ESPN's ACC blog hates our defense

[AE 87]

Just curious. Do we have lets say what a top 30 D would be or even top 40 in the same stat? It seems a field goal a posession is pretty bad right?

Okay, so I just looked at my calculations of the data since 2008 (pts per drive allowed vs BCS AQ or Pwr 5). The average for teams playing more than 2 such opponents ranged from 2.10 (2009) to 2.32 (2013) -- A defensive 2.2 ppd v p5 is probably a good rule of thumb for an average Pwr 5 D.

The 40th ranked D during these 8 years ranged from 1.91 (2008) to 2.15 (2010). 2008 was an outlier with every other year being 2.1 to 1 sig dig. So better than 2.1 ppd v p5 would be good rule of thumb for a top 40 number.

The 30th ranked D for these years ranged from 1.78 (2008) to 2.01 (2013). While this number is fairly fluid, 1.9 ppd v p5 seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb for top 30.

The 10th ranked D ranged from 1.34 (2009) to 1.68 (2014), so 1.5/1.6 ppd allowed v P5 seems a pretty good rule of thumb for top 10.

2008 was the only year that we had a better than average D by this metric (1.88, #38).

 

[deeeznutz]

Which pretty much admits my point, doesn't it? Hold on to the ball and things begin to look better for any D, including ours. Also, this post doesn't address the turnover ratio. I'll bow to you in terms of analysis, but that's what I always look to first in evaluating Ds.

Turnover ratio isn't really helpful to evaluate a defense as it factors in offensive turnovers, but absolutely forced turnovers is a major factor in evaluating a defense. Turnovers can cover up a whole lot of other flaws (basically, that's what our D did in 14). It definitely felt to me like we were better on D last year, we just needed the offense to step up a bit and they never were able to. If our offense had played better, our D would have looked much better than 14.

 

[33jacket]

Okay, so I just looked at my calculations of the data since 2008 (pts per drive allowed vs BCS AQ or Pwr 5). The average for teams playing more than 2 such opponents ranged from 2.10 (2009) to 2.32 (2013) -- A defensive 2.2 ppd v p5 is probably a good rule of thumb for an average Pwr 5 D.

The 40th ranked D during these 8 years ranged from 1.91 (2008) to 2.15 (2010). 2008 was an outlier with every other year being 2.1 to 1 sig dig. So better than 2.1 ppd v p5 would be good rule of thumb for a top 40 number.

The 30th ranked D for these years ranged from 1.78 (2008) to 2.01 (2013). While this number is fairly fluid, 1.9 ppd v p5 seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb for top 30.

The 10th ranked D ranged from 1.34 (2009) to 1.68 (2014), so 1.5/1.6 ppd allowed v P5 seems a pretty good rule of thumb for top 10.

2008 was the only year that we had a better than average D by this metric (1.88, #38).

Ok good work. So we should aspire to be a 1.9 or 2.0 D as we have had decent enough players to be near this number IMO certainly better than we have been.

 

[AE 87]

Ok good work. So we should aspire to be a 1.9 or 2.0 D as we have had decent enough players to be near this number IMO certainly better than we have been.

Yes. If we can get to 2.0 ppd allowed D, we will not be GREAT, but with a typical O, we should be a top 20 team. When we have a 2009, 2014 O, we'd be playing at playoff levels.

 

[up state jacket]

It wouldn't be the first time they were completely wrong in their "analysis" of Tech.

Or last!!

 

[ATL1]

Help me understand why GT can't put together a solid Defense.

I just don't understand.

 

[GaTech4ever]

Help me understand why GT can't put together a solid Defense.

I just don't understand.

Apparently the problem isn't a lack of depth.

 

[gtg936g]

@ATL1 I think part (not all) has to do a lot with the targeting rules. In the past if you couldn't out talent the other team, you could compete by being very physical. Talent, technique, and scheme are more important today than they were 10 years ago.

 

[AE 87]

Help me understand why GT can't put together a solid Defense.

I just don't understand.

I don't think we can't. It would probably be tough to recruit to the level of a top 10 D, but I think we should be able to have a top 40 D on a regular basis based on recent talent.

I think the reason we haven't had solid D is coaching. However, I don't know if that's the culture or philosophy established by CPJ, the strategy/tactics of the DC or the teaching by position coaches.

As I said before, I think this season will tell us a lot.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Is there really a mystery here? We have struggled recruiting blue chip D linemen. DTs in particular. That's the primary reason we have struggled on D IMO. Name one elite D that didn't have an elite Dline for a front. Gotta have more than one stud at a time up there.

