News and Notes
by DrB on Jul 28, 2010 12:05 PM EDT
in FUTBAW
Email
Print- For those that missed the Parker press conference it is available here on TCI. HD writes about it here, as does pretty much everyone else who covers the team. I'd just watch the video if I were you. Parker expects the deal to get done with the Rockies before the deadline next month but he says he will play football regardless of the paycheck. For those opposing fans who constantly harped that Dabo was not looking out for his player, pay close attention when Parker discusses it, then shut your hole.
- HD does a quick interview with DeAndre McDaniel here, again talking about Parker.
- DMac, Hairston and Jarvis Jenkins made Preseason All-ACC. My only real qualms are that you put a Duke and MD WR on the all-offense, and I really think Hall is a better safety than Williams. DMac got the most votes of all, 48/52 ballots. Hairston got rid of about 18lbs and hopefully got some quickness back.....a high OL draft pick would go a long way for Clemson in recruiting linemen.
- Paul Johnson did a 4-part interview with ACCSports.com that I think folks who dismiss the option as a gimmick offense should read if you can, before they all go behind the paywall. He is exactly right here, Clemson did the same things LSU did (in game 1). Miami did the same thing Clemson did when they beat them. VT did the same thing and Foster's D got beat like a yard dog. Iowa did the same things we did (in game 1) in the bowl game and won that game by outplaying them up front, particularly at DE.....its not scheme that beats them, its whether you play worth a damn.
ACCSports.com:
Seems every few months since you got to Tech the critics have seized on some perceived weakness. First, it was that option offense wouldn’t work at the major-college level, or your defenses have never been that good. Then, there were questions about your ability to recruit for your scheme. Are you tired of the naysayers?Johnson:
The big mantra now is the bowl game. We can’t win a bowl game, because the opponent gets extra time to prepare. You’re better off not even responding. I want to say, "What about the three bowl games you lost in a row before I got here? Was that because of extra time?" And those weren’t the Orange Bowl and the Chick-fil-A Bowl. I got a news flash for you: If you’re playing in the Orange Bowl, you’re playing against a good team. You’re not getting the s**t beat out of you by Fresno in Boise.It’s never going to change. I’ve realized that as I’ve gotten older, that you’re never going to convince some people. Every year will be the year the defenses catch up. "The option is a gimmick. They’re going to catch up." Sooner or later, you’re going to prove them right. Sooner or later, you’re going to have a down year where you’re not very good, just like any offense.
Last year was the year they caught up to Georgia. So I guess they’re never going to be able to run that offense again. Or Florida. Or whoever. The difference is if Florida loses 14-6, you don’t have 42,000 people saying. "That’s it. That’s the blueprint. They showed how you play it right there." After a while it gets frustrating, because you’ve done it for so long.
I remember the beginning of last year, coming off the Chick-fil-A loss to LSU. The doubters were saying, "LSU, that’s it, they gave everybody the blueprint. They’ll just play like LSU." People aren’t worldly enough or sophisticated enough to see everybody lined up the way LSU did. They just didn’t have the same people, and we didn’t play as poorly.
That’s why you play the games. Iowa didn’t do anything different than anybody else in the Orange Bowl. We missed some reads, they whipped our tails up front, and they just beat us. We didn’t make any plays, and they did. And we still had a chance in the fourth quarter. And oh, by the way, Iowa didn’t lose a game last year when they had their quarterback. It wasn’t like we rolled in there and lost to New Mexico State or somebody.
- A post on the Warchant board revealed that Tiger recruit Marlin Lane had discussed not playing football this year, and TCI followed up with an interview that said as much.
I have decided that I am not going to play the first five or six games this year. It was a hard decision, but my dad made it. He wasn’t going to let me play at all, but I wasn’t going to let that happen. I love the game too much to see it from the sideline.
I haven’t talked to the Clemson coaches yet about my decision. The last time I talked to coach Rumph he told me to take my time and try to play a couple of games. He said for me to get back to doing what I was doing, which was killing opponents.
Tell all of my Clemson fans there is nothing to worry about because the Nite Train is going to be rolling up to Death Valley to give Clemson fans what they have been waiting for. That is an ACC Championship ring and I am going to try to give them a national championship ring.
How to look at this? You want a RB to get carries since experience counts. His vision and blocking could always use the practice. On the other hand, a RB has only so many carries in his body, and in this case the knee needs to completely heal. He should not rush it. I think 6-7 games is a good idea but I'd rather he not sit all season (plus playoffs). With Ellington and Harper (likely) back for 2011, he could RS and conceivably not play football for 2 years, and you don't want that.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Extra consecutive days of prep time helps defenses beat the triple-option.
It helps defenses to have extra time to prepare for Paul Johnson’s rarely-seen triple-option. Back in the old days when everybody ran the triple-option, defenses were used to it, and defended it well. Hence most teams abandoned the option.
Paul Johnson’s GT team is 1-4 against FBS teams that had more than a week to prepare for his triple-option. Coincidence?
