SB Nation Atlanta Editor's Pick
Will the Timing-Critical Nature of Coach Paul Johnson's Offense always be a Liability?
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 15, 2010 2:49 PM EDT
Email
PrintReflect again on the very first offensive play of the 2009 Orange Bowl. Dwyer bursts up the middle with a wide open field between him and the end zone but the play is whistled dead because a lineman moved too soon. For Tech fans the painful part of the Orange Bowl was not getting beaten by a better team, the painful part was seeing Tech constantly out of synch. In the days leading up to the game reporters had asked Coach Johnson if his team would be ready. He spoke of how difficult it is to create game conditions in practice. He said, "We are trying to work them as hard as we can without killing them."
One of the things all of Tech's losses in 2009 have in common is an offense in which the timing was off. The first loss came against Miami. This third game in 12 days was epitomized by a leg weary Tech team that seemed to be running in slow motion.
Then there was the Georgia game. With a two week lay off prior to the game Tech never seemed to have quite the zip that they exhibited a week later against Clemson. Give credit to Georgia for understanding that they needed to jump on Tech early and hard. And, unlike the previous year in which Tech only had 9 days off before the Georgia game, Tech took longer to get back up to game level intensity. By then it was too late.
It is now de'rigueur for fans on blog sites as well as some pundits to speak of how Tech's offense cannot stand the test if the opposing team has time to prepare for it. That is an utter canard. All teams do better with time to prepare for a particular offense. The real problem for Tech is that it's offense requires critical timing and execution to be at all effective -much more so than many other offenses. Give Tech a month off before a big game, say L.S.U. in 2008 or Iowa in 2009, and it is as if the team has gone back to its early Fall practice days.
Tech has a masterful coach and a system that will consistently win 9 or 10 games a season. That is no small accomplishment. But the achilles heel for this system is that it is inordinately sensitive to anything that might throw off its timing-critical nature.
65 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Personally I disagree
I do not think the time off alone can be pointed out for our lack of success in the three games you mentioned. Iowa was a top 5 defense, LSU was uber big and talented and got a huge spark from their offense. And with UGA it was a huge rivalry game where anything can happen (Georgia’s coaches finally figuring out how to avoid Joe Cox, don’t pass) In terms of our offenses performance there were huge chances that were missed in all games, I specifically remember the opening drive against LSU, that we have both hit and missed before. I think its more dependable than this post gives it credit.
Don't miss the point
Tech may have indeed lost the three games I mentioned in 2009 even if their timing had been spot on. I was just pointing out the obvious, that they played poorly and committed lots of unforced errors. Had they done that in some of their other games they would have certainly lost those also -Clemson, Mississippi State, Virginia Tech just to name three.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 15, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Timing is part of it
Yes part of it is timing, but I think the bigger part of it is line play. If you look at Navy their offense seem to be fine in bowl games. So it can’t just be timing because if that was the issue Navy wouldn’t be able to score either.
I think the bigger part is the other team’s more talented line just outclasses Tech for the moment. Until Tech can do improve the offensive line they will continue to loose games against teams with more talented defensive lines.
That is an encouraging response
I certainly hope the timing thing is not a chronic illness for Tech. If it is mainly a matter of getting better line play then perhaps we will see the bowl record turn around after a few more recruiting classes.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 15, 2010 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
...or until they switch to a playoff system
That would eliminate the multi-week layoff. Better offensive linemen would be the preferred solution because it wouldn’t matter how the postseason is formatted.
That seems to be the concensus
in my conversations. Most people seem to think a playoff system keeps this kind of offense humming along.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
good point.
Haven’t seen that response before.
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John HeismanFromTheRumbleSeat
by Winfield Featherston on Jul 16, 2010 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you hit the nail on the head
Most of the timing/unforced errors that this poster is talking about were offensive line related. This team is still trying to find really good offensive linemen for this system. They’re working on it, and when the line is where it needs to be, they won’t have AS MANY of these timing and unforced errors.
The more I hear you talk
the more optimistic I become. But just to play devil’s advocate a moment, are you suggesting that Chan recruited good people at every position except offensive line? Conversely, the conventional argument that I read on blogs is that CPJ recruits small, quick linemen who will always get pushed around by big athletic defensive lineman. Thus, they argue, the flex-bone is doomed to fail against certain teams.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Recruiting Linemen
I can’t say I ever remember a Gailey recruited offensive line that was particularly impressive. I can’t remember a single lineman that stuck in the NFL
by iamafirehazard on Jul 16, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
What about the linemen
CPJ has recruited? How many of those stick out for you in the NFL?
