re: 2018 UGA Recruiting Thread (commits, offers, visits, etc.) - Back to that #1 class

quote:

---

6-9 390 pound OT

---

This dude? Daniel Faalele.


Daaaaaaamn Daniel!

quote:

---

I would like to know how you think a DT guy changes the scheme.

He definitely does change the scheme but you're so smart that I'd love to hear exactly how you think this would impact scheme.

---

I'm assuming the "so smart" bit is poorly veiled sarcasm... just didn't realize you were so upset that you needed to stalk this from basketball to football.

As far as changing the offensive scheme, I'm happy to give you my thoughts, but it's not like discussing what a DT QB adds to your offense is some drastic epiphany. If you boil it down, it's options. The mere threat of the QB as a competent runner forces a defense to scheme and play differently.

The hard part for any DT QB looking at UGA is they've got to be good enough to unseat what most would consider pretty talented QBs in Eason and Fromm. Comparing Pro and DT guys and evaluating who gives you the best chance to win relies heavily on an OC's abilities, and that might be the area where we are least competent right now, at least based on one year's limited sample size. Fair or unfair, there is a good chance that the bar under Chaney would essentially be that they have to be comparable to Eason/Fromm as passers *AND* add the threat to run.

Ultimately, there's a slim chance that any DT QB that is looking at UGA right now is going to meet that bar... So the bigger value to bringing in a "non-elite" DT QB is that you actually have someone on the scout team to better prepare your defense when you're going up against them. If they develop into the best option, then all the better, but unless we're nabbing a Fields or Jones, there's a good chance any DT QB we do bring in this cycle may never see meaningful time on the field.

I definitely misunderstood you for actually meaning that having a DT will change our scheme. Which is correct; however, it will not change the scheme of a defense. I will change technique but not scheme. It will force greater discipline on defensive ends.

Actually, A&M started attacking the mesh point with Myles Garrett. This was the first technique I've seen run differently against a DT-QB but I'm sure they didn't invent it. Most are squeezers and fitters with OLB. The greatest advantage a DT-QB gives is running power or counter with only 1 back in the backfield. It gives you a numbers advantage in the box and allows OC's to effectively mix up their PC. Look at Ohio State as the perfect example of a pro-Style QB run game.

The problem with the DT QBs is they tend to wear down late in the season from all of the hits they take. Dak Prescott in 2014 and Lamar Jackson last year are two examples.

Prescott at the end of 2014 was not the same guy who destroyed A&M and Auburn. Jackson at the end of last year was not the same guy who was so amazing against FSU and Clemson.

having a competent OL helps. UL has nothing upfront

quote:

---

Not true at all..teams aren't going to run different schemes because they face a running QB. They will change the techniques they use.

Running different schemes works against identity and in college they do not like to change identity. High schools do change identity and they can get away with it because there is a greater skill differential. They change techniques but not scheme.

---

As already stated and evidence provided attests to... You're incorrect. Some teams may use the exact same scheme, but to say that no teams do is simply not factual.

Now... If you'd like to discuss further, create a new post and get this out of the croot thread.

Nobody said they don't plan but the schemes don't change. They all play cover 1, cover 2, cover 2 man, cover 3, , cover 4, and cover 6. They have blitze packages that include zone blitzes. They may install a new blitz but the principles and responsibilities don't change.

GT's offense gives people fits because in order to stop their offense the defensive keys change. Responsibility change and this is very difficult to change. You can't change what you've done since April for one week in November or December. Every college team has the ability to change the front from a 3-4 to a 4-3 to a 4-2-5. But the responsibilities and the scheme doesn't change. You cannot teach people to read the Tailback all year long and then one week out of the season to read the QB. He is trained like a dog to read a specific position. Go back and watch the Falcons ILB's on all play action stuff in the Super Bowl. When they see run they attack because their key is the TB then they realize it's a pass and they've been sucked up. This is why playaction works as well as it does and opens the field up for throws.

Identity never and reasponsibilities rarely change. Sure they may roll a coverage and a safety go from playing halves to playing the hook area of the field but as far as who has what run responsibilities these things don't change.

Let me give you a good example, teams have started teaching to squeeze on all down blocks and the key of interior DL's in most systems are to read the Guards. They will also tech a wrong arm technique in which the DL runs down the LOS behind the down block. They have started teaching both. One week they may wrong arm other weeks they may squeeze. Squeezers are harder to read but wrong armers clog up blocking responsibilities and give the defense a better chance of having free LB's running to the ball.

To go back to your comment, GT is great at running the option and it's hard to stop partly because they can cut block in the open field. We struggled because we didn't have QB responsibility when they ran it. Go back and watch Davin and Zo play middle man and try to stay between the back and the QB. They would block the safety who had pitch responsibility and they go out ILB's who probably had QB responsibilities.

Thanks captain obvious!