FSU Post game thread

dmurdock

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
298
Location
North Port, FL
Didn't see this posted anywhere, but here are links for PFF Grades from Jackson Caudell:
Offense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiat...y-georgia-tech-player-on-offense-01j64ybkfrmr
Defense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiat...y-georgia-tech-player-on-defense-01j650d06yg6

I don't know the ins and outs of a good PFF Grade, so I looked more at the snap count distribution.
  • Starters at LG, C, RG, RT played every offensive snap. LT was a 28/24 split, so pretty much our Depth Chart with no backups seeing the field for this game.
  • Biggers and Height each had 39 snaps out of 58 to lead the DL. Seven different DL had more than 20 snaps and we played 9 total. Is that depth on the DL 😲
  • Biggers was our lowest rated DL while LaMiles was our lowest rated DB. Found that interesting.
  • Pyron had a higher PFF Grade than King. Are we starting the right QB? ;)
 

57jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,452
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,711
orientalnc said:
I rewatched the game and have some additional thoughts:

Santucci had a plan for the D and saw it wasn't working, so he made adjustments. Mental flexibility is really important in football and FSU was very late adjusting when GT starting sliding safeties into the box.

GT looked light the team with more speed. I never thought we would be slow, but all the media said FSU was loaded with speedy players.

GT was also quicker off the snap on both sides. And, physically manhandled the FSU OL and DL. That shocked me. I hoped we could hold our own, Not win the fight on the LOS.

DJ simply doesn't like getting contact. He is a VERY soft runner and drops immediately when hit.

Jackson Hawes is maybe the best blocker on our team. He finds someone to block on every play and knocks them back (or down). Sometimes more than one player.

We are not going to have 2-3 guys with 50 receptions because we want to run the ball. That is who we are. Everyone who hated Paul Johnson for running the ball, keep that in mind. We are not running the TO, but we are going to try to win the game running.
Click to expand...
💯

When I watched our first drive it reminded me of Paul Johnson all over again. Very first “pass” was essentially a rocket toss to an A-back. And all the eye candy throughout the game threatened an option on almost every play.

As we’ve said a million times, lots of people couldn’t get past the look of the flexbone, and will be pleased that we look more like a pro team now, but the ball control, quick toss (pass) and running emphasis is old school.

I need to look up the exact year but it was one of Nick Saban’s early national championships at Alabama. There were people on FTRS praising his “pro style offense” and wishing Tech would transition. But that Alabama team, though lining up in a pro formation, was strictly smash mouth football. Because they were so dominant on the offensive line they had a huge number of explosive plays which seemed to distract people from how conservative the play calling was.
 
jojatk

jojatk

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,506
awbuzz said:
The 30 (3-0) is NOT the triple option, it is the personnel package. The first number represents the number of running backs, the second number represents the number of tight ends in the package. So, the 30 is three running backs and no tight ends in the formation.

A triple option can be run with one running back. Two running backs. Running backs, a running back and two tired ends but, no running back and all receivers. It's just a play. It is not the personnel package they are.

Sorry, rant over, I just get frustrated seeing that sometimes we see a reference to 30 and everybody thinks triple option.
Click to expand...
Did you know that a capital letter O looks very similar to a number 0. So when I referenced the 3O it was purposefully using the capital letter O. Not a numeric 0. What I referenced was a play that had three specific options. Not one that used a formation of 3 RBs. So if you had read my post and got triggered I hope this explanation that I was, indeed, referencing the triple option with a number and letter (3-O) reduces your stress level.

It should be noted that the post I had quoted when I talked about it originally also used a capital letter O and not a numeral 0.
 
TromboneJacket

TromboneJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
858
Location
Seattle, WA
Northeast Stinger said:
💯

When I watched our first drive it reminded me of Paul Johnson all over again. Very first “pass” was essentially a rocket toss to an A-back. And all the eye candy throughout the game threatened an option on almost every play.

As we’ve said a million times, lots of people couldn’t get past the look of the flexbone, and will be pleased that we look more like a pro team now, but the ball control, quick toss (pass) and running emphasis is old school.

I need to look up the exact year but it was one of Nick Saban’s early national championships at Alabama. There were people on FTRS praising his “pro style offense” and wishing Tech would transition. But that Alabama team, though lining up in a pro formation, was strictly smash mouth football. Because they were so dominant on the offensive line they had a huge number of explosive plays which seemed to distract people from how conservative the play calling was.
Click to expand...
I think the biggest thing that gave the negative recruiting staying power was not the formation or play calling but the personnel. A-backs had virtually no chance at making an NFL roster because their skill sets and experience didn’t translate perfectly into the established positions that were common to every NFL roster. If CPJ could have found a way to recruit and incorporate Tight Ends and Slot Receivers into his offense, then he would have had a much easier time overcoming the negative recruiting. In his defense, that would have been no small ask.

