Stats 2016 Season Retrospect

[AE 87]

Okay, so I was planning on waiting until after the bowl game, but I’m hoping the bowl game reflects a page turn on defense.

In addition to my points/drive versus power5 opponent stats, I also looked at yards/play and the football study hall percentile grade for each game.

The football study hall information is from http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2016-georgia-tech-advanced-statistical-profile

The OPPDdif stat is the difference between GT’s Offensive PPD and the opponents average DPPD (their average points/drive allowed versus power5 opponents). The OYYPdif stat is the difference between GT’s offensive yds/play and the opponents average yds/play allowed versus power5 opponents. Mercer and GaSou did not play more than 2 pwr5 opponents, so I didn’t calculate a dif stat for their games.

There seems to be a decent correlation between these stats, remembering that the O% stat is more opponent adjusted. It confirms that we weren’t playing our best offense versus BC, CU, and Miami, but especially CU.

Our average OPPDdif versus pwr5 opponents was .20, and our average OYPPdif was .74. So, if we think of a 12 drive, 60 play game, we averaged 2 ½ pts and 44 yds better than opposition average.

Now, let’s look at the same data for our defense:

For DPPDdif and DYPPdif, negative numbers are better. We want to have allowed fewer ppd and ypp than the opponents offense averaged against power 5 opponents for the season.

I think that the fact that jumps out from this table is that our D performed above a 60%in only three games, Vandy, CU, and vpi. Note: the Miami fumble-return TD’s do not count against the D. Our average DPPDdif vs pwr5 opponents was 0.36, and average DYPPdif was .73. So, for a 12 drive 60 play game, our pwr5 opponents scored on average 4.4 more points and 43.7 more yards than their other opponents.

What do others see/think?

 

[33jacket]

I watch the tape. The stats just back it up. The D is what it is and will always be. Results wont change much year over year without things being totally tweaked. We play way too much deep quarters and quarter quarter half scheme imo to be where we wish to be even with the exact same players.

How do these numbers compare to the prior years? Probably really close

 

[AE 87]

I watch the tape. The stats just back it up. The D is what it is and will always be. Results wont change much year over year without things being totally tweaked. We play way too much deep quarters and quarter quarter half scheme imo to be where we wish to be even with the exact same players.

How do these numbers compare to the prior years? Probably really close

I haven't run these game by game numbers for every season.
However, I recall 2013 being a somewhat schizophrenic year on D where we'd get burned badly in some games and the hold Syracuse scoreless.
I think what's really interesting about this data on our D is that we do swing so drastically from average to awful. The Duke and UNC games were just awful. It makes me wonder how much the Vandy, CU and vpi games were a credit to our D and how much is on their O crapping the bed. For example, I think our offensive performance against BC and CU were much more on our O crapping the bed than their D's stepping up (but they do have decent D's).

At the end of that 8min audio interview (one of the first in the bowl media threads), CPJ said that on O we primarily focus on just doing what we do and the stte of we're moving that way on D, which should help. So, it seems that the coaches seeing doing something differently schemewise as part of the solution.

 

[YJMD]

At the end of that 8min audio interview (one of the first in the bowl media threads), CPJ said that on O we primarily focus on just doing what we do and the stte of we're moving that way on D, which should help. So, it seems that the coaches seeing doing something differently schemewise as part of the solution.

In process improvement, you want to reduce variability first. Trying to tackle special cases before being consistent with what you do can set you in the wrong direction.

But surely we realize playing the same defense every play is bad. I think we need to have a library of stuff we do and work on and is measurable and consistent, to mix up the play calling on the field, and get good at what we do before adding special plays or schemes for individual opponents.

 

[AE 87]

In process improvement, you want to reduce variability first. Trying to tackle special cases before being consistent with what you do can set you in the wrong direction.

But surely we realize playing the same defense every play is bad. I think we need to have a library of stuff we do and work on and is measurable and consistent, to mix up the play calling on the field, and get good at what we do before adding special plays or schemes for individual opponents.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I follow the point you are trying to make. It's possible/likely that I was unclear with expressing my understanding of what CPJ and CTR have in store. Again, this is just my impression of what we've been doing and what changing it would look like based on the observations and comments made by others.

My impression is that we've had a base defense of either 4-3 or 4-2-5 which has been primarily gap-control to stop the run and a mixture of primarily zone coverage in the secondary. We've then run variations from this base against particular opponents. Again, my, perhaps oversimplified, take has been that we've focused on seeing and stopping what the opponent is doing.

My take on the talk of a philosophy change is that we will try and go on the offensive with our defense. Rather than reading and reacting, we'll be attacking more. Again, perhaps oversimplified, rather than trying to stop what the offense, we'll be forcing them to try and be successful around us getting in their way.

I could be completely wrong on my understanding of both before and after, but that was my take.

 

[33jacket]

Yeah, I'm not sure that I follow the point you are trying to make. It's possible/likely that I was unclear with expressing my understanding of what CPJ and CTR have in store. Again, this is just my impression of what we've been doing and what changing it would look like based on the observations and comments made by others.

My impression is that we've had a base defense of either 4-3 or 4-2-5 which has been primarily gap-control to stop the run and a mixture of primarily zone coverage in the secondary. We've then run variations from this base against particular opponents. Again, my, perhaps oversimplified, take has been that we've focused on seeing and stopping what the opponent is doing.

My take on the talk of a philosophy change is that we will try and go on the offensive with our defense. Rather than reading and reacting, we'll be attacking more. Again, perhaps oversimplified, rather than trying to stop what the offense, we'll be forcing them to try and be successful around us getting in their way.

I could be completely wrong on my understanding of both before and after, but that was my take.

I think the fact we have a dc we pay what we do that really doesnt have a philosophy on D he can stand by, teach and show works (ala zimmer, kiffin, bellichik, patterson, saban, philips, foster, tenuta, venables) where these dc have an identity to what they do on d as a overall concept and live eat and breathe it. Like our hc on O. Now i know all those dc or former dc are great coaches. But i am talking about an identity and scheme concept to trot out.

Right now it feels like we have no clue what we want to be. Its trial and error. And that says a ton to me on top of the odd ball schemes we throw out on first down.

I hope roof builds and can find an identity on d. Because playing quarters over 50 percent of the snaps (or q q half) is not something i get nor see any other coach do. Of course. That i guess is his identity. Lol. Then puke. But we are so psychso on d. What we try to do is so odd at times. Then i see no real rhythm to how we try to attack the los. Its almost like we dont want to.

 

[AE 87]

I think the fact we have a dc we pay what we do that really doesnt have a philosophy on D he can stand by, teach and show works (ala zimmer, kiffin, bellichik, patterson, saban, philips, foster, tenuta, venables) where these dc have an identity to what they do on d as a overall concept and live eat and breathe it. Like our hc on O. Now i know all those dc or former dc are great coaches. But i am talking about an identity and scheme concept to trot out.

Right now it feels like we have no clue what we want to be. Its trial and error. And that says a ton to me on top of the odd ball schemes we throw out on first down.

I hope roof builds and can find an identity on d. Because playing quarters over 50 percent of the snaps (or q q half) is not something i get nor see any other coach do. Of course. That i guess is his identity. Lol. Then puke. But we are so psychso on d. What we try to do is so odd at times. Then i see no real rhythm to how we try to attack the los. Its almost like we dont want to.

Yeah, I can't argue with you, on evidence. That being said, it's possible that Roof has been responding to CPJ's run-stop-the-run philosophy.