AJC > Sports > Tech > Blog > Archives > 2007 > July > 31
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
In hindsight, Nix wasn’t bad
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A look back instead of ahead, as there will be so much to look forward to soon …
It’s easy to find Tech fans with the opinion that the best thing to happen to their team since last season was the departure of offensive coordinator Patrick Nix to Miami, and the arrival of his replacement, John Bond, from Northern Illinois.
Mindful that I will first come off like a Nix sympathizer when I say this I have to wonder: how can the jury be in so fast on a guy? Nix called plays for one season.
It would be hard to argue that some issues within the offense last season seemed to go insufficiently addressed (like the deployment of Rashaun Grant, perhaps?), and I personally have a hard time with the suggestion that Tech didn’t throw much to tight ends, backs or over the middle in general because Reggie Ball was short. I see the principle in Ball’s heighth, just not to the degree that Tech would all but abandon those opportunities in the passing game.
On one hand, Tech won nine games, and lost the conference championship game by a field goal. On the flip side, the offense was non-existent for three of the final four games (not counting the Gator Bowl), the exception being against Duke. The North Carolina game was one of the worst I’ve seen, the offense against Georgia was prehistoric tunnel vision come to life and against Wake Forest it seemed ill-conceived.
Then, for the first 30-plus minutes of the Gator Bowl, the Jackets were re-invented offensively. Did the three weeks turn Nix into a genius, or did a mandated change at quarterback change everything? Or was it both?
All I know is in sum, the Tech offense was not a universal trainwreck last season. I also know it jumped the tracks badly a few times.
Seems to me the differences in the Jekyll & Hyde offense came down to two things more than all others: the quarterback, and the play-calling afforded the quarterback.
Now, before jumping to a conclusion, consider more: The offense was pretty good the first month-plus, with the exception of the second half against Notre Dame when Tech went into a shell trying to protect the lead. That wasn’t all Nix, folks. He was calling plays, but was not alone in dictating end-all strategy.
At mid-season, the offense changed. It was difficult, or impossible, to get a reasonable answer about why a quarterback everybody but Ball admitted was not healthy wasn’t replaced at least on a let’s-see-what-happens basis when he struggled. And at times, he struggled so horribly it was painful to watch.
I remember writing a story in late October in which Nix and Gailey answered in the affirmative when I asked if the decision to keep Reggie in games affected play-calling, shortened the game plan. I was a little surprised, naturally, because that would seem a typical jumping-off point for coaches to try another quarterback at most levels — unless the rest of your quarterbacks are dreadful.
We saw in the Gator Bowl that Taylor Bennett is not dreadful, though a full measure of his aptitude is yet to come.
So, circling back, is it conceivable that when Tech’s offense was at its worst last season, it had no more to do with Nix than it did the health of Reggie Ball and the head coach’s decision that Ball would stay in the game — or, in the second half against Notre Dame’s poor defense, the HC’s decision to button up and run clock?
At any rate, I don’t have anything for or against Nix. I just don’t think there is enough evidence to throw dirt on a guy when he’s only called plays at the Division I level for one year and the team did pretty well overall.
