My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Richt Talks Tech

From Tuesday's media session with Georgia head coach Mark Richt...

On Georgia Tech's offensive success against fast and athletic defenses
"I think certain types of players are going to try to make the play whether or not he is designated to make the play. When you play this offense you have to have discipline in your assignments. Certain guys are assigned to certain parts of this option, and if a guy tries to do someone else's job then you have problems. I think sometimes guys get a little impatient and they want to go get the quarterback or go get the pitchback and it may not be his assignment. That might be part of the problem that guys feel like they can use their athleticism to go make a play rather than do what they are assigned to do."

On the success of Georgia Tech's triple option offense
"This offense has always succeeded. I think what got it out of the high school ranks a little bit is the fact that most high school associations don't let you block below the waist, and the cut block is a very big part of this system. Of course it's still legal to do in college ball. A lot of the high school coaches realize that if they can't implement the cut block, it's going to be tougher to make it go. I don't know if there is ever a time when the system itself, if implemented properly, hasn't had success. There have just been other offenses that have gained more attention and maybe become more fashionable, but I don't know if this system has every failed at any time. It's going to succeed probably even more because no one else is doing it and defenses are scrambling to get a feel of how to defend it. Coaches might know how to defend it but you have to rep it. Your players have to get used to it. It's just a whole different mentality than a lot of defensive play. That is definitely an advantage for Georgia Tech right now."

On the cut block and whether it should be allowed

"The cut block on our level of football is designed to always be done where the blocker is faced up on the defender. It's not designed where you can come from outside-in and cut somebody below the waist. If somebody comes from the outside working his way in, you are now allowed to block below the waist. Even on any kicking down there are no blocks below the waist. It's just too dangerous. If it's done properly, then I think the cut block still ought to be in the college football game."

On preparing for Georgia Tech after winning the last seven games in the series

"I don't think we've ever had one bit of trouble respecting Georgia Tech and preparing like mad for Georgia Tech and this year is no different. If you look at the scores, for the most part they have been very, very close games. There is no reason to think anything other than it's going to be a battle royale."

On when Richt realized the intensity of the Georgia-Georgia Tech rivalry
"Before I accepted the job I knew how crucial it is. When I was at Florida State it was always Florida State and Florida playing and Georgia and Georgia Tech playing that same weekend. It was ACC versus SEC, so I was very mindful of what was going on. Playing against Georgia Tech for all those years while at Florida State we had a pretty good appreciation for them. It wasn't like I had never crossed paths with Georgia Tech before, just not as a Georgia coach. I had no trouble figuring out that it was a huge game."

On the difference between the Georgia-Georgia Tech rivalry and the Florida-Florida State rivalry

"I think the tradition is deeper here in this rivalry than the other one. Florida State didn't even start playing football until the late 1940s. Florida State and Florida didn't play on a regular basis until sometime after that. I don't think they have played half as many as Georgia and Georgia Tech have. When you play a team 100 times there is all kind of history and good and bad blood mostly bad. It's just a little deeper in the tradition of the game."

No comments: