Andrew Thacker

[takethepoints]

I don't like the new rules about not hurting the poor little QBs. For one thing they incentivize QBs to go all Italisn soccer when they get hit, like Leonard yesterday. For another, the penalty only works one way - when the QB is "defenseless" - a discretionary decision if there ever was one. A discretion that can be unintentionally abused, as we saw yesterday as well.

And now I have to be a bit blunt. One of the tools of football defense is to remove opposition players by injury. This kind of violence has always been part of the game and is expected by all participants. This is another of the NFL rules that have creeped into college ball. I can see why the NFL adopted the rule; the players aren't against it, the rosters are purposely small, and the owners don't want to carry more then one QB they have to pay big money. There is slightly more evidence of injury to QBs then there is for cut blocks downfield, but not much. College football doesn't need either rule.

 

[bke1984]

Exc

He got called for dropping his full body weight on the QB. That's a penalty. Little Dukey QB feined a separated shoulder to give the zebra cover but it was probably a legitimate foul. We should have put him on the ground a lot more during the game. We did not pressure the Dukey as we should have. Blitz, blitz, blitz.

I don’t really feel that’s a fair assessment. He by no means drove the QB into the ground, and given the point he hit the QB during his delivery it was a very poor call.

 

[Novajacket]

I don't like the new rules about not hurting the poor little QBs. For one thing they incentivize QBs to go all Italisn soccer when they get hit, like Leonard yesterday. For another, the penalty only works one way - when the QB is "defenseless" - a discretionary decision if there ever was one. A discretion that can be unintentionally abused, as we saw yesterday as well.

And now I have to be a bit blunt. One of the tools of football defense is to remove opposition players by injury. This kind of violence has always been part of the game and is expected by all participants. This is another of the NFL rules that have creeped into college ball. I can see why the NFL adopted the rule; the players aren't against it, the rosters are purposely small, and the owners don't want to carry more then one QB they have to pay big money. There is slightly more evidence of injury to QBs then there is for cut blocks downfield, but not much. College football doesn't need either rule.

To be a bit blunt, if you don’t like capitalism changing the game, say it. However if I’ve invested close to $100 million in an asset, I am going to protect it. More people watch and buy tickets to see QB’s do their thing, than some defensive guy sack a QB hard as the can. For that fact we watch mainly for the offense and occasionally for defense. Even with all these changes football is still the best sport.

As far as the call I didn’t like it, not sure what he was supposed to do? Go lower, slower, two hand touch, bear hug him?

 

[takethepoints]

To be a bit blunt, if you don’t like capitalism changing the game, say it. However if I’ve invested close to $100 million in an asset, I am going to protect it. More people watch and buy tickets to see QB’s do their thing, than some defensive guy sack a QB hard as the can. For that fact we watch mainly for the offense and occasionally for defense. Even with all these changes football is still the best sport.

As far as the call I didn’t like it, not sure what he was supposed to do? Go lower, slower, two hand touch, bear hug him?

Well … ok, I don't like profit considerations infecting the college game. Thankfully, despite absolutely insane coaches salaries and equally silly (albeit regretably necessary) corporate sponsorships, college football is still at its core not a business and the players are in it in large part for the fun and challenge of the games. I want to keep that, especially at schools like Tech. One of the reasons I'm a Tech fan is because the place doesn't give the players any choice (well, not much, anyway) about being scholars as well. I loath the factories because their programs really are businesses and use young men without educating them To <the nether region> with that and all that leads to it.

I expect there will be pushback of the "no choice" type. Horsehocky. There's always a choice.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

So...million dollar question: how involved was CGC with the defensive game planning and play calling?

 

[stech81]

So...million dollar question: how involved was CGC with the defensive game planning and play calling?

I think it has more to do with the way they practice now and the position coaches getting to coach their players. CGC reminds me of the way Putin is in Russia. Just didn't listen.

 

[chriscarter]

Yep jerry. That wouldn’t have even called that on Tom Brady. Enjoy the win. And be aggressive Jackets.

Lol you jinxed it for the Falcons today. The roughing call on Brady at the end of the game was even worse.

 

[CuseJacket]

Is it just me, or is our defense playing like their hair is on fire after the HC change? I feel like I have been blaming Thacker for the poor defense, but I'm wondering now if CGC might have been the issue. Is it just me?

Seems to me the really good defensive performances started with @UCF, which was CGC’s finale. We bottled up that offense.

Anyone view the defensive performance differently from that game?

While that puts a wrench in the ‘it’s on Collins’ theory, I recall hearing how good practice was prior to UCF, which has been a theme we heard in successive weeks following CGC’s departure. Still reason for optimism imo.

 

[lv20gt]

Seems to me the really good defensive performances started with @UCF, which was CGC’s finale. We bottled up that offense.

Anyone view the defensive performance differently from that game?

I think even against Clemson you saw a lot of things on the defensive side of the ball that signaled a better defense until they got worn down and Thomas went out. At the time, I think people wrote it off as Clemson starting the wrong QB and the like, but time has shown a lot of those comments didn't hold up. Outside of teh Ole Miss game, I'd argue our defense has been pretty good all year when it wasn't worn down.

 

[jojatk]

Yep jerry. That wouldn’t have even called that on Tom Brady. Enjoy the win. And be aggressive Jackets.

Funny you should say that…

 

[iceeater1969]

And our D was awesome till last drive. Take the punt return away and it was 13 points

Did we had 3 ol guys blocking for the punter?

The punt was way higher than the previous line drive. This was a longer punt with 3 fewer agile defenders.
.
Still need a solution

 

[MidtownJacket]

Seems to me the really good defensive performances started with @UCF, which was CGC’s finale. We bottled up that offense.