GT was 11-3 last season, but 0-2 against FBS teams that had more than a week to prepare (Miami-11 days, and Iowa 4 weeks). Both of those teams dominated GT, holding PJ’s rarely-seen offense to its TWO LOWEST YARDAGE TOTALS of the season. Coincidence? I doubt it.
In the 2008 season, LSU had 4 weeks to prepare for GT and whupped GT 38-3. UNC had 2 weeks to prepare for GT and beat GT 28-7. However, UGA had 2 weeks to prepare for GT and lost, but rivalry games are always unpredictable. And I’m not guaranteeing that extra time to prepare will ALWAYS get you a win. It just helps a LOT.
It’s probably worth noting that GT struggled to beat a crappy Wake team in OT, and that Wake had faced Navy’s similar option attack just 2 weeks earlier. Coincidence?
Even one of the Iowa defensive players said that he sympathized with ACC teams who only have one week to prepare for the triple-option because it is very difficult to get used to. He said that he thought Iowa would have had trouble beating GT with just one week to prepare.
Next season, UNC will have 14 days to prepare for GT, VT will have 12 days, NCSU will have 9 days, and GT’s bowl opponent will have a month. So I predict that UNC, VT and the bowl opponent will beat GT. A fairly weak NCSU team (with barely more than a week) may or may not beat GT. Otherwise, GT will do great. However, I think deep down, Paul Johnson knows that extra time is key to beating his option, so I’ll bet you never see a PJ-GT team face a good FBS school on week 1.
I didn’t see the Orange Bowl, but I heard that Iowa ran a 5-3 defense (like I think we used to use against the triple-option back in the old days when everybody ran the option). If I remember correctly, in the 5-3, the DE’s try to get into the backfield at all cost every play (even if it means giving up the gap) in order to thwart the pitch and force the play back into the three interior lineman and the LBs. (The LBs don’t need to worry about OLs at their feet thanks to the 3-interior DLs.) The CBs (we called them “defensive halfbacks”) and safety play man coverage and only help with run support if the ball is clealy going across the LOS. Assignment football. At least, I THINK that’s how we did it.
It would be great if you guys did one of your awesome in-depth analyses of how Iowa crushed GT’s offense, how teams used to stop the option back in the old days, and how Clemson can stop it next season.
I did
Iowa did the exact thing I wrote about in defending the triple option, it wasnt a 5-3. They played a 4-3 and brought a safety down. They used more Bear front than we did, but we played that against them the first go-round.
But Johnson is right, anytime you get an extra week to prepare for an opponent, you play better against them.
Thanks. I'll have to go look up your Iowa review.
In bowl games, BOTH teams have extra time to prepare. But it seems to be a bigger advantage to teams facing PJ’s triple option. Small sample size so far, though.
I’m a Tech fan, so I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible. Though the prep time is a factor, I’m still not buying that its a huge factor. The sample size is indeed to small to place the losses solely on an opponents additional preparation time against the offense. Most Georgia Tech fans will agree that in 2008, we were playing with house money. A new offense with a bunch of players not recruited for the system. As for 2009, I don’t see many 3 loss teams with as much scrutiny. The three losses came to Miami, Georgie and Iowa. Not exactly sisters of the blind. Let’s say Clemson or VPI ended the season with losses to these three schools. Would people question the offense the same way?
They wouldnt question ours the same nope
People put unfair criticism on the option game, because they think its just easy to defend.
If it was, it would not have worked for decades.
And yet, the option wasn't more productive in the old days. And everybody abandoned it.
I would just like to clarify that I’m not saying that the option is easy to stop. I’m saying that the option is extra difficult to defend when you only see it once a year and you only have 5 consecutive days to prepare for it. If defenses saw it every week, they would be better at defending it. Data aside, I think it’s just common sense that you get better at doing something the more you do it. I’d guess you guys agree.
The corollary to this is (and I haven’t looked up the data to prove this, but I think it’s safe to say) that the triple-option is more productive now (that it’s rarely seen), than it was back in the old days when everybody ran it, and there were tons of option-seasoned high school players available to be recruited on both sides of the ball.
I think it was more that
players preferred the excitement of the high-flying Air Coryell and West Coast offenses, and when those were simplified and distilled to the college and HS game, the coaches abandoned the option because the players just liked it more.
But nobody solved the option, there was no magic formula that suddenly fixed it in the 1990s, it still works.
Nebraska would still be running it if Osborne was there and would still win 10 a year. Those Nebraska teams of the 1990s had superior speed and beat the snot out of people with good speed. Oklahoma would’ve kept running it on into the 90s if Switzer had not been run off. Clemson would be running option if Danny Ford had not been run off.
I'm just curious, here.
Why wouldn’t the option be ported into the pro game? I understand that now the game’s rules have been tilted to favor passing offenses and more points scored, but what about during the 60s and 70s before the rules started changing (namely the 5-yard chuck rule)? I don’t remember it ever being considered. I’d just like to know the reasoning that stopped (and stops) it from being a successfully run NFL offense. You’d think a Michael Vick or maybe Woody Dantzler would have been perfect for forming an option offense around.
