2016 Defense

[Jmonty71]

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 sure hope so. Part of the problem, to me.. Is the lack of LBs and Dlinemen working in unison. They are out of tune of what the other is doing. That is a coaching issue. The missed tackles, blown coverages and penalties are on the players, usually.

 

[Jmonty71]

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.

I agree with that... The RZ isn't great... But, overall not terrible. Could be better. Just seems we give up TDs at the worst times.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I agree with that... The RZ isn't great... But, overall not terrible. Could be better. Just seems we give up TDs at the worst times.

Our RZ D is top 20. It might not be great, but it's really good.

 

[Jmonty71]

Our RZ D is top 20. It might not be great, but it's really good.

What's not captured is the TD out of the RZ. However; with a ball controlling offense, we should be limiting the number of times the other teams touch the ball. I would like to see us force 4+ punts in one game. That's my thing. How many punts has GT forced vs. the rest of the nation? That would be an interesting stat.

 

[danny daniel]

And they were trying to score on their last possession of the game too.

Players in the game were trying to score, as they should. But Dabo was not rushing the snap or calling plays to save time. He was content to let time the clock run, and if Clemson scored or didn't score, so be it. That is the proper way to end a game you have in the bag against a team you respect. Kudos Clemson.

 

[awbuzz]

Trying to bring two vantage points together...

I think the expectation of scoring a touchdown on 4 to 5 out of 6 or 7 possessions is essentially saying "if we have the best offense in the country" then our defense is good enough to help us win. This is the crux of @Longestday's thread, as well as @AE 87's points per drive stats.

Both sides have things to improve, so I don't want to go there.

I think a question for those who feel the defense is adequate is, how many points to do you expect the offense to produce if they only get the ball 8 possessions a game?

Pro tip... Don't say more than 64 points for the offense...

 

[awbuzz]

no, the PPD is not misleading. The PPD tells the truth of the story.

We have less turnovers. That's GOOD. We go for it on 4th and short and make it. That's GOOD.

The offense we run in nature scores on more possessions than a typical offense. THAT"S THE FREAKING DEFINITION OF A GOOD OFFENSE.

EVERY offense wants to score as many points on every possession as they can. Teams that run other offenses aren't like "well, we COULD score more often, but maybe lets not and see what happens".

EVERY defense wants to prevent as many points on every possession as they can. The good ones do. The bad ones do not.

It really IS that simple. GT does a bad job of stopping other teams from scoring points when the other team has the opportunity to do so. That makes them a bad defense.

Why is this difficult to understand?

 

[awbuzz]

Players in the game were trying to score, as they should. But Dabo was not rushing the snap or calling plays to save time. He was content to let time the clock run, and if Clemson scored or didn't score, so be it. That is the proper way to end a game you have in the bag against a team you respect. Kudos Clemson.

To add to the above, reducing the number of plays by letting the clock run along with being conservative to reduce the chance of a turnover is what most good teams do.

 

[Rock]

no, the PPD is not misleading. The PPD tells the truth of the story.


The offense we run in nature scores on more possessions than a typical offense. THAT"S THE FREAKING DEFINITION OF A GOOD OFFENSE.

What year are you referring to? 2015 ?

2015
#88 Georgia Tech

 

[Rock]

What year are you referring to? 2015 ?

2015
#88 Georgia Tech

2016 #42
2014 #12
2013 #64


So what year again?

 

[ilovetheoption]

What year are you referring to? 2015 ?

2015
#88 Georgia Tech

Last year was bad, you won't hear me argue that at ALL. Last years offense was inefficient, ineffective, and in the toilet.

It was also an outlier. I forget which thread I posted it in, but the FEI numbers (which are essentially SOS weighted PPD) for GT have been overall very good, and sometimes elite.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Last year was bad, you won't hear me argue that at ALL. Last years offense was inefficient, ineffective, and in the toilet.