Even if we stay run-heavy, I don’t expect Faulkner to encounter the same recruiting difficulties because the option plays we’re mostly using are Zone Read and Inverted Veer, plays that are commonly used in the NFL. Additionally, we’re using screens to attack the edges of the field, allowing our QB to keep racking up passing yards (and potentially TDs), which look attractive to NFL scouts and high school recruits.
 
jojatk

jojatk

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,506
jojatk said:
Did you know that a capital letter O looks very similar to a number 0. So when I referenced the 3O it was purposefully using the capital letter O. Not a numeric 0. What I referenced was a play that had three specific options. Not one that used a formation of 3 RBs. So if you had read my post and got triggered I hope this explanation that I was, indeed, referencing the triple option with a number and letter (3-O) reduces your stress level.

It should be noted that the post I had quoted when I talked about it originally also used a capital letter O and not a numeral 0.
Click to expand...
Hey @awbuzz this came out snarky and I didn't mean it that way. Should have just said that I know the capital letter O looks like the 0 so I can see how it be confused as the number 30 which looks like it references a formation versus 3"O" referencing the play having three options. Sadly snark is my default writing style.
 
roadkill

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,815
dmurdock said:
Didn't see this posted anywhere, but here are links for PFF Grades from Jackson Caudell:
Offense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiat...y-georgia-tech-player-on-offense-01j64ybkfrmr
Defense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiat...y-georgia-tech-player-on-defense-01j650d06yg6

I don't know the ins and outs of a good PFF Grade, so I looked more at the snap count distribution.
  • Starters at LG, C, RG, RT played every offensive snap. LT was a 28/24 split, so pretty much our Depth Chart with no backups seeing the field for this game.
  • Biggers and Height each had 39 snaps out of 58 to lead the DL. Seven different DL had more than 20 snaps and we played 9 total. Is that depth on the DL 😲
  • Biggers was our lowest rated DL while LaMiles was our lowest rated DB. Found that interesting.
  • Pyron had a higher PFF Grade than King. Are we starting the right QB? ;)
Click to expand...
My recollection is that we didn't have many players with PFF grades in the upper 60s - 70s last year. Good to see that on these lists.

That said, the ratings currently suffer from small data sets for many players. Pyron's one play was for him to run two yards for a TD. His 67.4 rating may provide some insight into PFF's translation of per-play grades (-2 to +2 range per play) into 0-100 ratings. You could infer that 65-67 is roughly baseline, although I don't know if this is always true.

No doubt penalties such as LaMiles Brooks' ticky-tack PI call also hurt his individual rating.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,711
TromboneJacket said:
I think the biggest thing that gave the negative recruiting staying power was not the formation or play calling but the personnel. A-backs had virtually no chance at making an NFL roster because their skill sets and experience didn’t translate perfectly into the established positions that were common to every NFL roster. If CPJ could have found a way to recruit and incorporate Tight Ends and Slot Receivers into his offense, then he would have had a much easier time overcoming the negative recruiting. In his defense, that would have been no small ask.

Even if we stay run-heavy, I don’t expect Faulkner to encounter the same recruiting difficulties because the option plays we’re mostly using are Zone Read and Inverted Veer, plays that are commonly used in the NFL. Additionally, we’re using screens to attack the edges of the field, allowing our QB to keep racking up passing yards (and potentially TDs), which look attractive to NFL scouts and high school recruits.
Click to expand...
Yes. I don’t think recruiting will be a problem now.

I still think it was “the look” of the flexbone that put off a lot of recruits. QB under center was strange looking to those who didn’t grow up seeing it. Ironically, A-backs are really just glorified slot receivers and might be more acceptable in the pros now than they were six years ago. Haynes would have made a great A-back.

But, lest anyone misunderstand, we have evolved to a more competitive place in every way now- from recruiting to personnel to offensive sophistication to all the “eye candy” that the youngsters like.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,471
dmurdock said:
Didn't see this posted anywhere, but here are links for PFF Grades from Jackson Caudell:
Offense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiat...y-georgia-tech-player-on-offense-01j64ybkfrmr
Defense: https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/football/georgia-tech-vs-florida


-state-pff-grades-for-every-georgia-tech-player-on-defense-01j650d06yg6

I don't know the ins and outs of a good PFF Grade, so I looked more at the snap count distribution.
  • Starters at LG, C, RG, RT played every offensive snap. LT was a 28/24 split, so pretty much our Depth Chart with no backups seeing the field for this game.
  • Biggers and Height each had 39 snaps out of 58 to lead the DL. Seven different DL had more than 20 snaps and we played 9 total. Is that depth on the DL 😲
  • Biggers was our lowest rated DL while LaMiles was our lowest rated DB. Found that interesting.
  • Pyron had a higher PFF Grade than King. Are we starting the right QB? ;)
Click to expand...

roadkill said:
My recollection is that we didn't have many players with PFF grades in the upper 60s - 70s last year. Good to see that on these lists.

That said, the ratings currently suffer from small data sets for many players. Pyron's one play was for him to run two yards for a TD. His 67.4 rating may provide some insight into PFF's translation of per-play grades (-2 to +2 range per play) into 0-100 ratings. You could infer that 65-67 is roughly baseline, although I don't know if this is always true.

