Johnson Back To Basics

ybeenormal

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
406
webmasterst: 66176 said:
... so we don't make the playoff as an undefeated conference champ?

Go big of go home :) 15 - 0!!!
Oops, forgot there will be an extra game for us this year :D
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,662
For what I hope and pray is the last time (fat chance):

The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D.

The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years.

If we play slightly better D we will have a good, with luck, a great year. If we don't things will be roughly the same: a good O let down by a D that can't hold on 3rd down. Let's hope that won't happen, despite the D problems in the off season.
 

SecretAgentBuzz

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
492
Location
ends of the earth
As many of you have, I've been thinking about this coming year, and trying to predict where we will land. Of course, predicting any year is hard, but this year seems particularly difficult. Will we go 10-3? 7-6? I am not sure we have the talent or the depth to win more than 10. One of the big differences in our team THIS year seems to be this [more talented potential/less experience] dichotomy. With that in mind, I think this is what we can expect: higher highs and lower lows. Inexperienced talent (like JT at QB) tends to be more inconsistent, so I am expecting that we will beat someone that is better than us and lose to someone we are better than. I am looking forward to a fun, roller-coaster season, and I think we will eventually land on 8 wins. Don't ask me to tell you which 8. :)
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,802
Location
Poquoson Virginia
....Meanwhile, Georgia Tech's 713 rushing attempts in 2013 were down from 808 in 2012. It was still a big number for almost every other program in the nation, but it was the Yellow Jackets' fewest since Johnson's first season.
........(Contrary to some beliefs, Johnson doesn't hate to throw the ball. Actually, he likes it very much... when it works. That's what he keeps telling folks but very few listen.)

First off, my revised prediction is that I'm going to find a way to watch the games, drink beer and enjoy the games with other GT fans.

Next on the subject of rushing / passing ratio. I think CPJ calls plays based on what the D is giving us. The book on GT is to force us to pass; and it worked in spades last year.

Here's the stats for all CPJ GT years;
Year ; # rushes; # passes; Total # plays; rush to total plays ratio
2013 ; 713 ; 203 ; 916 ; 77.8%
2012 ; 808 ; 194 ; 1002 ; 80.6%
2011 ; 717 ; 167 ; 884 ; 81.1%
2010 ; 753 ; 168 ; 921 ; 81.8%
2009 ; 792 ; 168 ; 960 ; 82.5%
2008 ; 640 ; 165 ; 805 ; 79.5%

The big reason it seems we ran less last year is that we ran 10% fewer total plays. (916 versus 1002). That would have accounted for about 80 fewer rushes from the 808 total in 2012.

But to your point, the ratio of rushes to total offensive plays (no ST plays) was the lowest for the CPJ GT years. If I had to bet, I would think the lowest of any CPJ year including Navy and Georgia Southern.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
But to your point, the ratio of rushes to total offensive plays (no ST plays) was the lowest for the CPJ GT years. If I had to bet, I would think the lowest of any CPJ year including Navy and Georgia Southern.
We may just make the record highest this year. Whatever translates to more wins works for me. The offense is designed to let the run set up the pass. But if the D comes out with the box loaded, the run (from previous games) has already set up the pass.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Say what you will, but the offenses of 2011 and 2012 were better than last year and I'll tell you what it was primarily because of the extra crap that was put in and a QB that was not willing to take a hit; and please don't tell me it was because of the offensive line play as somehow the 2 are in no way related.

LOL, what? Offensive line play isn't related to offensive success?

OK then.
 

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
A loaded box does not automatically take you out of the running game. A lot of our biggest runs happen when we beat the safeties at the edge, or suck them to the edge and seal the Mike LB.
 

GTpdm

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,321
Location
Atlanta GA
First off, my revised prediction is that I'm going to find a way to watch the games, drink beer and enjoy the games with other GT fans.

Now that sounds like a winning game plan!

With regard to the rushing/passing issue, I think something to keep in mind is that—as several people have pointed out here, and CPJ is always ready to remind us—there is a big difference between "passing because we can, to open up the game" and "passing because we have to, to get out of a hole". It is perhaps an irony that failing to achieve the former is one of the things that contributes the latter. In games where we are doing the latter, we generally lose. Big passes scattered here and there—at our choosing—are what open up our options with the option (so to speak), by keeping the opposing defense uncertain.

I'd like to see us come out in the first few games grinding out long drives on the ground, with a sprinkling of just a few passing plays—most/all of which lead to big gains, but none of which were really "needed" passing plays. I'd like to see our passing efficiency high enough that, as we head into the conference schedule, the smarter DCs of our opponents are thinking "Uh-oh", while the rest are (erroneously) thinking "So what? That won't work against us…"

TLDR: I want to see just enough passing to make our bread-and-butter option offense shine...
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
For what I hope and pray is the last time (fat chance):

The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D. The problem for the last four years has been the D.

