How do we feel about our wide receivers?

IronJacket7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,393
I am sorry Iron, I don't mean to offend. I was just trying to be creative about explaining how I felt a race between Autry and Campbell (from 13 years ago) would have gone. However, let me just say that I disagree with your characterization of their speed. Hopefully this time I deliver the message more tactfully. I caution you about attaching too much meaning to the posted 40 times of those two young men. Those things can vary wildly based on who is doing the timing and the methods used. 4.3 speed, when timed accurately, is CJ Spiller type speed. When you watch those type players on the field competing against the rest of college football, 4.3 speed is palpable. It stands out like a sore thumb. Every single defender will be aware of where they are at any time and adjust their angles and cushions etc to keep them contained. Obviously, I have never timed either of these guys myself, but having been involved with that kind of thing for years, I have an opinion about where I think their times would end up. FWIW, maybe very little in the eyes of many and that is fine, I see Autry as around a 4.6 guy and Summers more like 4.5. Those times are plenty good enough to be a WR, especially in our offense. They are not slow, but opposing DCs won't be scheming around their speed either. For that matter, I don't think Waller or Smelter are really any faster either, but they did manage to get behind the defense this year, which reinforces your point.

I definitely understand what you are saying and your are correct. 40 times are misleading in relation to on field speed. I guess what I was meaning to say in my original post or what would have more accurately described my thought process is - if we had a guy who could stretch the field, I could see Autry and Summers having the highest probability to do so of our WR corp.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I definitely understand what you are saying and your are correct. 40 times are misleading in relation to on field speed. I guess what I was meaning to say in my original post or what would have more accurately described my thought process is - if we had a guy who could stretch the field, I could see Autry and Summers having the highest probability to do so of our WR corp.
You may be correct there. Also, Autry could end up being the best at it, for a different reason. Getting behind guys in our offense is as much about selling the CB on the idea that you are getting ready to block him, before you high-tail-it past him. Autry looks like he gets the nuances of the game better to me and would probably be more effective with this aspect.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
Tech was ranked 27th in total defense last season
People would have killed for that after the two seasons before.
It goes to show stats don't tell the whole story.
27Georgia Tech1384946835.523638360.2
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22

You have to use the correct stats for the story you want to tell. The Total Defense (yards/game) stat doesn't tell the whole story of our D because our offense reduces the number of possessions that our opponents have against our D. We were 24th in the country in opponent drives by my calculation. By comparison, while our D faced 135 drives, Clemson's D faced 167.

If you look at yards/play D, we were 64th at 5.52 ypp. In 2012, we were 74th, allowing 5.69 ypp, and in 2011 we were 65th, allowing 5.50 ypp.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
I don't know why we can't get the ball to Snoddy more.
Zenon is fast too.
Bostic isn't happy and he supposed to have speed.
When these guys have gotten their chances they haven't impressed. The coaches see them every day in practice and they've had their shots in games. Do you honestly think the coaches don't value speed?
 

Yaller Jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
824
At times it seems to me there is something systematically wrong about our pass receiving. I always thought that a team which didn't pass much should have receivers wide open when it did. And sometimes that is the case. But it often seems that even with one on one coverage, our guys are tightly covered. I am mostly a tv fan and it is hard to see what is going on away from the ball on tv. Our scheme and routes just don't look as sharp and polished as most other teams. If that really is the case, maybe it is an unavoidable consequence of having a offense which must spend most of its practice time on blocking for run plays.
 

Mack

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,361
At times it seems to me there is something systematically wrong about our pass receiving. I always thought that a team which didn't pass much should have receivers wide open when it did. And sometimes that is the case. But it often seems that even with one on one coverage, our guys are tightly covered. I am mostly a tv fan and it is hard to see what is going on away from the ball on tv. Our scheme and routes just don't look as sharp and polished as most other teams. If that really is the case, maybe it is an unavoidable consequence of having a offense which must spend most of its practice time on blocking for run plays.
I agree we at times get so wide open it hurts and then we are covered like dicks hat band.We do not look good with cuts and patterns and seems to me that our big pass was the bomb..hope we get better.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Messages
9,081
Location
Marietta, GA
They value speed for sure. But if you can't be in the right spot at the right time, reads blocks, block, tackle, hang on to the ball, etc. then you won't play.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
At times it seems to me there is something systematically wrong about our pass receiving. I always thought that a team which didn't pass much should have receivers wide open when it did. And sometimes that is the case. But it often seems that even with one on one coverage, our guys are tightly covered. I am mostly a tv fan and it is hard to see what is going on away from the ball on tv. Our scheme and routes just don't look as sharp and polished as most other teams. If that really is the case, maybe it is an unavoidable consequence of having a offense which must spend most of its practice time on blocking for run plays.