Because the QB would be killed. He would get hit on every play by world class athletes. In short, the DE’s in the pros are way too good, big, fast, and strong for a QB to take such a beating week in and out.
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
yep, the QB position
You cant get enough QBs who can play NFL-level football in the passing game and who could also run option. You couldn’t get 3 guys to run it, and you would need them because 1 or 2 will get concussions from NFL DEs.
Woody couldnt cut it in the passing game but Vick can run it, you just need two of him.
You may see a couple option plays in an NFL playbook there just to show a wrinkle to the defense,so its not totally dead.
I believe that we are getting closer to the day when you see real option back in the NFL. All you need is a coach with the balls to do it and in a position where he’s not expected to win immediately, with a QB who has good foot speed.
you mean 3 QB’s who have good foot speed (as the DE’s would absolutely eat up the free shots they would get on the QB’s). But there are plenty of athletes out there, so you could argue that the QB position would turn into just a revolving door of pure athletes, should one utilize this strategy.
Clemson Sports Analysis and Insight
www.shakinthesouthland.com
Right, there's been so many "athlete" picks to the NFL that were basically tweeners that fell between the cracks.
Vick is the most successful. But how about using QBs like Armanti Edwards, Tyrod Taylor, Tim Tebow, Isaiah Stanback, etc. for actual spread option offenses rather than trying to squeeze them into pocket passers or WR projects that generally fail? You’d think a Belichik or Parcells would have figured this out.
Their best quality is that they know how to win. Even if they face more hits from DEs and LBs, you can probably find at least a couple of guys that can run and replace them (heck even an RB or WR). I don’t seem to remember too many injuries even to a Vick in the pros with his running.
I just wish someone would try it and find out. It would also allow offenses to be mroe tailored to strengths. If Tebow can throw better, then insert more passes, but if Vick can run better, then insret more runs. There’s still always the threat of the pass which is the brea-and-butter of the concept, misdirection, keep them guessing what the ultimate goal is for the down.
Maybe it’s because I hate to see so many talented players get wasted in the NFL. (I think Dantzler was one of them).
The sample size is arguably 5. And PJ's crecord is 1-4.
If it were just the two 2009 losses against Miami, and Iowa, the extra-time argument wouldn’t be that convincing. But the two teams that held GT to its two lowest yardage totals last season were the two teams that had extra consecutive days to prepare. That’s a pretty big coincidence. Also, in 2008, GT’s two worst losses came against the two opponents who had more than a consecutive week to prepare. That’s another big coincidence. Next season there will be 3 more good data points (UNC, VT, & bowl opponent). Unfortunately, they’re not perfect data points because UNC & VT have excellent defenses. But if GT’s offense is unproductive in those three game, then that would go a log way towards convincing me that extra time helps a lot more against the rarely-seen triple-option. Maybe one more year of data after that, and we might have a pretty good sample size.
And again, look at what the Iowa player said about how helpful it was to have extra time to prepare for the option.
If you look at the total offense output for those two bad losses we had, they are actually pretty good. In the case of UNC, we actually out gained them by total offense. What killed us were turnovers (one on special teams). There were also a number or turnovers in the LSU game, the differencing being that it was against freak athletes on LSU. Clemson fans can relate, by the game against Alabama.
As for 2009, the Miami game was Tech’s third game in 12 days(5 days after playing you guys in a nail biter). Iowa honestly caught everyone by surprise. I guess we assumed we could burn this guys in a track meet (slow corn-fed white boys from the big10). Turns out they are pretty good, despite being an absolute snooze to watch ever playing the game of football.
Extra time definitely helped them prepare, but who team wouldn’t benefit from preparing for any team? What that game ultimately showed was that Georgia Tech is still weak at the line until CPJ gets his recruits in all the way, and our defense was pretty terrible like it was all season.
The 1-4 record could be explained by those things. Or it could be extra prep time. Or both. Time will tell.
This glass-house dwelling Clemson electrical engineer won’t be criticizing any typos, grammar, or spelling! :-)
5 days
You did not play Miami five days after playing us unless you played the Canes on a Tuesday.
by OrangeBritches on Jul 29, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate sounding like I’m making excuses. Bottom line is that every time Tech loses a game, you hear some nonsense about some team having the blueprint. Sometimes, the other team is just better on the field on a given day. Its just that simple.
by Yakub2 on Jul 29, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The key is that GT has extra time to prepare for offenses that run a system that is similar to most of them that they face, so at a certain point, the extra time does not do you much good.
On the flip side, if opponents get extra time to prepare for GT’s offense, which is considerably different than the others they face, then that helps them more than it would GT. I think even PJ would have to admit one of the advantages to his system is that other teams are not used to defending it.
There is something in these Hills!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Shakin The Southland
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
