Should the Georgia Bulldogs Throw to the Tight End Against the L.S.U. Tigers?
by T Kyle King
on Oct 21, 2008 9:15 AM EDT
in Football
11 comments
Not long ago, SG Standard’s FanPost on the Bulldogs’ pass defense sparked a productive discussion, so, along similar lines, I’d like to look at a potentially underutilized aspect of the Red and Black’s pass offense and ask whether it is something the Classic City Canines can afford to try---or can afford not to try---on Saturday.
Arguing that "No. 1 teams don’t grow on trees for Georgia"---as though they did for anyone else, either; in the B.C.S. era, only Louisiana State has hoisted the crystal football more than once---Brian Grummell contended that Georgia should reconsider its offensive philosophy. He made no mention of the direction in which the ‘Dawgs ought to go offensively, but his short and detail-deficient piece inspired Senator Blutarsky to get down to specifics:
The disappearing tight end. I mentioned this in passing yesterday, but this is a real puzzler. I know that Chandler’s been hurt, but I don’t understand why this position is being virtually ignored in the passing game. Georgia hasn’t completed a pass to a tight end since the Arizona State game.
In a subsequent update to the same posting, the Senator answered his own question by quoting this snippet from the Journal-Constitution’s Chip Towers regarding recent remarks by Mark Richt:
Asked why no tight ends have caught passes in the last few weeks, CMR said it was a byproduct of pass protection and injuries. Chandler’s out and Bruce Figgins (shoulder) is playing hurt. But mainly they’re using seven-man protections by keeping in a TE and a back and just throwing to three wideouts. He noted that the OL is doing well and there have been no sacks the last two games.
There have, however, been a combined four interceptions thrown in the last two games, which I believe is not unrelated to the offensive line issues to which Coach Richt referred:
Georgia simply has lost too many players to injury along the offensive line to be able to be either as explosive or as consistent as the talent at the skill positions ought to allow the Bulldogs to be. During the last two games, the ‘Dawgs moved the ball effectively between the 20s but bogged down in the red zone because an injury-depleted and reshuffled offensive line would not allow them simply to drive the pile and power their way into the end zone. Red zone interceptions only occur when you have to throw the ball inside the 20. Frankly, it looked disturbingly like the Eric Zeier era out there, with the difference being that this Bulldog team, unlike Zeier’s last two Bulldog teams, had a defense good enough to win the game.
So what about Senator Blutarsky’s "disappearing tight end"? Rather than rely on ineffective fades in the end zone, can the ‘Dawgs afford to sacrifice an extra blocker on the line in order to send an extra receiver against an L.S.U. squad whose few weaknesses include suspect pass coverage? Consider what Richard Pittman had to say upon the subject:
South Carolina discovered a new hole in our coverage by dragging a tight end short across the middle of the field, and we did not seem to have an answer for it.
Ultimately, of course, the Bayou Bengals adjusted, which is what good teams do . . . but, lest we forget, on the Bulldogs’ last visit to Baton Rouge in 2003, the Red and Black crossed the Louisiana State 40 yard line six times in the first half, yet blown chances, missed field goals, and turnovers allowed the Fighting Tigers to remain in the game and, ultimately, claim the victory en route to an eventual national championship. If Georgia can jump on L.S.U. early next weekend the way the Bulldogs should have jumped on the Tigers on their last visit to Death Valley, the Classic City Canines could bring home a huge win from the Pelican State.
Could the ‘Dawgs use the tight end as effectively as the Gamecocks were able to do in the first half last Saturday night? The Georgia coaches certainly have game film on how to make such a tactic effective, whereas the Louisiana State coaches will have no game film that will give them cause to fear the Bulldog tight end.