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it is how he coaches them up.
Reggie Ball? Not coached up.
Calvin? He’s from another planet and doesn’t need coaching
Sean Bedford? Getting a lot a press, Coached up, and he WALKED ON in 2006.
Joshua? Would he be getting Davey O’Brien props under Chan??
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jul 16, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I refuse to really pay any attention to recruiting
Johnson has yet to prove he can recruit in offensive line talent, at this point.
What I am trying to say is in terms of on field results and transition to the NFL, Gailey did do a better job recruiting skill and defensive players than offensive lineman.
by iamafirehazard on Jul 16, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
but CPJ's job
is to recruit players to play in this system…whether or not it promotes NFL players or not. For instance, Sean Bedford earned All-ACC honors but probably won’t get a sniff from the NFL. We haven’t really seen much of CPJ’s offensive line recruits in action so we can’t say.
Right before Gailey, we had Nat Dorsey* and Chris Brown. Right after him, Sean Bedford.
- Dorsey played for Gailey, but he was a O’Leary recruit.
Excuse my language, ma'am, but that damn Dodd's gonna beat my butt today. -- Bear Bryant, November 1962
I'm saying
Chan’s recruits were for a differnet system. He could have big, monstrous, heavy-legged offensive linemen in his pro style offense. They will not work in an option offense. What CPJ needs to get are big athletic guys (he has a couple small athletic guys now) that can both physically match up with good defensive linemen and do the things that the option offense needs them to do.
And some D.
If we want to “Loyola Marymount” a team and out score them with no Defense, we must be spot on with CPJ’s system. If we stumble with the ball, the D must keep the score down. Think of the FSU game (that went on for 2 days). The last team with the ball wins because both D’s were worn out.
I hope that CPJ will continue to “invent” on the sideline as he did last year. I went to the Orange Bowl, and it seemed we just kept doing the playbook against an inside 7 who couldn’t be bamboozled. I keep going back to CPJ drawing up the play for Embry Peeples to go deep.
Does anyone have the link to last year’s article about CPJ watching the opposing D and coming up with stuff off the cuff? That seems to be his wrinkle on the confusion sown by this offense.
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jul 16, 2010 9:03 AM EDT reply actions
And another note for optimism
for as sorry as the offense played in the Orange Bowl Tech still would have been in the game had the defense played even 50% better.
I think you are wrong about the FSU game; that was a three day game, not two.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
still only 2 years in
And the accomplishments have exceeded expectations both years. I can’t wait until Paul Johnson’s recruit pipeline is full and you have so many players who know his system. I’d like to think mistakes like that will disappear or at least diminish.
Yeah, I'm excited
The truth is after watching teams in the past with so many question marks I am now down to analyzing the one or two things that might keep this team from going undefeated. But you are absolutely right. No one could have predicted the success of the last two years and if anyone had said “how would you feel about losing the Orange Bowl next year,” we would have been excited just to hear that we were even going.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh Hell, we are suffering from too high expectations after only 2 years.
If I told you at the bottom of the Gailey era that within two or three years we would beat Clemmins twice in one season, win and ACC Championship outright, and go to a BCS Bowl you would have laughed in my face.
If I told you we would do it by never throwing a pass and running a Veer/Single Wing/Georgia Southern Offense you would have blocked me off of this site.
Our Wide Receiver/President will read you this same riot act (in a VERY nice way) to make you feel like an idiot for doubting DRod’s decision on CPJ.
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jul 16, 2010 1:31 PM EDT reply actions
we’re starting year three with many seniors that joined Tech as Chan recruits (minus Anthony Allen). Sucess breeds sucess. We’ve been winning with some extreme athletes that have taken a chance on he CPJ offensive machine. Now, we have the Groh era for the Defense. I have full confidence in the coaching staff to leverage the absolute best out of our athletes. As we all have seen in CPJ teams of the past, mostly sans five star recruits, his teams win – and will continue to win.
by twojackets on Jul 16, 2010 2:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I've said it before
and I’ll say it again — we get bigger linemen on both sides of the ball, this team is unstoppable.
folks always say that we need small kids for this system, but I disagree. Think about, a Mt. Cody sized Center with two Hanyesworth-sized OTs opening up a hole the size of semi for the b-back to just crise up the middle.
The same sized linemen provide some desperately needed pass protection, as PJ throws in some screens and some shotgun roll-and-throws to keep the defense guessing (he spent spring practice time on that stuff for a reason)
The pitch play would suffer, but I’m sure we could compensate with some new fun blocking schemes by the A-Backs.