Anyone view the defensive performance differently from that game?

While that puts a wrench in the ‘it’s on Collins’ theory, I recall hearing how good practice was prior to UCF, which has been a theme we heard in successive weeks following CGC’s departure. Still reason for optimism imo.

The difference for me is that guys seem to be playing more INTO the scheme than AGAINST it and trusting the game to come to them in their role.

The other thing is we have gotten calls is WAY faster, which leads us to being set. I was amazed at the Pitt and Duke games we had time to be set, then shift alignment on the D Line / LoS which led to our LBers getting free runs to the QBs and racking up hurries and sacks.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

I think it has more to do with the way they practice now and the position coaches getting to coach their players. CGC reminds me of the way Putin is in Russia. Just didn't listen.

It's hard for me to understand how our D was so bad under CGC - by all accounts, he was a good defensive coordinator. It really highlights the level of dysfunction under CGC. It makes me wonder if Thacker might actually be a decent DC? I see zero chance that he's retained, but I am curious to see how the D plays from here on out.

 

[CuseJacket]

The difference for me is that guys seem to be playing more INTO the scheme than AGAINST it and trusting the game to come to them in their role.

The other thing is we have gotten calls is WAY faster, which leads us to being set. I was amazed at the Pitt and Duke games we had time to be set, then shift alignment on the D Line / LoS which led to our LBers getting free runs to the QBs and racking up hurries and sacks.

Were those issues against UCF? I sincerely don’t remember. And it’d be hard for me to concede these points because they feel more subjective.

And if they were issues (ex: timing of play calls), is it possible we were struggling because UCF was up tempo and Pitt/Duke were plodding? I recall us struggling a few times to be set vs Duke, fwiw.

It’s hard for me to adjust my POV that @UCF we were excellent on until late 4Q. Maybe @GaTech4ever can share the defensive PFF or @slugboy has advanced stats to normalize against the quality of the O, relative to last two games.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

It's hard for me to understand how our D was so bad under CGC - by all accounts, he was a good defensive coordinator. It really highlights the level of dysfunction under CGC. It makes me wonder if Thacker might actually be a decent DC? I see zero chance that he's retained, but I am curious to see how the D plays from here on out.

I like his press conferences and him as a person I hope he does well here on out so he can continue to advance his career. Whow knows, maybe he is really good and CGC kept him down. He is a guy I can easily root for

 

[RonJohn]

Did we had 3 ol guys blocking for the punter?

The punt was way higher than the previous line drive. This was a longer punt with 3 fewer agile defenders.
.
Still need a solution

I couldn't see it when I watched the game on TV, but in the stands the outside gunner was being dragged by his jersey towards the hash mark all the way down the field. I couldn't believe that no refs threw a flag on that. Not to say that they don't need to work on the coverage, but there was an extremely visible non-called penalty that helped Duke on that play.

 

[bobongo]

I like his press conferences and him as a person I hope he does well here on out so he can continue to advance his career. Whow knows, maybe he is really good and CGC kept him down. He is a guy I can easily root for

It's starting to appear that way, isn't it?

 

[CEB]

I couldn't see it when I watched the game on TV, but in the stands the outside gunner was being dragged by his jersey towards the hash mark all the way down the field. I couldn't believe that no refs threw a flag on that. Not to say that they don't need to work on the coverage, but there was an extremely visible non-called penalty that helped Duke on that play.

there were a couple of suspect misses there. I thought there was a pretty obvious shove in the back along the sideline when returner made a move and turned upfield.
Whatever... I am just glad the OPI leveled the playing field again! And congrats to the D for not letting them get yards to make that FG any more manageable.

 

[UgaBlows]

It's hard for me to understand how our D was so bad under CGC - by all accounts, he was a good defensive coordinator. It really highlights the level of dysfunction under CGC. It makes me wonder if Thacker might actually be a decent DC? I see zero chance that he's retained, but I am curious to see how the D plays from here on out.

If, if if.....we make a bowl, Hire Key as HC and keep playing great defense the rest of the year it would be nuts to fire Thacker. Why start all over and learn a new system if you have a DC in place who is doing a good job?

 

[slugboy]

Were those issues against UCF? I sincerely don’t remember. And it’d be hard for me to concede these points because they feel more subjective.

And if they were issues (ex: timing of play calls), is it possible we were struggling because UCF was up tempo and Pitt/Duke were plodding? I recall us struggling a few times to be set vs Duke, fwiw.

It’s hard for me to adjust my POV that @UCF we were excellent on until late 4Q. Maybe @GaTech4ever can share the defensive PFF or @slugboy has advanced stats to normalize against the quality of the O, relative to last two games.

In time, we'll get some normalized numbers. It'd take some work, but I could run some myself, too.

I'll pull some box scores in a bit. Here are some post-game win expectancies. By the stats, we stole a win from Pitt, but UCF stole one from us the week before. We should have crushed Duke (shaking my head)

Team	H/A	Opponent	Score	OppScore	W/L	Margin	PGWE	Adj Mgn
Georgia Tech	H	Clemson	10	41	0	-31	1.50%	-17.4
Georgia Tech	H	Western Carolina	35	17	1	18	97.60%	15.9
Georgia Tech	H	Ole Miss	0	42	0	-42	0.00%	-41.1
Georgia Tech	A	UCF	10	27	0	-17	68.60%	3.9
Georgia Tech	A	Pittsburgh	26	21	1	5	47.30%	-0.5
Georgia Tech	H	Duke	23	20	1	3	97.30%	15.5

It'll take a little time to tie together all the box scores in a meaningful way, and I probably won't normalize right out of the gate. But, we have a bye week.