I was at both of those games, and when he said that, I was beside myself. That wasn't a "variance", that's a 7 man front that stopped them one year, and a four man that got embarrassed this past season. I agree with O, I don't get it either, maybe I missed something too.
I'm not defending anyone here, but you misunderstood him, which explains your outrage. He talked about having one defense that we play against option teams. That defense changes depending on what variance is showed to us from the other team.
The philosophy of every option team is that they want to run triple every single play, out of their standard formation--which is usually a loose double wing formation (pictured to the left). They do things throughout the game in order to get it working. Those things that they do are referred to as variances. Those variances include nontraditional formations, like the one pictured to the right. If you look closely, GT is using 31 personnel (you usually see them in 30) and they're lined up in a tackle over formation. By formation they are extremely run heavy to the top of the screen. Unless they reported the tackle eligible, they have one less player available for a pass play. Other variances include different blocking schemes in order to run triple (usually defined by formation) or different blocking schemes in order to run double options or counters. Every variance for a team like GT is and answer to the other team stopping their original goal which was stated above.
Considering the above: that defense that we run one time per year is built in with alignment checks. We make automatic adjustments when we encounter unbalanced formations, tackle over formations where one less player is eligible, heavy formations, etc. The option team's variance to their base play/formation (stated above) is what determines how we line up.
Now, did we execute properly? I have no idea. I don't know what our rules are. Was the result favorable? No. We lost the game.
I will say one thing about these two formations. They are NOT the same. They are actually very different. When you're playing an option team, small details are what win the game. The formation to the left is perfectly balanced (one or their ultimate goals). They can get full flow to both sides of the field and hit 3 gaps on each side. The formation they employed to the right was in an effort to gain an extra big blocker to where the run ultimately went. They're trying to out smart us before the play starts. If the other team adjusts pre-snap (we did) then the play is generally thwarted before it begins.
i wish we had more of this and less of the b!itching. golden's a good guy but he fails as a head coach. we know that. d'onofrio is even worse.
Why is he a good guy?
[MENTION=2315]Torocane[/MENTION]: THIS x 1000!!!!
I really need someone to answer that question; why is he a good guy? Is it b/c he "stuck" w/ us during the NCAA investigation or is it when he tried to low key bounce from the program leaving our 2014 recruiting class in limbo? Or is it b/c he is holding the University hostage by not making any adjustments both on and off the field, and are literally daring them to fire him vs. hitting the high road.
Seriously, what makes him such a good guy? B/c he ran on the field to hug his player in front of the cameras or is it b/c he constantly throw these same "loved" players under the bus when his scheme and coaching are called into question?
Some of you guys need to wake up and stop being blinded by his articulate speech. He's done less w/ more, and has constantly placed the blame upon any and everyone except him and his pals. He's blamed the school for being "blind-sided", he's blamed the NCAA for being on "probation", he's blamed the players for "free-lancing", he's blamed YouTube and Joey Z for the Raising Canes series, he's blamed ESPN for too many night games, he's blamed GOD for too much wind...so again, what makes Alfred Golden such a good guy?
He is incapable of holding himself accountable. Not a quality I whould associate with being a good guy.