But I don’t know anything about football, so whatever
I agree to a point
The NFL certainly has guards that can pull. As a matter of fact I would go on record as saying that you probably could not play guard in the NFL unless you were mobile.
So I hate to think it is always a choice between quickness and size. That is what some of the “experts” keep saying with regard to CPJ’s system but I am not ready to concede that point yet.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 16, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
On defense
Small offensive lines work very well. See USC, Florida State, you guys, etc.
This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
by Bud Elliott on Jul 16, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Tell us more
Offensive lines that are small do indeed do well but it is a different type of blocking, no? The technique that CPJ uses apparently involves influencing where a defensive lineman can go by getting their legs tangled up rather than depending on knocking them on their backsides. (hence the charges of chop blocking)
The problem may come in short shortage situations where you simply need to move the defensive line back about two yards. Tech generally did well in short shortage so this may seem to disprove my point. But this may have to do with the idea that small linemen get off the ball quicker hitting the defensive linemen before they can get their momentum going. But if what I say is true that is one more reason why timing in this offense is critical.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 17, 2010 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t mean this in a mean way, but GT isn’t sending any linemen to the NFL. USC and FSU are sending linemen to the NFL.
It is often blocking based on quickness, leverage, and angles. On defense, as posted below, offenses now use a defense’s quickness against it, by making it commit.
This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
I had read this before
about defensive lines. The question is about offensive lines. And here I am not arguing with you. I think big is good here too. It is just that this is not the only criterion for deciding who is a good offensive lineman. My preference would be big and mobile.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 17, 2010 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions
We have a big boy already
who goes by the name of TJ Barnes. He’s 6’8", 350lbs, and would probably scare the crap out of Shaq if they came face-to-face. Problem is he’s lazy, apparently, which ends in him not playing nose tackle for us, and therefore wasting our Powerade on the sidelines and not clogging up the middle as is expected from a NT in the 3-4.
Oh, and Nate — Dikaia.
by LilBroey700 on Jul 18, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
And may I remind everyone
to not stray too far from the topic. “Timing issues with the offense as a possible liability” is how we got on the topic of offensive linemen. I like defense too but the 3-4 is not a controversial system in college or in the pros. The question is about any inherent weaknesses of the CPJ offensive system.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 19, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Yep, you need to have good big guys
This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
I'll bet he's drawing up some really interesting pass plays
that we won’t see until the meat of the ACC run.
Other schools will tell recruits about a “high school offense” and when the young man gets to HBDS@GF they will be amazed when the A-back comes off the corner on a fly route and the 7 in the box will be still trying to untangle themselves from the dive just as the back takes it to the house.
If the bread and butter is the run, throwing a pass is more than just keeping the D honest, it is a part of the general miss-direction of the system. Sort of Sun-Tzu like!
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jul 19, 2010 11:34 AM EDT reply actions
I'm a dawg, but I think this is interesting
CPJ’s offense works by blocking 10 men. The 11th guy is one who you option off of. (If you add the dive option, you are blocking 9 and optioning twice. It’s actually a lot more complicated, but that’s the gist). When it works, it can’t be stopped.
There are two ways to beat it. The first is to be faster than the offense. CPJ makes that almost impossible because he coaches his players to be smart, designs his plays to cause misdirection, and uses small linemen.
The other way is to be bigger. If one D-lineman can beat his man (and be on the playside), he can blow up the play. UGA won by taking away the dive with two big interior lineman. We then used speed on the edge to contain the pitch. It didn’t work perfectly, but it worked at least enough for us to pull out the win. When somebody in the backfield has to take a step to avoid a rusher (or a blocker being pushed back by a rusher), the timing and placement of the pitch is thrown off. When the O-line has to double team, it loses a blocker and there is one more free defender to account for.
I think that stopping the dive is the key. You stop the dive with big. Containing and stretching out the pitch comes next. Both UGA and Iowa stopped the dive and did enough to disrupt the pitch sometimes. I thought CPJ should have gone to the edge more often in both games, but what do I know?
If Tech had bigger lineman, you could make more interior space for the dive. However, bigger usually means slower, which will hurt you on the edge. Linebackers (especially from 3-4 opponents) will have an easier time diagnosing the play and getting in the backfield to disrupt lateral plays. There will be more Penn State-style “3 yards and a cloud of dust” football if you trade speed for size on the line, and I don’t think that is Tech’s game.