YJ,
very good thoughts, we either don't have a good systemic passing approach or we have little talent -- or BOTH -- 5 of 6 yrs below 50% comp rate, hmmmm
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
With regards to completion percentage...I'd love to get 100% but that's not the most important passing stat by any means. TD's, yards, pass eficiency, 1st down completions...all are more importan IMO.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
With regards to completion percentage...I'd love to get 100% but that's not the most important passing stat by any means. TD's, yards, pass eficiency, 1st down completions...all are more importan IMO.

no, but if we complete passes even short passes it helps the run game and moves the chains,if incomplete pressure goes up on OFF
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,654
Um, completion percentage is part of passing efficiency equation. Therefore the lower the completion percentage, the lower the passing efficiency.

People, I totally disagree with the "As long as we're more efficient, passing completion doesn't matter." Think about that statement, and how it contradicts itself. You know what a sub 50% completion percentage says to me? It says we're unsuccessful less than 50% of the time we try to pass. Sure, you'd rather have a 20+ yard gain off a pass rather than 4-5 yard gain, but how effective are we 20+ yards down the field? I can promise it's not succesfull anywhere near 45% of the time.

I pointed this out in another thread, but you can be highly efficient with a high completion percentage. In fact, the modern day passing game is based of huge "chunk" plays down the field in combination with a high completion percentage. Look at the best passing attacks in the nation (TX A&M, Baylor, Clemson, FSU, etc.). Not only are they leading the nation in being "efficient", but they're also completing around 60%+ of their passes. You can have your cake and eat it when it comes to completion % and efficiency.

CPJ may defend his passing by talking about efficiency, and it's clear a lot of people on here are buying it, but until he puts a credible passing attack on the field CONSISTENTLY, I'm more apt to believe it's "coach speak" in defending a dismal passing game. Facts are, if you look at the history of CPJ's passing game, it's been far from efficient or successful consistently for almost 2 decades now.

Listen, we're a running team. So we're not going to put up big passing numbers. That's not our thing. I get it. BUT, we can be better at passing the ball, and to me that starts with actually getting the ball from the QB to receiver more often. Right now, we're doing it less than 50% of the time.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
Um, completion percentage is part of passing efficiency equation. Therefore the lower the completion percentage, the lower the passing efficiency.

People, I totally disagree with the "As long as we're more efficient, passing completion doesn't matter." Think about that statement, and how it contradicts itself. You know what a sub 50% completion percentage says to me? It says we're unsuccessful less than 50% of the time we try to pass. Sure, you'd rather have a 20+ yard gain off a pass rather than 4-5 yard gain, but how effective are we 20+ yards down the field? I can promise it's not succesfull anywhere near 45% of the time.

I pointed this out in another thread, but you can be highly efficient with a high completion percentage. In fact, the modern day passing game is based of huge "chunk" plays down the field in combination with a high completion percentage. Look at the best passing attacks in the nation (TX A&M, Baylor, Clemson, FSU, etc.). Not only are they leading the nation in being "efficient", but they're also completing around 60%+ of their passes. You can have your cake and eat it when it comes to completion % and efficiency.

CPJ may defend his passing by talking about efficiency, and it's clear a lot of people on here are buying it, but until he puts a credible passing attack on the field CONSISTENTLY, I'm more apt to believe it's "coach speak" in defending a dismal passing game. Facts are, if you look at the history of CPJ's passing game, it's been far from efficient or successful consistently for almost 2 decades now.

Listen, we're a running team. So we're not going to put up big passing numbers. That's not our thing. I get it. BUT, we can be better at passing the ball, and to me that starts with actually getting the ball from the QB to receiver more often. Right now, we're doing it less than 50% of the time.

ABSOLUTELY-agree completely----- right now our pass offense looks like high school attack-very erratic
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
Um, completion percentage is part of passing efficiency equation. Therefore the lower the completion percentage, the lower the passing efficiency.

