“The Bulldogs have the players to create mismatches.”

I know it’s Tom Luginbill, but roll with this scenario for a second.

“Let’s just say you’ve got ‘12’ personnel with Isaac Nauta at tight end, but now you’ve got Nick Chubb and Sony Michel on the field at the same time,” Luginbill explained to Saturday Down South. “Let’s say it’s 3rd-and-4 and Georgia lines up in split backs out of the shotgun, and they motion Sony Michel out of the backfield.

“If you look at it from that perspective, now what you’re doing is you’re creating what could potentially be a mismatch in the passing game with a back on a linebacker or a safety, which is an advantage for Georgia. Yet, you still have your guy who can push the pile and get you 4 yards in the run game, and your tight ends on the field who can help in the run game or be involved in the passing game.”

All I can say is more of this, please.

Yes, it all starts with having a functioning offensive line and a quarterback who’s more comfortable in the offense, but, damn, with a little creativity, I really do think this offense has the talent to go places this season.

Advertisements

33 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Strategery And Mechanics

33 responses to ““The Bulldogs have the players to create mismatches.”

  1. John Denver is full of shit...

    All those players were available on
    4th and 1 at VAN 41
    (1:01 – 4th) Isaiah McKenzie run for no gain to the Vandy 41

    Liked by 2 people

    • Russ

      Exactly. I tried to think of a snarky comment, but all I could think of was what you just posted.

      Like

    • Shut up man, WE WERE IMPOSING OUR WILL!

      Like

    • That was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. You can’t run the ball out of that formation on 4th and 1 vs. Vandy. If they had play actioned out of that look then perhaps that would be ok given our troubles blocking anyone, but toss sweep to 16 with Chubb as lead blocker? Come on man!

      You run the same play with Chubb and a regular FB and we’re still playing football. The play was ok, but why lesser players to block or to fight for a yard, I’ll never understand.

      Like

    • jt (the other one)

      groan

      Like

    • Kdaddy

      If we had 12 then we would just get a flag for too many people on the field so I think Lugenbill is off, but didn’t he play QB for the North Avenue Trade School. That explains it!

      Like

    • Jared S.

      Ugh.

      Like

  2. Chi-town Dawg

    Except I thought there was a recent article where Kirby came out as saying he didn’t see any real benefit to having both Chubb and Sony on the field at the same time. Is my memory playing tricks on me or did I misread the story?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Fried Biscuits

    That type of scenario would be great if the offensive coaches try to pound the square peg into the square hole and not the round hole. That seemed to be an alien concept in year 1.

    Like

  4. Why am I not surprised that Tom Luginbill clearly has no friggin clue what 12 personnel means?

    Like

  5. Macallanlover

    Pretty bad when even Luginbill, just speaking off the cuff, can show more creative thinking than your highly paid OC did in all of 2016.

    Like

    • 92 grad

      Now, now. If you were in the arena you’d know better. With the youth at qb and the line being what it was, we simply couldn’t place our players in these kinds of situations. Way too complex. And believe me, we explored every and all option and stuck with what worked best. Don’t you think we thought of this stuff? Trust me,

      Aw hell, I can’t do it anymore. The square peg thing has irritated me from day 1 of spring ball last year…..

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mdcgtp

      Even worse when some people place any credibility in what he says.

      I am not suggesting that conventional wisdom is always correct. Further, innovation often happens when someone figures out a better way.

      In the history of football, there have been many many teams with two great running backs. Yet how many times have they been used together.

      There is a reason teams don’t use two RBs. That reason is largely because their skills are duplicative. Further the notion that a defense keys on any one player which renders another “uncovered” is ignorance. Certainly, plays have primary receivers and a standard running play involves a hand-off to one back, but each defender usually has his own read. This is a perfect example of why Luginbill is in ESPN’s third tier of sideline reporters/broadcasters, and their recruiting rankings are the laughingstock of the industry. He is a know nothing, and the fact that many on here think he is on to something that Chaney and Kirby can’t or won’t see is mind boggling.