 

[AE 87]

Is there really a mystery here? We have struggled recruiting blue chip D linemen. DTs in particular. That's the primary reason we have struggled on D IMO. Name one elite D that didn't have an elite Dline for a front. Gotta have more than one stud at a time up there.

We're not asking why we weren't an elite D, but why we weren't even average.

 

[ATL1]

Michigan St.
Pittsburg
Boston College
Even Vandy
Have excellent or at min solid defenses and don't get many if any Blue Chip recruits. That excuse isn't good enough.

 

[Techster]

Here's something to think about:

During the season, our 1st team defense usually goes "live" versus our scout team. That is, our 1st (and 2nd team actually) will practice against our opponent's offense using scout teamers and 3rd teamers replicating the other team's offense. For most programs, it isn't a problem because their offensive personnel is the same as 90% of the personnel around college. Pro style or spread style QBs, RBs, OLs...etc. are replicating another team's offense. So really, they're just trying adjust to the other teams offensive schemes and concepts. We have 2 problems in this case: We have to adjust not only to another teams schemes and concepts, we also have to adjust to another teams personnel.

Think about it like this, and let's use Michigan State as the example. When Kirk Cousins (and NFL level QB) was at Michigan State, they could practice with a guy like Connor Cook (a future NFL QB) running the scout team offense against their defense. Cook was giving Michigan States' defense looks against a high level QB. Quality of players the defense has to practice against is a lot higher...therefore, the defense was getting tested a lot more, which in turn helps them during game days.

Now think about the personnel we have to use on our scout team. We have spread option (or triple option) personnel trying to replicate Pro and Spread style offenses. Last season for instance, we had a guy like Christian Campbell/Brady Swilling/Chase Martenson trying to replicate the skill level on offense of Clemson, UNC, Duke, etc. Those are not bad players, per se, but their strengths as players are better suited for GT's offense not the teams on our schedule, which means the look they can give our defense is not as good as say the personnel on other teams because other teams have similar personnel. That's just not at QB, but at other positions as well. Obviously guys on scout team/3rd team aren't as good as what defenses will see on Saturdays at any school, but when you get personnel that is similar to most teams, there's less of a gap to adjust to.

Maybe a reason why we see our defense do a lot better in the 2nd half than they do in the first half? Maybe because of the personnel we have to use during the week can't replicate looks that most other schools are able to do.

It isn't 100% of the reason why we aren't as good on defense as we should be, but it could play a part.

 

[Nook Su Kow]

Here's something to think about:

During the season, our 1st team defense usually goes "live" versus our scout team. That is, our 1st (and 2nd team actually) will practice against our opponent's offense using scout teamers and 3rd teamers replicating the other team's offense. For most programs, it isn't a problem because their offensive personnel is the same as 90% of the personnel around college. Pro style or spread style QBs, RBs, OLs...etc. are replicating another team's offense. So really, they're just trying adjust to the other teams offensive schemes and concepts. We have 2 problems in this case: We have to adjust not only to another teams schemes and concepts, we also have to adjust to another teams personnel.

Think about it like this, and let's use Michigan State as the example. When Kirk Cousins (and NFL level QB) was at Michigan State, they could practice with a guy like Connor Cook (a future NFL QB) running the scout team offense against their defense. Cook was giving Michigan States' defense looks against a high level QB. Quality of players the defense has to practice against is a lot higher...therefore, the defense was getting tested a lot more, which in turn helps them during game days.

Now think about the personnel we have to use on our scout team. We have spread option (or triple option) personnel trying to replicate Pro and Spread style offenses. Last season for instance, we had a guy like Christian Campbell/Brady Swilling/Chase Martenson trying to replicate the skill level on offense of Clemson, UNC, Duke, etc. Those are bad players, per se, but their strengths as players are better suited for GT's offense not the teams on our schedule, which means the look they can give our defense is not as good as say the personnel on other teams because other teams have similar personnel. That's just not at QB, but at other positions as well. Obviously guys on scout team/3rd team aren't as good as what defenses will see on Saturdays at any school, but when you get personnel that is similar to most teams, there's less of a gap to adjust to.

Maybe a reason why we see our defense do a lot better in the 2nd half than they do in the first half? Maybe because of the personnel we have to use during the week can't replicate looks that most other schools are able to do.

It isn't 100% of the reason why we aren't as good on defense as we should be, but it could play a part.

I'm liking Lucas Johnson even more.

