Deception, confusion , and mystery

[quietfan 233]

The "reverse-flea-flicker" Saturday got me thinking:

Seems like opponents are facing an uphill battle trying to prepare for the many facets of our offense already.

So, what about the idea of dazzling them and confusing them even more? What if Borges put in some plays that he could run against weak opponents, like Kentucky, without wasting too much practice time on them, just so future opponents would have to prepare for them as well as everything else we do.

For example (assuming we get a comfortable lead Saturday and have pretty good control of the game): What if we ran the option against Kentucky a few times just so Georgia would have to prepare for that as well--maybe even line up in a full-fledged wishbone occasionally? Or try a few more reverses, half-back passes, and other exotic, out-of-character things?

We wouldn't waste too much practice time becoming really proficient at these. We wouldn't even have to plan on actually using them against stronger opponents. But if Georgia & others saw us use them against Kentucky, that would be one more defensive headache for them to spend their time worrying about.

[woods1110 0]

I like your thinking and I agree.

I don't think it would be a bad idea at all, that way they have more to be concerned about...Good post!

[BoJtrueAUman 4]

Thats a good idea but I think that CAB will have some more stuff up his sleve for UGAG. We have yet to do the fake pass and I bet we will move like crazy on UGAG just like we did on LSU to keep them all confused.

WAR DAMN EAGLE, BEAT UK!!!

[AUesquire 1]

It sure wouldn't hurt to break out a couple of crazy plays this weekend. I think one of the keys to this offense is the incredible number of formations they run these plays out of. I heard or read where they used 29 different formations in the LSU game alone. I love all the different plays they run out of the stack where they bring the receivers in tight. You can outnumber the D and slam the tailback at them or send all the receivers out in different directions from that formation.

Now that we use the tight end and the running backs on a regular basis in our passing attack, it makes it impossible for defenses to focus on one thing like last year and makes it harder to blitz as well. We've had the weapons. It's just nice to see us finally using them.

[tombigbeetiger 223]

c. taylor was a qb in high school....reckin' those reverses he ran might be expanded at a later date?....i think so

[sportwareagle 0]

c. taylor was a qb in high school....reckin' those reverses he ran might be expanded at a later date?....i think so

113214[/snapback]

Oh, dear lord, that would be amazing. However, this would be one of those plays you absolutely never break out until you are going to use it. That's sorta how I feel about other trick plays as well. Why do you want to give the other team time to prepare? Why not make them figure something out on the sidelines during the game? That seems more frustrating to me than anything else would be.

[WarTim 3,456]

Shhhhhhhhhhh...... I have been thinkin' the same thing about Courtney, BUT, let's not let that cat (or should I say Tiger) out of the bag just yet.

[BoJtrueAUman 4]

didn't know CT was a QB, hummm veeerrryyyy interesting

[SouthLink02 8]

For example (assuming we get a comfortable lead Saturday and have pretty good control of the game): What if we ran the option against Kentucky a few times just so Georgia would have to prepare for that as well--maybe even line up in a full-fledged wishbone occasionally?  Or try a few more reverses, half-back passes, and other exotic, out-of-character things?

One game would not change our philosophy heading into the game this year.

[WarTim 3,456]

It is not a must that the puppies change. We would appreciate that.

Seriously, Good defenses force offenses to change. GOOD defenses, that is.

[AU4Ever 0]

I think they are gonna run the 'Notre Dame Box' some this weekend against UK.

[WarTim 3,456]

[SouthLink02 8]

It is not a must that the puppies change. We would appreciate that.

As would we