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.