People, I totally disagree with the "As long as we're more efficient, passing completion doesn't matter." Think about that statement, and how it contradicts itself. You know what a sub 50% completion percentage says to me? It says we're unsuccessful less than 50% of the time we try to pass. Sure, you'd rather have a 20+ yard gain off a pass rather than 4-5 yard gain, but how effective are we 20+ yards down the field? I can promise it's not succesfull anywhere near 45% of the time.

I pointed this out in another thread, but you can be highly efficient with a high completion percentage. In fact, the modern day passing game is based of huge "chunk" plays down the field in combination with a high completion percentage. Look at the best passing attacks in the nation (TX A&M, Baylor, Clemson, FSU, etc.). Not only are they leading the nation in being "efficient", but they're also completing around 60%+ of their passes. You can have your cake and eat it when it comes to completion % and efficiency.

CPJ may defend his passing by talking about efficiency, and it's clear a lot of people on here are buying it, but until he puts a credible passing attack on the field CONSISTENTLY, I'm more apt to believe it's "coach speak" in defending a dismal passing game. Facts are, if you look at the history of CPJ's passing game, it's been far from efficient or successful consistently for almost 2 decades now.

Listen, we're a running team. So we're not going to put up big passing numbers. That's not our thing. I get it. BUT, we can be better at passing the ball, and to me that starts with actually getting the ball from the QB to receiver more often. Right now, we're doing it less than 50% of the time.

Dead on. Having a consistent passing attack would help this team immensely.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
Um, completion percentage is part of passing efficiency equation. Therefore the lower the completion percentage, the lower the passing efficiency.

People, I totally disagree with the "As long as we're more efficient, passing completion doesn't matter." Think about that statement, and how it contradicts itself. You know what a sub 50% completion percentage says to me? It says we're unsuccessful less than 50% of the time we try to pass. Sure, you'd rather have a 20+ yard gain off a pass rather than 4-5 yard gain, but how effective are we 20+ yards down the field? I can promise it's not succesfull anywhere near 45% of the time.

I pointed this out in another thread, but you can be highly efficient with a high completion percentage. In fact, the modern day passing game is based of huge "chunk" plays down the field in combination with a high completion percentage. Look at the best passing attacks in the nation (TX A&M, Baylor, Clemson, FSU, etc.). Not only are they leading the nation in being "efficient", but they're also completing around 60%+ of their passes. You can have your cake and eat it when it comes to completion % and efficiency.

CPJ may defend his passing by talking about efficiency, and it's clear a lot of people on here are buying it, but until he puts a credible passing attack on the field CONSISTENTLY, I'm more apt to believe it's "coach speak" in defending a dismal passing game. Facts are, if you look at the history of CPJ's passing game, it's been far from efficient or successful consistently for almost 2 decades now.

Listen, we're a running team. So we're not going to put up big passing numbers. That's not our thing. I get it. BUT, we can be better at passing the ball, and to me that starts with actually getting the ball from the QB to receiver more often. Right now, we're doing it less than 50% of the time.


In 2009, we were 119 of 120 in completion %, completing 46.4%. We were 1st in yards/attempt (efficiency) at 10.6 ypa and 12th in Passer Rating, at 149.6. In 2011, we were 115th in completion percentage and 1st in ypa at 11.1 and 14th in passer rating.

So, you and those who absolutely agree with you are just factually wrong.
 

stylee

Ramblin' Wreck
Featured Member
Messages
603
Techster is mostly accurate here.
We need to be better. Consistently better.

I'll take what we had in 2009 in passing efficiency - but we had an All-Pro WR that year.
So it's on the coaches to figure out how to make what we've got now into an efficient passing group without a D. Thomas. Can J. Thomas show enough with his am that safeties can't cheat into the alley?

It can be done. We're not without tools - Smelter, Waller, and Bostic are all, at a minimum, capable receivers. CPJ and Cook need to coach JT into being an efficient passer. That's the meat of their jobs - it's not the Playstion "pick the right play" thing, because X's and O's are comparatively easy - it's about teaching kids to recognize coverages, see leverage, understand blitz looks. It's on Sewak to teach pass pro technique, blitz looks, stunts.

Vad represented something - a real arm in a triple option offense. I don't know if anyone's seen that since T. Ham. He's gone now - and it's important that Justin becomes at least a threat in the passing game.
 
Top