No doubt penalties such as LaMiles Brooks' ticky-tack PI call also hurt his individual rating.
Click to expand...

There’s an intro to the grading system at https://www.pff.com/grades.

It’s like a letter grade. The top QB’s have a grade in the 90’s. At Tight End, Brock Bowers was second with an 84.4 grade. Your grade isn’t your talent level, but there’s a correlation. You get bonus points for making an insane play—I think Haynes (Jamal) had a couple of those, and come to think of it, so did Haynes King.

If you have a grade in the 90’s for the season, you’re a top 5 player in the country, in how you performed. Depending on your position, you might be the best at your position in the country with an 84.

Your grade is not your talent, but they’re related. It’s how good a job you did at doing the thing you were trying to do.

If you’re in the 80’s, that seems like a dang good game.

There are some other interpretation, but this chart is from PFF. In the NFL, >85 is a pro-bowler grade. It’s hard to find a player grade for the season higher than 95.

IMG_0376.png


So, on offense, these guys killed it (snap count in parentheses):
1. RB Chad Alexander- 79.6 (14)

2. RT Jordan Williams- 78.2 (52)

3. RB Jamal Haynes- 77.4 (38)

4. TE Avery Boyd-71.8 (6)

And the rest were average or above average. There were some people solidly above average.

On defense, it wasn’t as good. Here’s your good + solidly above average list:

1. LB E.J. Lightsey- 72.9 (5)

2. DE Sylvain Yondjouen- 67.4 (28)

3. DE Josh Robinson- 67.3 (26)

4. DT Jordan van den Bert- 66.9 (21)

5. DT Makius Scott- 66.7 (37)

6. CB Ahmari Harvey- 65.6 (56)


Feel free to say why some people got too low of a score.

Here’s DJU from FSU’s grades:
3. DJ Uiagalelei (71.5) - 61 snaps

and here’s Haynes King:
19. QB Haynes King- 59.5 (51)

But, after the game, FSU fans want to dump DJ Uiagalelei and we think King had a Heisman game

Shrugs GIF
 
Last edited:

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
485
Below, see some of Norvell's comments after the game. To me, the "sickening" comment is a put down on Tech. It is such a tragedy! If they had been beaten by Notre Dame, I don't believe he would have said that it was "sickening". Of course, ND would not have been a 10-point underdog. I look forward to the day when Key gets GT into the overdog position. Maybe I have my loyalty to Tech sticking out a little. Perhaps he should note that FSU is 1-3 vs. GT in the recent past! I realize some of it is to please his fans, but that seems inappropriate when the score did not represent how they were dominated at the line of scrimmage.

MSN

www.msn.com
 
iceeater1969

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,625
TampaBuzz said:
Two fumbles will ruin a PFF score!
Click to expand...
They sell all kinds of charting and graphing stock trading tools to the public. They work very well until they don't

Our " run the ball " offense has many high speed moving and risky parts. It's not 3 yds and a cloud of dust.

But it's only fair that he who gets the glory also gets the blame.
 

dmurdock

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
298
Location
North Port, FL
LT 1967 said:
Below, see some of Norvell's comments after the game. To me, the "sickening" comment is a put down on Tech. It is such a tragedy! If they had been beaten by Notre Dame, I don't believe he would have said that it was "sickening". Of course, ND would not have been a 10-point underdog. I look forward to the day when Key gets GT into the overdog position. Maybe I have my loyalty to Tech sticking out a little. Perhaps he should note that FSU is 1-3 vs. GT in the recent past! I realize some of it is to please his fans, but that seems inappropriate when the score did not represent how they were dominated at the line of scrimmage.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...

If you actually listen to Norvell's press conference (), that really isn't how his comment comes across. He starts out thanking the fans that showed up to the game and then immediately makes the comment "I'm sick that we didn't give you a better outcome". To me the statement is more along the lines "I feel bad that our team disappointed the fans who traveled so far".

It was great having week 0 all to ourselves and everybody is starting to take notice of us. But having this game as the first game of the year allows too many naysayers to say FSU is overrated and not give us full credit for the win. If this had been two 10-0, top 5 teams squaring off, that game would have been considered a masterpiece of two powerhouses fighting tooth and nail to the finish. Hopefully the next 5-6 weeks will show that FSU isn't that overrated and our performance last Saturday was no fluke. But it all starts with our next game, Ga State.
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,471
I keep seeing FSU fans and others say “After the first drive, Georgia Tech loaded the box on defense. FSU should have thrown the ball more, and Norvell should have trusted his QB”.

I looked at the condensed game. FSU and GT weren’t lined up that much differently on defense. Our linebackers were sometimes 4 yards off the ball, sometimes more. We blitzed a lot, but I didn’t see us selling out to stop the run. Even if we did, FSU was nearly balanced in play selection. FSU passed 28 plays, and ran on 30. We would have gotten killed if we overcommitted to the run.

In contrast, We passed on 16 plays (for 9.1 yards per play) and ran 36 times. FSU should have stacked the box (except, we ran outside).

Did any of you see us stacking the box, except on goalline plays?

 
Top