The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years. The O has been fine for the last four years.

If we play slightly better D we will have a good, with luck, a great year. If we don't things will be roughly the same: a good O let down by a D that can't hold on 3rd down. Let's hope that won't happen, despite the D problems in the off season.

GT vs Clemson 2013
Link

GT vs Virginia Tech 2013
Link

Go watch those 2 games and tell me how it was the D's problem in those games. In both games, the defense played decently but the offense was inept.

And don't give me the drivel about it being Vad's fault either.
Watch the Clemson game where we gave up 3 sacks to the redshirt freshman #90....all of which he beat the single block of a B-back. Having a 225 pound back trying to block a 270 pound guy repeatedly in space is a SCHEME problem, not a personnel problem. (By the way there were personnel problems too...like our LT being beaten 3 times by a speed rush and that guy sacking Vad once and hitting him as he threw twice...causing incompletions both times).

Or watch the VT game on the very first play from scrimmage where the VT player gets his hand in and causes a fumble as Vad was separating from the mesh. Again, not a personnel problem...that's a scheme problem.

By and large, I agree the offense has been better than the defense but just repeating a mantra of "The problem for the last four years has been the D. " or "The O has been fine for the last four years. " over & over will not make it any more true.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
GT vs Clemson 2013
Link

GT vs Virginia Tech 2013
Link

Go watch those 2 games and tell me how it was the D's problem in those games. In both games, the defense decently but the offense was inept.

And don't give me the drivel about it being Vad's fault either.
Watch the Clemson game where we gave up 3 sacks to the redshirt freshman #90....all of which he beat the single block of a B-back. Having a 225 pound back trying to block a 270 pound guy repeatedly in space is a SCHEME problem, not a personnel problem. (By the way there were personnel problems too...like our LT being beaten 3 times by a speed rush and that guy sacking Vad once and hitting him as he threw twice...causing incompletions both times).

Or watch the VT game on the very first play from scrimmage where the VT player gets his hand in and causes a fumble as Vad was separating from the mesh. Again, not a personnel problem...that's a scheme problem.

By and large, I agree the offense has been better than the defense but just repeating a mantra of "The problem for the last four years has been the D. " or "The O has been fine for the last four years. " over & over will not make it any more true.
The offense struggled at times, but so does every offense. Hell, even Oregon got shut down a time or two. What's your point? The D has been the main problem over the last several years. Statistically and non-statistically speaking, the O has been well above the D on average, over the last 4 years. There's no way around that.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
The offense struggled at times, but so does every offense. Hell, even Oregon got shut down a time or two. What's your point? The D has been the main problem over the last several years. Statistically and non-statistically speaking, the O has been well above the D on average, over the last 4 years. There's no way around that.
I don't disagree with you; in fact, I agree with you.

But while "The offense has been fine for the last four years" might be true overall, there were multiple games where that was just not true.

It's a team game and sometimes the defense has to cover for the offense and vice versa. In those 2 games I mentioned, the defense actually outplayed the offense.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
I don't disagree with you; in fact, I agree with you.

But while "The offense has been fine for the last four years" might be true overall, there were multiple games where that was just not true.

It's a team game and sometimes the defense has to cover for the offense and vice versa. In those 2 games I mentioned, the defense actually outplayed the offense.
Truth is we need to get better in every phase, including ST's. But if I had to pick one unit where improvement would have the largest overall positive impact, I'd pick D.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,139
Location
Augusta, Georgia
It's a team game and sometimes the defense has to cover for the offense and vice versa. In those 2 games I mentioned, the defense actually outplayed the offense.

VT was the 81st ranked Total Offense in 2013, so it wasn't hard to stop them on defense. They were also the 4th ranked Total Defense. Not many schools did well offensively against them. VT's problem was they couldn't outscore opponents. They held Duke to 13 points and lost. Using the VT game isn't really a good bellwether for last years woes.

The Clemson game offers a different story. Clemson, the #9 Total Offense, rolled up 551 yards in 67 snaps on us. That's 8.2 YARDS PER PLAY. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, no matter what you saw, the defense wasn't stopping Clemson last year. (Note: I was at that game, freezing my buns off, and what I saw was us holding our own in run defense, but getting badly beaten in the secondary) Our offense, however, did wake up after the pitiful 1st quarter and put up 440 yds on Clemson.
 
Top