GT O vs CU O

Status
Not open for further replies.

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
Nice try. Incorrect defensive rankings.

Nice try? Incorrect? He's using a different statistic than you are and he was clear as day about it. Nothing underhanded or wrong about it.

It's the conventional way. If you don't like that, go with scoring defense. Still 2 to 1 Clemson.

All conventional means is that it's the way it's traditionally been done. It doesn't mean better. Things evolve and change. I mean do you honestly think that YPG and PPG are the best metrics of defensive performance? I'd say they're pretty poor.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,671
Why stop at Clemson, the stats probably show most teams have difficulty against top defenses. That's why they're called TOP DEFENSES.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
So I guess the NCAA is not a reliable source for stats? Instead I should believe chopped up, selective stats from some website? Stats can be manipulated to make just about any point you want. I gave the unmanipulated stats that the rest of the world bases info on. It is what it is.

Lol man nobody's disputing the accuracy of your stats just their value. You are either betraying your age or lack of knowledge of how statistics works. Maybe both. You have a preconceived notion that a statistic doesn't agree with so clearly that stat was manipulated. I mean it's classic. You're covering your ears and trying to out scream everyone.

Instead of sticking your head in the sand you should at least take a look at how the stat he's talking about works here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus. They're pretty transparent how their stats are calculated. It's not the Wizard of Oz.

For example, saying "I don't like the stat because I disagree with how they define a successful play" is way more productive than going "I've never heard of it. It stinks and I don't like it. All the stats that don't agree with me are manipulated."
 
Last edited:

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Lol man nobody's disputing the accuracy of your stats just their value. You are either betraying your age or lack of knowledge of how statistics works. Maybe both. You have a preconceived notion that a statistic doesn't agree with so clearly that stat was manipulated. I mean it's classic. You're covering your ears and trying to out scream everyone.

Instead of sticking your head in the sand you should at least take a look at how the stat he's talking about works here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus. They're pretty transparent how their stats are calculated. It's not the Wizard of Oz.

For example, saying "I don't like the stat because I disagree with how they define a successful play" is way more productive than going "I've never heard of it. It stinks and I don't like it. All the stats that don't agree with me are manipulated."
Squints, you're smarter than that!
 

nodawgs

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
366
Smarter than what? I'm just saying that's what you sound like right now because you kinda do sound like that right now.
I questioned the fact that we played 4 top 20 defenses. As it turns out we didn't. Moving on...
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
I questioned the fact that we played 4 top 20 defenses. As it turns out we didn't. Moving on...

That's not what I'm arguing with you about. I'm trying to point out there are more effective stats then the ones you're using. PPG and YPG aren't enough to evaluate to a defense. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the statistics you're unfamiliar with. Give them a chance. That's all I'm saying.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Not that I want to prolong the argument, but does anyone in the message board actually believe that those 4 were top 20 defenses last year?
Seriously?
 

jeffgt14

We Suck
Messages
5,437
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
Not that I want to prolong the argument, but does anyone in the message board actually believe that those 4 were top 20 defenses last year?
Seriously?
No but I believe the point is that we play comparable defenses to Clemson and usually our offense does better against those defenses. I believe if we played FSU last year, we could've put up more than 14 points.
 

tugdog235

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
58
Whoops accidental reply, sorry about that. I was going to try and find a list of generally considered good head coaches that aren't considered for open coaching positions but upon further reading there is just no point in attempting debate with someone who refuses to enter an open discussion.

Gist of it is that head coaches of power 5 schools generally aren't considered for other head coaching positions. I assume just because it's harder to move a head coach from a program and that they have proven what they can do. However, an OC for a successful program has a good chance to be looked at to be a head coach because they will be getting a promotion so they are more likely to leave and their potential ceiling is higher.
 
Last edited:

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
Not that I want to prolong the argument, but does anyone in the message board actually believe that those 4 were top 20 defenses last year?
Seriously?

Yes. I believe that this way of ranking teams--offense, defense, special teams, and overall--is one of the best, if not the best.

It accounts for the strength of the opponent on offense and defense independently. It emphasizes the ability to keep teams from scoring per possession.

Since you disagree, perhaps you and @jeffgt14 will say how you think the top 20 Ds should be determined.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,460
Location
Poquoson Virginia
Yes. I believe that this way of ranking teams--offense, defense, special teams, and overall--is one of the best, if not the best.

It accounts for the strength of the opponent on offense and defense independently. It emphasizes the ability to keep teams from scoring per possession.........

After looking at the FEI, I agree for the limited categories they provide, it is a better way to look at performance since it takes out trash time. Whenever I get around to updating the ST stats, I'll use the ones that Football Outsiders have for that aspect of the game. I'll still compare our ST performance ranked against other ACC teams and only in conference play since that tends to make for more continuity in year to year comparisons.

But there are no perfect stats for something with as many independent variables as football. Each can tell a different piece of the story, some better than others. Like the blind men describing the elephant; one feeling the trunk says its like a snake, another feeling the leg says its like a tree, one on its back says its as tall and strong as a house and the one who got stepped on says its a mean son of a *****.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
No but I believe the point is that we play comparable defenses to Clemson and usually our offense does better against those defenses. I believe if we played FSU last year, we could've put up more than 14 points.