 

[kittysniper101]

Here's something to think about:

During the season, our 1st team defense usually goes "live" versus our scout team. That is, our 1st (and 2nd team actually) will practice against our opponent's offense using scout teamers and 3rd teamers replicating the other team's offense. For most programs, it isn't a problem because their offensive personnel is the same as 90% of the personnel around college. Pro style or spread style QBs, RBs, OLs...etc. are replicating another team's offense. So really, they're just trying adjust to the other teams offensive schemes and concepts. We have 2 problems in this case: We have to adjust not only to another teams schemes and concepts, we also have to adjust to another teams personnel.

Think about it like this, and let's use Michigan State as the example. When Kirk Cousins (and NFL level QB) was at Michigan State, they could practice with a guy like Connor Cook (a future NFL QB) running the scout team offense against their defense. Cook was giving Michigan States' defense looks against a high level QB. Quality of players the defense has to practice against is a lot higher...therefore, the defense was getting tested a lot more, which in turn helps them during game days.

Now think about the personnel we have to use on our scout team. We have spread option (or triple option) personnel trying to replicate Pro and Spread style offenses. Last season for instance, we had a guy like Christian Campbell/Brady Swilling/Chase Martenson trying to replicate the skill level on offense of Clemson, UNC, Duke, etc. Those are not bad players, per se, but their strengths as players are better suited for GT's offense not the teams on our schedule, which means the look they can give our defense is not as good as say the personnel on other teams because other teams have similar personnel. That's just not at QB, but at other positions as well. Obviously guys on scout team/3rd team aren't as good as what defenses will see on Saturdays at any school, but when you get personnel that is similar to most teams, there's less of a gap to adjust to.

Maybe a reason why we see our defense do a lot better in the 2nd half than they do in the first half? Maybe because of the personnel we have to use during the week can't replicate looks that most other schools are able to do.

It isn't 100% of the reason why we aren't as good on defense as we should be, but it could play a part.

I've always wondered about this. I would love the perspective of someone who has been on a D1 team to say how fast they went during practice against scout team. Are they repping plays full speed during practice or is it more walk-throughs of routes, play concepts, and blocking schemes they'll use. It also doesn't explain to me why, even when we have a spy we seem to get out of position against running quarterbacks and suck on option plays.

The biggest issues I have with our defense is that we rarely play a fundamentally sound game against almost any team. Part of that may come from compensating against generally more athletic offenses for the individual players on our defense, in terms of being out of position and over pursuing but I'm just not sure.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I probably overstated the case stipulating blue chip DL recruits. We have gone seasons without recruiting a single DT. It's been discussed in other threads previously and I'm not feeling motivated to rehash it. Feel free to examine our last dozen classes and compare results to those other schools. I don't think mch st, bc, vandy, or Pitt have had that problem. And our staff isn't blameless for that. Part of the job is reeling kids in. Seems we have done a better job the last couple of years. That should help us moving forward but you can't rewrite history.

 

[AE 87]

I probably overstated the case stipulating blue chip DL recruits. We have gone seasons without recruiting a single DT. It's been discussed in other threads previously and I'm not feeling motivated to rehash it. Feel free to examine our last dozen classes and compare results to those other schools. I don't think mch st, bc, vandy, or Pitt have had that problem. And our staff isn't blameless for that. Part of the job is reeling kids in. Seems we have done a better job the last couple of years. That should help us moving forward but you can't rewrite history.

I think 2013 was the only year we didn't sign a DT, and we had spent most of the recruiting period with 6 guys coming back for 1 DT position in the 3-4.

 

[33jacket]

Help me understand why GT can't put together a solid Defense.

I just don't understand.

Help me understand why GT can't put together a solid Defense.

I just don't understand.

Well I understand. Our dc isnt too good. And repping against oir O has its disadvantages with respect to habits. So. Again. I will be proven right but it will take some a long time to come around

 

[33jacket]

Omg. Its been years but maybe finally @AE 87 agrees with me on something.slowly. Glad u r coming around to the fact

 

[AE 87]

Omg. Its been years but maybe finally @AE 87 agrees with me on something.slowly. Glad u r coming around to the fact

LOL. You might want to search for posts from me which mention Roof. I was thinking Roof was trolling Paul in 2013 or that his D signals had been hacked.

My position is that our D has been plagued with enough unexpected attrition, injury, etc for me to not completely sign off on blaming Roof on the one hand, and that we have still had enough talent to have expected better results on the other.

You've shouted so much chowder about our O that I tend to discount your posts about our D.