I don’t think CPJ make the trade because he loves the stretching aspect of the pitch. He wants the linebackers and secondary to be confused by the lateral motion and he wants to attack the whole field. A quick dive will catch defenders looking outside. If they lean too far inside, they will get burned out wide. The system works by freezing defenders, and then having an offensive player arrive with enough force to keep the defender from recovering. For that, you need timing. For timing, you need speed. The way to beat speed is with big. I expect Tech to struggle with elite defensive lines that combine size and speed. But, short of having guys who are both big and fast, it is a hard offense to stop. UGA, for example, sent three DTs to the NFL last year. Not everyone has that kind of depth, and nobody has that kind of depth every year.
Forgive me for taking up so much space. I hope I have not abused my welcome. Good topic.
by first and thom on Jul 20, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No forgiveness necessary
I too could talk at length on this subject and I too have had no experience coaching, “so what do I know?”
I agree with you on thinking Tech should have gone wide more against Iowa. The premise of this article is that the timing was off against Georgia and against Iowa. So far we have three basic answers as to why that was.
1) defenses with time to prepare out-scheme this offense (an argument I find dubious)
2) Tech’s offense is so timing-oriented that long lay offs between games effects their play (I worry that this might be true)
3) The problem has something to do with not having the right offensive lineman in place yet (the most hopeful explanation)
Now as to your analysis, it was fun to read and interesting. It raises several questions with me that I have not thought about before. For instance, would this offense do better against “the beefy” Iowa and Georgia defenses if the interior linemen were bigger? Could you get away with a heavy center and one or two heavy guards and still go with quicker tackles? I am old enough to remember the day (probably before your time) when most teams including Tech had two different sides of the offensive line. The center was the anchor. On one side of the center was a line of big (for those days) 230-250 guys. On the other side of the center were small quick guys in the 205-215 range. In other words your offensive line was small and quick on one side and large and strong on the other side. One of Alabama’s most famous All American linemen was Cecil Dowdy who played at 195. I mention him, and here I am repeating myself, because teams would often have a guard like Dowdy on one side of the center and then have a guard on the other side who was almost a hundred pounds heavier.
Well, now I have talked your ear off. Always good to have a civil conversation with a dawg. Thanks for joining in.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 20, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I did a quick by-weight and by-age analysis
of the O-Line (available here), then compared it to the incoming recruits and found out a few things. I got all the current guys weights and ages off ramblin wreck and all the recruit’s data off gojackets.com. I took the standard deviation and average of all the weights of the upper/lowerclassmen to see if, when PJ came in, there was any increase in weight like I thought there was going to be. Turns out I was dead the hell wrong.
What surprised me most is that we only have one listed OG on the roster (Uzzi) with the rest being listed as either OTs or OLs. Therefore, I took the heavier guys (285+) listed as OLs, called them OGs, and made my calculations based off that. Anyways, the 2008-2011 classes of offensive linemen (aka “CPJ Era” linemen) are equal in weight to the current team. This is expected as probably 65% of these guys are CPJ Era recruits. However, there may be some truth in what you said, Senor Original Team, since even though our OGs do not have a greater average weight than (listed) OTs, their standard deviation is almost half that of the OTs. Therefore, they are consistently larger (also, if I included the “smaller” (<285) guys listed as OLs in my OT average, the OT average would definitely be lower, but that would take all the certainty out of the OT data now wouldn’t it!). Also of interest, the 2011 OGs are nearly 10 lbs heavier than 2011 OTs (280 vs. 289.5), so I think that pretty much cements your theory that the “inside-out” approach is the direction we’re heading in. I think this is the right approach to spread the field, as we can cement the dive with the big guys and take out the blitzing backfielders with tackles and A-backs to keep the pitch safe. When these guys get here, we might not even see the passes I was talking about earlier, which would suck, because I think a solid passing game is what we need to keep everybody on their toes. In conclusion, I’ve been saying for years we would get to the NC in 2011 because of more athletic, larger linemen, and I think we’re finally getting there. Where’s my proof for the “more athletic” part, you may ask? Well, I’m going to forego data here and simply say that with a better coach and a better program comes more athletic players. Duh.
Great post
Thanks for all the effort put into this. Well, we may not have proven the case completely but I like the idea of getting bigger in the middle to preserve the dive play while still being able to attack the corners.
I also see evidence from looking at the recruiting that more athletic linemen may be taking a second look at Tech.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 21, 2010 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Um, where are the scatter charts, pie charts, and standard deviations??
This is FTRS, the home of CFB by Graph!
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jul 21, 2010 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions
We're so good
we do them in our heads. Can’t you see them?
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 21, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
i included the standard deviations! :P
But you’re right about the graphs, ill fix it when I get home
by GTNate on Jul 21, 2010 3:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What about accounting for offensive linemen filling out as upperclassmen?
I may be missing something, but if the numbers say our new guys are currently equal in weight to the older guys, that means the new guys will be bigger than the older guys by the time the new guys are starters.
Excuse my language, ma'am, but that damn Dodd's gonna beat my butt today. -- Bear Bryant, November 1962
Good point
In men, especially athletes in training, one of the biggest growth spurts can happen between the ages of 18 and 21. Thanks for making me think of that.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 22, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Great Point
That is one of the difficulties in recruiting talent. The big schools that always have great recruiting classes (Florida, USC, etc.) get those guys who are already developed. The others have to predict what the kid will be after a few years in a college football program.
Hopefully these guys will fill out as the coaches have predicted.
I was too lazy
to go get the data on how much weight our linemen have generally added over time….but based on nothing more than instinct I’d say we’re going to see a 7-12 pound increase…..then again, if this is any indication of our weight room work ethic I might call it 20 lbs :P
It is not unusual for a player
to add 20 pounds. If their frame is growing they don’t even have to add that much more muscle mass to pack in 20 more. If they get into serious body building ,llike Rock Perdoni did (All American from the 70’s), they can add 30 or more regardless of frame. Rock packed it on with just a 5’ 11" frame and became a monster defensive lineman.
Anyway, with today’s athletes, growth spurts and training programs I think you could expect at least 20 pounds added to a starting offensive lineman. However, whether they add that or not may come down to what we have been discussing. What if CPJ actually prefers them lighter? Theoretically he may see that they have not lost speed or quickness but again the entire discussion on this post is whether there is an innate bias to this system which becomes a liability. One liability might be that CPJ just insists that in his system they have to be lighter.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 25, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Adding weight is not a bad thing necessarily
With all offensive linemen (in run blocking at least), you want a quick burst off the ball. If the weight added is muscle in the lower body, it could give a lineman a quicker burst, and therefore help. Even in the option offense, you aren’t expecting your linemen to run 40 yards downfield (especially if they’re cutting all the time). More weight would probably slow them down over this range, but speed is not the issue; it’s quickness and explosiveness.
Does Paul Johnson prefer smaller offensive linemen, though? I think that if there was a 280 lb. guy and a 320 lb. guy that could get off the ball equally fast and had the same technical ability, he’d take the 320 lb. guy. The problem is that there aren’t that many 320 lb. guys with quick feet and good quickness off the ball. The ones that do exist probably would prefer a pro style offense, because they’re prototypical NFL linemen and would get drafted higher out of that type of offense.
I know your answer still isn’t answered, and I don’t think we can unless we ask Coach Johnson himself. Even then, I’m sure his answer would be too cryptic to come to a definitive conclusion.
*Correction
“…your QUESTION still isn’t answered…”
Yes, but
it has sure been fun to hear everyone’s opinion. I actually feel more optimistic about CPJ’s system now and I already was impressed with it.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 28, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks
I appreciate ya’ll engaging with me on the topic. I don’t know if the option can take GT all the way or if defenses will get it figured out (i.e., disrupt its timing), but I don’t doubt that CPJ is a fine coach. If the option can work, he’ll find a way to do it.
by first and thom on Jul 21, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
May we have some depth please?
With all of the size and speed theories…Let us not forget that last year we had almost NO depth on the OL. We had guys playing out of position for most of the year. For the 2nd half of the uga game we were actually out of any additional “healthy” OL players.
My understanding
was that last year at least some of the depth problems were caused by redshirting, at least in part so that this year the offensive line would have more depth.
I keep redirecting the responses on this post back to the original question which has to do with any inherent liabilities in this offensive system. So the question of no depth might be phrased this way: “Do you think the nature of CPJ’s system is such that is causes an unusually large number of injuries to the offensive line, thus causing timing and performance problems for the offense?”
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 26, 2010 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Depth is probably irrelevant in this discussion
Depth helps in any system, at any position. Also, it’s football and people get hurt, especially guys who see contact on every play (offensive and defensive linemen).
As for CaptK (Trekkie?), he’s right. This program still needs depth across the board to improve. This coming season will probably be the first under Johnson that we see a team with good (not great) depth…at least on offense. With the switch to 3-4, it may take a couple years to get some depth on defense now.
I suspect you are right again
Just like I think teams having time to prepare for CPJ’s system is irrelevant. Having time to prepare for a game helps most teams play better against a given offense. If the other team has the horses, however, all the prep time in the world can’t turn a loss into a win, just perhaps hold the score down.
So my original question does go somewhat unanswered.
by Atlanta's original team on Jul 28, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