I'm glad you found the point to this post. If that's the point "What??" Clemson went 11-2 twice. GT is struggling with being .500. Didn't we get torched by them head to head. People got to stop manipulating stats, this shouldn't even be an argument. Hell Clemson can complete a forward pass.
 

Eric

Retired Co-Founder
Staff member
Messages
12,734
I'm glad you found the point to this post. If that's the point "What??" Clemson went 11-2 twice. GT is struggling with being .500. Didn't we get torched by them head to head. People got to stop manipulating stats, this shouldn't even be an argument. Hell Clemson can complete a forward pass.

I think you missed the point...but at the same time kinda proved his point.

This thread isn't about who is a better team or who has a better record...he is just comparing offense's. The team record takes what the defense does into account.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I don't care which set of stats you respect, the general point remains unaltered. The actual performance of GT's offense is comparable to Clemmons'. The common opponents data reinforces the notion. It is pretty hard to challenge that, outside of it being a small sample size.

One thing I find interesting about the mindset of some fans, and I am not attacking an individual here, although it was brought up earlier in the thread, is that game results like Syracuse 2013 are an outlier. Obviously, that game result was a statistical outlier. We could play them a dozen more times and I doubt we repeat as lopsided an outcome (56-0). It was kind of like sinking a chip from off the green. It was skill to get it close, but the fact that it fell in was very much a matter of chance. Maybe, had we played them a dozen more times the average outcome would have been more like 35-10. Who knows? My point is, those same fans, when confronted with an equally poor result from GT, condemn the system or coach using the negative outcome as proof positive and not a statistical outlier. Outliers happen BOTH WAYS. A great example of this in my mind was the LSU 2008 debacle. I was there. Everything that could go wrong, did. We could have played them several more times and never lost nearly as bad, maybe even won a couple. They were the better team I think, but not 38-3 better. Most likely they were a TD better than us on average. How many of our fans have referred to that game in the past as an outlier saying "you can throw that result out" ?

Obviously, trends are what matter. Surely, the current trend of the team is not where we would all like it to be. But when you look at it as a whole, the offense has not been the greatest cause for concern. Failure to finish, as has been discussed, has been our biggest issue. We haven't won our share of closely contested games where we were in very good position. Had we done so, most people would feel very differently about the offense today.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
Not that I want to prolong the argument, but does anyone in the message board actually believe that those 4 were top 20 defenses last year?
Seriously?

I could buy it with maybe the exception of Ole Miss but that's a gut feeling and I haven't looked at any numbers.

But really the thread isn't even about that anymore. It's been solidly derailed.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
I think you missed the point...but at the same time kinda proved his point.

This thread isn't about who is a better team or who has a better record...he is just comparing offense's. The team record takes what the defense does into account.

WE CAN'T PASS ! That's it. I don't need stats to see it. I don't need "well if you take away the bad teams and add the percentage of good plays divided by the defense in the 4th quarter" to see that we can't pass the ball. When we have to pass WE Done.. Fork in it. Now when our ground game is clicking we eat up stats, yardage, and some wins. That works for some and that fine with them. I'm not a fan of one dimensional offenses. I could probably pull up a whole bunch of stats to show why this offense sucks. On a another message board there is a long list of post & stats that full of these arguments and for what? What's the point?

Clemson Offense Ranked 10th 2013
GT Offense Ranked 44th 2013
Clemson Offense Ranked 9th 2012
GT Offense Ranked 35th 2012
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/1027/p2

Clemson 11-2 GT 7-6
What other point you need to make?
Head to Head We lost. When I saw the offensive strategy in the first quarter I knew we were done?
In the end CPJ is the head coach this is his offense he ain't disappearing, he ain't going anywhere. We gotta get better. I hope we will. Trying to sale people that Sh*t is Sugar isn't going to work. So again what's the point?
 

Eric

Retired Co-Founder
Staff member
Messages
12,734
WE CAN'T PASS ! That's it. I don't need stats to see it. I don't need "well if you take away the bad teams and add the percentage of good plays divided by the defense in the 4th quarter" to see that we can't pass the ball. When we have to pass WE Done.. Fork in it. Now when our ground game is clicking we eat up stats, yardage, and some wins. That works for some and that fine with them. I'm not a fan of one dimensional offenses. I could probably pull up a whole bunch of stats to show why this offense sucks. On a another message board there is a long list of post & stats that full of these arguments and for what? What's the point?

Clemson Offense Ranked 10th 2013
GT Offense Ranked 44th 2013
Clemson Offense Ranked 9th 2012
GT Offense Ranked 35th 2012
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/1027/p2

Clemson 11-2 GT 7-6
What other point you need to make?
Head to Head We lost. When I saw the offensive strategy in the first quarter I knew we were done?
In the end CPJ is the head coach this is his offense he ain't disappearing, he ain't going anywhere. We gotta get better. I hope we will. Trying to sale people that Sh*t is Sugar isn't going to work. So again what's the point?

Read the OP again...not sure why you're ranting about passing when that wasn't even being discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top