      Like

  6. Scott

    This is silly. The point is obviously not to move the ball effectively, it’s to prove how much more manly we are than the other team. What we should do is run all three tight ends out there in a tight formation, in order to ensure the defense has as many people in the box as possible. At that point, we should just run directly into the teeth of the defense.

    Then you can get creative by running the exact same formation and trying the same play with the smallest player on the field. They’ll never see it coming!

    Like

    • Skeeter

      Can’t do it this year since our players aren’t small enough! What will we do?!

      Like

    • Minnesota Dawg

      And if it doesn’t work, it’s not bad play calling…..it’s simply a failure of the players to execute the play as designed (i.e., all UGA non-ball players dominate 1 or 2 defenders they are supposed to block (for a minimum of 6 seconds) and player with the ball breaks 2 to 3 tackles).

      Like

  7. paul

    We TALK about these sorts of scenarios every year. We just rarely, if ever, SEE them. I’ll believe it when I see it. Maybe.

    Like

    • you are right…. we’ve heard talk about getting both backs on the field at the same time with numerous sets of talented backs(Gurshall comes to mind) and yet somehow it has never really worked. As a basketball player who is a football fan it has always seemed that the match up/or actually mismatch this creates should work but it just doesn’t ever seem to come to fruition. Now slot receivers on linebackers seems to work really well or even Nauta on an inside LB is great but while splitting two great backs has always sounded great in theory it just has never actually worked in application

      Like

  8. DawgPhan

    The knives came quick for Chaney today.

    Like

  9. SemperFiDawg

    The more I saw of Chaney last year, the less I saw in him. A lot could be said, but I’ll leave it at this; if he can’t field a potent offense this year, he needs to go. A good offensive coordinator could put together a lethal offense with the weapons we have with even a modicum of an offensive line.

    Like

  10. NoAxeToGrind

    Smart is going to take the heat. I wonder if Smart is smart?

    Like

  11. jt (the other one)

    One area Bobo seemed to excel at was doing this. In the end without blocking its a moot point.

    Like

  12. doofusdawg

    bootleg!

    Like

  13. dubyadee

    While I don’t think this is a bad idea, and might result in a mismatch, let me note that (1) the “21 personnel” pro set is not a particularly good look for running the ball unless the linemen are spread out–something our offensive line will probably not be well-trained to do, (2) once Sony Michel moves to the flat, run plays to Chubb face one more linebacker than you would see if we had just brought out a slot receiver from the sideline, and (3) I haven’t seen anything that would make a coach trust Sony Michel to run outside, curl or deep routes (the three main routes that would take advantage of the mismatch) from the slot (though a drag or quick screen might be nice against some coverages). Pro set is also a good look for RPO plays and the fact that Michel can catch (and must be covered) is helpful there.

    Other than the wow-factor of having them on the field at the same time (which I don’t think matters for much), you gain as much or more by setting 12 personnel, then having Nauta motion to the slot and take his LB on deep cross or curl. This was one of Donnan’s most successful plays with Randy McMichael.

    There is a reason you usually see a FB in 21 personnel on running downs. The FB is trained almost exclusively to identify the correct block and make it. If either Michel or Chubb can do this better than a dedicated FB, that is wonderful. If not, use the damn FB or go single back.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Will (The Other One)

    I was daydreaming the other day about using motions out of or in to 22 formations, where either Nauta or another TE could:
    A. Both split out wide or into a slot position
    B. Motion into a HB position

    And the various RPOs and misdirection that could come from that. Though a lot was just fancy window dressing to get the RB wide tf open on a wheel route.

    Like

    • The other Doug

      Also, if we started in 22 or 21 and looked like we were going to try an impose our will the defense would likely have their big boys in. Nauta and/or Michel would be very likely to end up with a mismatch once they went in motion. Eason can always just hand it off to Chubb, and that has to be accounted for. The DC can have the FS cheat down to help out, but that is risky.

      I’ve never been in the arena, but I believe DCs hate mismatches with elite offensive talent.

      Like

  15. AusDawg85

    For this to be successful, you’ve got to show it in multiple situations and go with different reads to keep the D guessing. For this reason, and Chaney’s general lack of imagination, I don’t think we’ll see it.

    Like