No, you've simply lost the plot.
You need to re-read my OP. Obviously you would rather make this about just two stats, when the overiding message in my OP went deeper than just completion percentage and efficiency ranking on the stat sheets. Everyone else got it.
Your reaction to my OP is symptomatic of some GT fans. When someone tries to explain a root cause of a weakness on the team, you'd rather point to some misleading stats. It's obvious who gets the plot (or understands the passing game) and who doesn't.
Anyhow, I'm done here.
There's no lost plot. I was making a fairly straight forward and simple response to the following post which I will subdivide but otherwise not edit:
Um, completion percentage is part of passing efficiency equation. Therefore the lower the completion percentage, the lower the passing efficiency.
You focused on these two stats in a way that was factually inaccurate. You did so in a way that came off to me as condescending. I demonstrated the inaccuracy of this post by showing how we had one of the most efficient passing attacks in the same year as we were one of the worst in completion %.
Your most recent response to me accusing me of losing the plot similarly seems condescending which seems ironic given the circumstances.
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.
This point is undermined by the same data. Obviously, completion % does impact efficiency. However, when we are more efficient even with a lower completion %, then that means that our passing attack is complementing our running attack. Again, the point is not that we are satisfied with where we have been but that your "promise" has just been shown to be demonstrably false.
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.
I've got no problem with this, but it's beside the point in responding to the point Whiskey Clear was making.
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.
Again, the facts are that in passing efficiency, yards/attempt, we were #1 in 2009, #1 in 2011, #2 in 2012, and even tied for #20 in 2013.
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.
I took this to mean that our completion % has been less than 50%. I agree that we should expect better. However, it doesn't help your argument for a better passing attack to double down on ignorance.