2016 Defense

[Augusta_Jacket]

Different style of play??? you mean having a good defense?

how many plays were scored on outside of RZ ?
We won't know. too many variables..

Yes. Different style of play. Bama, with its collection of 5* defensive studs plays a much more aggressive style than we do.

Of the 19 total TDs surrendered by GT, 8 were outside of the RZ. GT is good at not surrendering big plays. We surrender a lot of yards between the 30s, but generally tighten up in the RZ.

Again, our D isn't great, but it's not bad either.

 

[Rock]

Yes. Different style of play. Bama, with its collection of 5* defensive studs plays a much more aggressive style than we do.

Of the 19 total TDs surrendered by GT, 8 were outside of the RZ. GT is good at not surrendering big plays. We surrender a lot of yards between the 30s, but generally tighten up in the RZ.

Again, our D isn't great, but it's not bad either.

fair enough.
I thought you meant 4-3 vs 3-4 as style of play.

 

[CuseJacket]

@Rock, let me preface by saying I'm on the fence about how much Clemson let up. The play calling appeared more conservative to me in the 2nd half at times as well, and rightfully so. Clemson's D was in full control. However they did call a play action/bomb to the end zone with about 2 min to go. I don't think Watson misfired intentionally... he missed throughout much of the rest of the game as well (see InterSafety).

Even if one concedes Clemson let off the gas for the entire second half, their offense "only" scored 21 points in the first half. Makes it a difficult leap for me to say they could have hung 60, even as poorly as our defense played the first half.

 

[AE 87]

Wow. I'm thoroughly at a loss....

Fwiw, I think that what he was saying

 

[Rock]

@Rock, let me preface by saying I'm on the fence about how much Clemson let up. The play calling appeared more conservative to me in the 2nd half at times as well, and rightfully so. Clemson's D was in full control. However they did call a play action/bomb to the end zone with about 2 min to go. I don't think Watson misfired intentionally... he missed throughout much of the rest of the game as well (see InterSafety).

Even if one concedes Clemson let off the gas for the entire second half, their offense "only" scored 21 points in the first half. Makes it a difficult leap for me to say they could have hung 60, even as poorly as our defense played the first half.

not that difficult.
Missed FG and wasn't there some backwards pass or something missed by the refs (don't remember exactly ) that would have made it 49.. not too far off.

 

[IronJacket7]

when you dominate the first half and the other team can't score, you hold them to 7 points, and you don't have to score a lot to win,

yea you left off the gas.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

not that difficult.
Missed FG and wasn't there some backwards pass or something missed by the refs (don't remember exactly ) that would have made it 49.. not too far off.

26 + 3 (missed field goal) + 7 (other play) = 36. Not 49. Closer to half of 60 than 60 itself.

I also love how the opponents near offensive misses count, but ours don't.

 

[CuseJacket]

not that difficult.
Missed FG and wasn't there some backwards pass or something missed by the refs (don't remember exactly ) that would have made it 49.. not too far off.

The backwards pass appeared backwards, I agree. That is the most plausible in a "what if" game that I think silly to play. And I can't even make the argument that offensive turnovers for TDs doesn't extrapolate...

Missed FGs though... c'mon man

 

[Rock]

26 + 3 (missed field goal) + 7 (other play) = 36. Not 49. Closer to half of 60 than 60 itself.

I also love how the opponents near offensive misses count, but ours don't.

my bad lol..
had customer in front of me...typing fast.

 

[IronJacket7]

Fwiw, I think that what he was saying

I'm not a smart man but I know what PPD is....

 

[IronJacket7]

@Rock, let me preface by saying I'm on the fence about how much Clemson let up. The play calling appeared more conservative to me in the 2nd half at times as well, and rightfully so. Clemson's D was in full control. However they did call a play action/bomb to the end zone with about 2 min to go. I don't think Watson misfired intentionally... he missed throughout much of the rest of the game as well (see InterSafety).

Even if one concedes Clemson let off the gas for the entire second half, their offense "only" scored 21 points in the first half. Makes it a difficult leap for me to say they could have hung 60, even as poorly as our defense played the first half.

What is your opinion on Total Offense and Total Defense? Is this a useless or misleading stat?

Currently we are 25th in Total Defense and 111th in Total Offense.

 

[MWBATL]

What is your opinion on Total Offense and Total Defense? Is this a useless or misleading stat?

Currently we are 25th in Total Defense and 111th in Total Offense.

Essentially about as relevant as measuring a basketball team in the Four Corners era that was 300th in total offense and 4th on total defense because they played a slow down game the entire game.

In other words, no...not relevant.

 

[MWBATL]

One other comment....and one major issue I have with our defense is this.......

If we had the long, time-consuming death marches of prior years, the opposing defenses would become worn out and we would have a much better chance in the 4th quarter doing things like...converting 4th and 1 plays.

As it is, our defense is the one on the field all game long, because we can't get the other team off the field. It helps that we get better in the red zone. But in the long run, I would rather our defense play more aggressive (we get a 3 and out or you score) because in the long run, this might be more conducive to winning the 4th quarter, and hence winning more ball games at the end. TOP matters for a team like ours. I think it is NOT a coincidence that we are losing the TOP battle...and losing close games.