It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Red and Black’s losses along the offensive line; there is a reason why left tackle is the second-highest paid position in the N.F.L., and Georgia has lost two left tackles to injury this season. Can the Bulldogs afford to weaken the forward wall separating the L.S.U. defensive front from Matthew Stafford by putting the tight end’s hands to use for any purpose other than blocking onrushing defenders, in the hope of scoring enough points in the first two quarters to allow the visitors to prevail after L.S.U. inevitably adjusts defensively and clamps down in the second half?
When attempting to answer that question, we should examine what the Bayou Bengals did to the Gamecocks in the second half and how they did it:
The drag route by the tight end worked well for USC in the first half.
"That was our best play most of the night," said Spurrier, who credited LSU with doing a better job changing its coverages in the second half.
But the passes that worked so well in the first half weren't available in the second, as Garcia struggled to find receivers under a fierce pass rush. . . .
Garcia knew why his opportunities to throw to the tight ends disappeared.
"They adjusted and started coming with a big blitz. They blitzed a lot more than they did in the first half. It's that simple," he said.
It didn’t help that the Gamecocks were unable to counter with a ground attack.
"It's pretty tough without a running game," said Garcia.
Can Georgia contend with the L.S.U. blitz with only six blockers? Are the Bulldogs balanced enough to mount the effective ground attack South Carolina lacked? Should we throw to the tight end on Saturday afternoon? What are your thoughts?
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
My first thought . . .
when I saw South Carolina picking up yardage with that short drag route was “yup, that looks familiar. . .” My second thought was “I bet Aron White could really cause some trouble running that drag route.”
A correllary to that is that if we drag the tight end and can pick up the blitz with 6, it will likely leave a hole in the deep middle. Or as I now refer to it “the A.J. Green funzone”.
Another aspect of this is that we now have Brannen Southerland playing some snaps at tight end, and he has excellent hands. Just a thought . . .
by MaconDawg on
Oct 21, 2008 9:29 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Isn't our FB basically taking the place of our TE?
With the way we have used Chapas and Southerland the past few weeks, it seems we have just adjusted from utilizing our TE as a short yardage pass target or check down, to making the FB as that short range pass target. Both have shown the ability to move the ball down field with a few blockers and gain significant yardage.
In the recent past it has been the TE that we usually go to on this. But with the injuries on the O-line and lack of talent and depth at the TE position, Richt seems to have simply shifted the short range target from the TE to the more talented and reliable core of our FBs. I’m no offensive scheme expert but i think it could work in the same way.
On the other hand i do agree that to not allow A. White to take the oppertunity to show off his supposed (I only say supposed bc he has yet to have given the oppertunity to show it) strength of route running and pass catching ability that he has been touted to have would be a poor use of the personel we have and the weaknesses of our opponent. Target him on 2 or 3 plays in the 1st quarter and see where it goes. If LSU has already adjusted from last game, then adjust to FB and RB’s as targets.
Another Question i want to throw out there, doesn’t this game (especially after watching the result of the SC game) depend primarily on establishing a running game with Moreno; otherwise like they did to SC they’ll just blitz us to hell and back?
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
I Corinthians 9:24
by Southern Dawg on
Oct 21, 2008 12:22 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ANY THROW TO THE TIGHT END
has got to be better than the “fade” to any wide receiver for the Dawgs! The inability of the offense to master the “fade” demonstrates to me why our corners cannot cover it__they have no meaningful practice against the pattern.
by Jujdog on
Oct 21, 2008 10:14 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
My Worry.....
Is that if we DON’T pick up the blitz then Joe Cox may be finishing the game.
We HAVE to get back to using the TE as a weapon. If you will recall in 2003 our line wasn’t all that great (Greene was sacked 47 times if I remember correctly) and we had to keep the TE in most of the year for an extra blocker.