It was also an outlier. I forget which thread I posted it in, but the FEI numbers (which are essentially SOS weighted PPD) for GT have been overall very good, and sometimes elite.

I found it:

2008: 24
2009: 2
2010: 64
2011: 16
2012: 11
2013: 39
2014: 3
2015: 88
2016: 13

 

[Rock]

I found it:

2008: 24
2009: 2
2010: 64
2011: 16
2012: 11
2013: 39
2014: 3
2015: 88
2016: 13

We must be on different sites lol.

 

[ilovetheoption]

We must be on different sites lol.

I mean, could be. Im pulling my info from footballoutsiders.com.

And there are different stats out there.

 

[iceeater1969]

Today where are we in wins.
In the acc we are approx 3 from the bottom out of 14.
Duke and BC are winless and are tied at the bottom.

That tells me that even though the offense is better the defense it's can get a helluva lot better. I had predicted we would win one of the Clem, Mia, Pitt games and then go on a tear. Why not? I am feeling very positive. I am a true koolaid man. Go jackets.

 

[Boomergump]

On offense, we are currently the 13th most efficient in the nation, and that is even after a total meltdown and truly horrific outing vs Clemson, which accounts for 1/7th of our stats. Despite that lofty ranking, we are 4-3. You do the math. After the first few games it was looking like our D would do enough to win the majority of our games. We still might, but if we are to do so, it will take our defense getting way better on 3rd and 7+ and, dare I say, force a TO or two along the way. I can live with bending and not breaking as a defense, as long as we don't actually break much. It won't be as fun to watch, but if we finish drives and they don't, well, it will work out. I don't have to see my team score 40 to be happy. Just win baby. The constant trips to the red zone by opponents will wreak havoc with my nerves, but I think I am up to it.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

@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.

Kinda hard to blame the D too much, given the offense's inability to generate a single 1st down in the entire 1st half. The D was on the field the entire half thanks to the listless O.

 

[CuseJacket]

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.

Answering because you asked, though I don't think my opinion is perfect or unique.

I think PPD is more valuable than Totals.

In my opinion, Total O and Total D is fine within the context of pace of play. In the post you quoted re: Clemson game, the context that's important is that the 1st half's pace was my proxy for the 2nd half. So really, my point was another iteration of PPD.

I also don't think any stat can be taken in vacuum, even PPD. This is probably where some of the debate arises. A couple arguments against PPD:

• If you have the better team, it would behoove you to play more possessions and reduce the variability you get with a low possession game. A team may look good PPD for a season, but volatility between games could be problematic as it translates to individual Wins and Losses.
• Rhythm is hard to account for in PPD, both offensively and defensively. Said another way, do some Os and Ds get better with more or fewer reps/possessions? How about elapsed time between possessions? I'm not sure if that's measured and therefore may be more of a feel thing.

 

[CuseJacket]

Kinda hard to blame the D too much, given the offense's inability to generate a single 1st down in the entire 1st half. The D was on the field the entire half thanks to the listless O.

Agreed, though the D gave up 2 TDs on the first 3 possessions, before fatigue should have been a factor, on drives of 75 yards and 62 yards. Second half only 3 points, so they did what they needed to do.

I think this is my last post on that game.

 

[IronJacket7]

Answering because you asked, though I don't think my opinion is perfect or unique.

I think PPD is more valuable than Totals.

I also don't think any stat can be taken in vacuum, even PPD. This is probably where some of the debate arises. A couple arguments against PPD:

• If you have the better team, it would behoove you to play more possessions and reduce the variability you get with a low possession game. A team may look good PPD for a season, but volatility between games could be problematic as it translates to individual Wins and Losses.
• Rhythm is hard to account for in PPD, both offensively and defensively. Said another way, do some Os and Ds get better with more or fewer reps/possessions? How about elapsed time between possessions? I'm not sure if that's measured and therefore may be more of a feel thing.

Just out of curiosity wonder what our Offensive PPD is in comparison to our Defensive PPD against us?