 

[Squints]

What is your opinion on Total Offense and Total Defense? Is this a useless or misleading stat?

Currently we are 25th in Total Defense and 111th in Total Offense.

I think any stat can be useless or misleading if used by itself or without context.

Go look at how many drives each team has in our games compared to everyone else. I'd wager almost anything it's lower. That's due to our offensive philosophy and the fact that our defense can't consistently (or ever) get off the field. This isn't news. That's going to suppress total offense numbers while doing the opposite for total defense numbers which is why they look the way they do. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[ilovetheoption]

One other comment....and one major issue I have with our defense is this.......

If we had the long, time-consuming death marches of prior years, the opposing defenses would become worn out and we would have a much better chance in the 4th quarter doing things like...converting 4th and 1 plays.

As it is, our defense is the one on the field all game long, because we can't get the other team off the field. It helps that we get better in the red zone. But in the long run, I would rather our defense play more aggressive (we get a 3 and out or you score) because in the long run, this might be more conducive to winning the 4th quarter, and hence winning more ball games at the end. TOP matters for a team like ours. I think it is NOT a coincidence that we are losing the TOP battle...and losing close games.

I've been saying this for years. Turn every possession for the other team into a coin flip. It's a better result than getting consistently gound into the dirt.

 

[IronJacket7]

I think any stat can be useless or misleading if used by itself or without context.

Go look at how many drives each team has in our games compared to everyone else. I'd wager almost anything it's lower. That's due to our offensive philosophy and the fact that our defense can't consistently (or ever) get off the field. This isn't news. That's going to suppress total offense numbers while doing the opposite for total defense numbers which is why they look the way they do. It's a pretty simple concept.

And in theory I agree with what you are saying. But the Clemson game I used as an example of how our Defense was on the field a lot and the Offense was 3 and out most of the game and the defense only gave up 26 points. The response I got was "Clemson let up off the gas." I can tell you from being at the game on the home side in section 104, a GT enthusiast went toe to toe with a Clemson fan over Clemson trying to score at the end being up 26-7 with less than a few minutes in the 4th. Clemson didn't let off the gas. Our defense kept that game from getting in the 40's.

 

[IronJacket7]

Essentially about as relevant as measuring a basketball team in the Four Corners era that was 300th in total offense and 4th on total defense because they played a slow down game the entire game.

In other words, no...not relevant.

I get what you are saying. I just look at it differently. IMHO the Pitt game was the only bad game we had on defense and the last 13 points Pitt scored were total luck.

 

[Jmonty71]

I give up... I truly do. You cannot cherry pick one stat and then beat your chests about it. There's more to "overall defense".. Yards per play, negative plays (sacks, etc), total yards allowed, turnovers, scoring, time of possession allowed, 3rd down conv. allowed. When you crunch all the numbers... We are NOT as good as you may think. I agree with AJ... We aren't the worst, but we are far from being the best. We are slightly below average. Just I don't see how below average is defended with such veracity and conviction.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I give up... I truly do. You cannot cherry pick one stat and then beat your chests about it. There's more to "overall defense".. Yards per play, negative plays (sacks, etc), total yards allowed, turnovers, scoring, time of possession allowed, 3rd down conv. allowed. When you crunch all the numbers... We are NOT as good as you may think. I agree with AJ... We aren't the worst, but we are far from being the best. We are slightly below average. Just I don't see how below average is defended with such veracity and conviction.

Actually, I think we are a just average. According to the Defensive S&P ratings, we are ranked 42nd. I like the methodology behind S&P. It combines the success rate of plays and the points per play to give you a clearer picture of how good/bad you are. (We are 54th on Offensive S&P)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff

When you combine this with the FEI rankings, you get a fuller picture of where we are. I think we are pretty much average. Some games we play better, some games we play worse.

The difference is that I am slightly optimistic by nature, so I would tend to see us slightly above average, whereas you have been on an anti CTR crusade since day one, so you skew to below average. Either way, it's not time to panic yet. As other posters have noted, the quality of D recruits is on an uptick. I think we might all be pleasantly surprised at how much better our D gets in the near future.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Actually, I think we are a just average. According to the Defensive S&P ratings, we are ranked 42nd. I like the methodology behind S&P. It combines the success rate of plays and the points per play to give you a clearer picture of how good/bad you are. (We are 54th on Offensive S&P)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff

When you combine this with the FEI rankings, you get a fuller picture of where we are. I think we are pretty much average. Some games we play better, some games we play worse.

The difference is that I am slightly optimistic by nature, so I would tend to see us slightly above average, whereas you have been on an anti CTR crusade since day one, so you skew to below average. Either way, it's not time to panic yet. As other posters have noted, the quality of D recruits is on an uptick. I think we might all be pleasantly surprised at how much better our D gets in the near future.

I don't hate S&P, it's a good stat. That said, it favors conservative defenses, as explosiveness is one of their main inputs. Defenses like GT's, that don't give up big plays, but rather just slowly get the ball crammed down their throats 4 to 5 yards at a time are going to look better than they are.

That said, I do agree with you that combining S/P and FEI is a valid way to look at the stats. I don't have a ton of pushback there.