Using the TE this weekend will be huge. LSU likes to play 2 deep safeties and man free underneath (especially since they blitz alot). If we can get a TE matched up with a LB across the middle that would be fantastic. Look at it this way if we can get another receiver of some sort in the pattern that forces LSU to play man on AJ or MoMass and I like our chances there.
by RocketDawg on
Oct 21, 2008 10:18 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What about
occasionally throwing out a two-TE look with Kiante Tripp at one end and White or someone else at the other? Supposedly KT can play TE, but he’s also a lineman, so he should help with giving us extra protection… but we would still be able to throw to the other TE. Of course, that means you’re either going down to one WR (which doesn’t help with getting favorable coverage) or dropping the FB (or maybe dropping the HB but that kind of gives away you’re passing).
But it’s a wrinkle. … Not to mention, you really can cause some confusion if you decide to send KT out for an occasional pass and keep White/Southerland/whoever in to block, especially if you establish a pattern of doing it the other, obvious way.
by NMdawg on
Oct 21, 2008 11:58 AM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I wonder if the interceptions
haven’t been a result of only having 3 WR in the pattern? I understand the concern of a jumbled OL and leaving both a back and TE for max protect, but when you only have 3 receivers running routes, you’ve got to figure that the D could essentially have double coverage on each receiver. There could basically have 5 in coverage and 6 on the rush. And if that’s the case you know AJ and MoMass are both getting a double every time. I wonder if Stafford has been throwing into tighter coverages than we saw at the start of season when we had a more “stable” line and probably a TE consitently running a 4th route and even releasing the back too.
Seems to me that we’ve got to soften the D up or at least get AJ and MoMass into more 1 on 1 by releasing that TE. Though I’m guessing (hoping) that we have been at least releasing one of the backs almost every time too.
Yes, that is my son. Yes, that is a bottle of Crown.
by BCDawg97 on
Oct 21, 2008 1:28 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Interceptions
They have occured for varying reasons. The one on the deep ball to MoMass against Vandy was the result of poor footwork and Stafford rushing the throw when he had enough time to set his feet. By using all arm, he badly underthrew the pass. That was in one on one coverage. The fade route that Berry picked off was also in one on one coverage, which was partly caused by a bad throw, but partly because Berry blatantly held in the end zone to get position on the ball. I really can’t recall a pick in the past few games that you can blame on a forced pass into double coverage. I could be way off base with that, though.
by SG Standard on
Oct 21, 2008 1:32 PM EDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It depends
I love seeing throws to the TE over the middle probably more than anybody. It’s something I have thought we haven’t done enough for a couple years now. However, this season presents a special circumstance. With all the injuries along the offensive line, the team has to weigh the pros and cons of each option. Do they want to be more aggressive and send the TE out in a pattern regularly, sacrificing a blocker against a very skilled and blitz-happy defense? Or would they rather keep the TE in, presumably giving more time for plays to develop, but giving up matchups and a better chance to attack the weakest part of the LSU defense, the secondary. Or would leaving the TE as a blocker help in attacking the secondary by giving more time for our receivers to get open? The possibilities boggle the mind.
After the debacle of the Alabama game, a good part of me is ok with sacrificing another receiver in exchange for the extra blocker. I made peace with this right around the time that we moved Kiante Tripp to tight end. In fact, the idea of him plowing the road on toss sweeps and disrupting our opponents pass rush had me downright giddy. Sadly, more injuries have moved him back to the line. Without Tripp as an option, leaving in the tight end sounds less appealing. Bruce Figgins is playing hurt, and while he is doing an admirable job, you have to wonder if the coaches (and Stafford, for that matter) think his shoulder could hinder his pass catching ability. As good a matchup as Aron White could create, leaving him in to block worries me. So either we roll the dice with White against a ferocious front seven, or we risk tipping our hand by cycling between White and Figgins based on the play. Of course, we would mix up the plays we run with each one in, but you would think the majority of the pass plays would be with White in the game and the runs would be with Figgins. The team could move Southerland to tight end, thus making that position fully capable of blocking or catching a pass, but I like him in the backfield far too much.
