simply see him walking up into the box. That can cause even greater confusion...and confusion in blocking schemes is exactly what you want against the option.
The option offense is built on reads. If the quarterback is expecting a particular look to perform in a particular way, and suddenly a safety blitz or a dropping DE changes that look, his read will change. When the read changes, the play changes, and the QB is forced to make a decision he may not be ready to make. We could run a blitzing safety off the tail of a slanting DE. The QB would read the DE, and think he should keep the ball, but the safety would hem him up in a hurry. That's just one possibility. It's not nearly that simple to defend the option all day, but crafting these plays is what coordinating is all about. Option offenses require "taking what the defense gives you." The trick is to show them one thing, and then give them something completely different. It's kinda like a Miracle-Bra approach to defense.
Go Dawgs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