On the other hand, we would be able to create great matchups by throwing to the tight end. As discussed above, that drag route was there for the taking. Aron White on a linebacker favors UGA in a big way. Not only on a play like that, but respect is going to be given to AJ or MoMass going deep. This would result in the middle of the field being wide open for an intermediate pass to the tight end (not just for this game either, this pattern is one of the things I have missed the most about us throwing to the tight end). Again, it all comes down to what we expect from LSU. Can our line hold them off without the benefit of a blocker? Based on the Alabama game, I say no. But based on the way LSU looked against UF, I say absolutely.
In this game, a tight end in the pass pattern could be too valuable to pass up. I would come out on the first drive and see what our offensive line is capable of. Put a drag, or a slant, or something on with the tight end as the primary receiver. Send a WR deep to lure the safety back. If the play has time to develop, stick with it. If Stafford has to resort to the scramble drill, we might have to sacrifice a receiver. Even though I would like to see this, I don’t think it will happen. This would be a fairly drastic change to the gameplan we have seen this year in a game that such a change simply cant be afforded. If we weren’t facing LSU, then maybe we could see the re-emergence of the tight end. But against this defense, I doubt it. In a way, both options sound equally good and bad. Its a tricky proposition, brought on by injuries to our side and the skill of our opponents. Hopefully, this problem won’t rear its head again too often this year, as the talent on LSU’s side of the ball is hard to match. For now, though, I expect the team to maintain the status quo. I wouldn’t expect things to change too dramatically in one week alone.
by SG Standard on
Oct 21, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think the lack of film makes a difference.
All we did to counter the TE routes in the second half of the SC game was change personnel around. If UGA has success with the TE, hopefully we just make the same personnel changes a little quicker this time.
The Florida game is probably the best thing that ever happened to this team. The veterans were under performing and the defensive coaches were too conservative. Every game since the Appy St game to start the season the defensive scheme was getting more and more conservative, and our rookie secondary didn’t respond well to that kind of game planning. If what we saw against SC becomes the norm for the LSU defensive scheme the rest of the year, UGA will likely need to keep their TE’s back to block, and this discussion will be moot.
by LSU Jonno on
Oct 21, 2008 2:13 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Sounds good
Throwing more balls the TE’s way sounds good but at the moment it’s not a high priority. Getting the running game established is priority numero uno. Keeping Stafford in the vertical position is priority # 2. And I believe stretching the field with AJ and or MoMass seems to be pretty high on the offensive priority list. I would like to see more action for the TE’s in the receiving department but I highly doubt it’s going to happen the next few weeks.
by deanpat92 on
Oct 21, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
LSU LBs v DBs
As an LSU fan, I am not sure that the weakness is LSU’s DBs (greatly discussed as the weakness) rather than the LSU’s LBs (strangely silent). The whole issue on going across the middle or earlier issues of backs coming out to receive has been blamed on LSU DB’s where as it could be blamed on LSU LBs. Beckwith (from my high school) is very good (not great to this point) and the two from Georgia (Sheppard and Reilly) are developing nicely, but still there has been an issue covering from the LB position.
The LSU D-line is great, but maybe not quite performing to expectations this season (literally there are 8-9 who are or could be All-SEC one day). The DB’s lost a lot of experience from last year, but have some great talent. Look at the size of DB’s at LSU. I bet the safeties average 6’2" and 225 lb and hit HARD. And look at the recruiting ratings, which I know can overrate teams easily but still, the LSU LB corp is the weakest point in the whole team. Ironically, this is the historically strongest point for the LSU defenses.
I am very excited about this game and will be there. I love playing Georgia as I feel that they are the best from the SEC east in the traditional SEC mode (Florida is great, but a different style). However, I think the game difference will be the Georgia O-line vs the LSU D-line. The G OL must be at least average to have even a chance. At average, all other match-ups become important. If the G OL is great, the contest is over.
Here’s hoping for a great game. Go Tigers.
J
by LSU Jason on
Oct 24, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
reply
actions
0 recs
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
