Johnson Back To Basics

[Ramblin Wrecker]

The Clemson game was tough. GT started off with 4 offensive series in a row of 3's and out. Clemson has a top offense and that many three and outs to start the game is mentally tough on any defense. Don't forget the field position disadvantage of giving up the ball after a 3 and out after a kick off.

Speaking of field position, IIRC we had quite a bit of trouble fielding kickoffs that game too. Looks like all three phases deserve a share of the blame.

 

[daBuzz]

Imo, this post reflects why you can make discussions frustrating. You actually agreed with the earlier post to which you had responded that the D has been the problem and the O has been fine but still responded confrontationally.

You also refer to games in 2013 while the OP had challenged 2011 and 2012 O. Our O was down in 2013, but still better than our D. You also chose our games against the #3 and #13 teams in F/+ D.

And, I still think the CU game was as much on the D as the O.

To be completely candid, I think 3 or 4 of your posts in this thread are the most confrontational of all the posts. In fact, I can't see where mine was confrontational at all and I certainly didn't mean it that way.

 

[AE 87]

We left a ton of points on the field against Duke. Some plays their defense gave us and we just could not/did not execute. That was the point when CPJ said we need to get back to what we do and Vad was upset because he thought he had a great passing game. GT was 8 of 16 passes.

I agree 100% with this. My immediate reaction to the Duke game was more about the plays and scores we didn't make than the ones we did. After the end of the season with Duke winning the coastal, a 38-14 win looks pretty good, but at the time, I was shaking my head.

The Clemson game was tough. GT started off with 4 offensive series in a row of 3's and out. Clemson has a top offense and that many three and outs to start the game is mentally tough on any defense. Don't forget the field position disadvantage of giving up the ball after a 3 and out after a kick off.

Our D held them to a FG on their first drive and then did hold them to a punt after our first punt and a FG after our second punt. So, that was pretty good. However, they then went on to score 3 TDs on drives of 50, 67, and 78 yds in the first half.

It wasn't just that we were bad on D. It looks to me like we were the worst D against in ppd (albeit they may have been (likely) using lesser personnel in other games). We also scored more and more often than other teams who didn't give up nearly as many scores. Our weakness was pass defense, and they exploited it.

 

[Longestday]

@AE 87 I know you know but they had at least 2 incredible long pass receptions on some very well covered plays.

 

[AE 87]

To be completely candid, I think 3 or 4 of your posts in this thread are the most confrontational of all the posts. In fact, I can't see where mine was confrontational at all and I certainly didn't mean it that way.

I don't mind confrontational posts. That's part of healthy discussion in my book. However, I think you should confront people when you disagree, not when you agree. That's a way at reaching toward agreement.

You responded to a post saying that the problem for the last four years has been the D and the O has been fine with this command:

"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."​

What did you mean by that in the context if it's not intended as a confrontation or challenge to the post to which you were responding?

 

[AE 87]

@AE 87 I know you know but they had at least 2 incredible long pass receptions on some very well covered plays.

Yeah, fair enough, and thanks. They also had a ghost pass interference call iirc. But, man that was tough game for us.

 

[AE 87]

If you would like for me to explain a little more, feel free to start a conversation with me. I'd welcome it.

No need. I didn't understand so I asked. By the way, I could understand if you had just said that it was a joke so it doesn't have to make sense.

However, you offered an explanation. Still, saying that because our defense was playing well, we would have scored the exact same number of points but given up an additional 3TDs and 2 2pt conversions if we had given-up four turnovers still makes no sense to me.

 

[techman78]

In the Clemson game last season Taj Boyd could not have possibly thrown the deep ball any better. We had pretty good coverage but Boyd was having the game of his life.

 

[John]

No need. I didn't understand so I asked. By the way, I could understand if you had just said that it was a joke so it doesn't have to make sense.

However, you offered an explanation. Still, saying that because our defense was playing well, we would have scored the exact same number of points but given up an additional 3TDs and 2 2pt conversions if we had given-up four turnovers still makes no sense to me.

Wasn't a joke and I admitted it was an exaggeration which didn't really need to make sense. Although now that you mention it, it could make sense, who knows what would've happened if we gave up 4 more fumbles?

Now, why don't I message you so that we can end this silliness?

 

[AE 87]

Wasn't a joke and I admitted it was an exaggeration which didn't really need to make sense. Although now that you mention it, it could make sense, who knows what would've happened if we gave up 4 more fumbles?

Now, why don't I message you so that we can end this silliness?

No worries, man. We scored 38, and you said that if we gave up 4 fumbles that we'd still score 38. I said, that doesn't make sense, and now rather you agree that it doesn't have to. I still don't get why you say our defense was playing well as an explanation for why they'd score on practically every extra possession that they got as a result of those turnovers. I still think that makes less sense.

 

[daBuzz]

I don't mind confrontational posts. That's part of healthy discussion in my book. However, I think you should confront people when you disagree, not when you agree. That's a way at reaching toward agreement.

You responded to a post saying that the problem for the last four years has been the D and the O has been fine with this command:

"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."​

What did you mean by that in the context if it's not intended as a confrontation or challenge to the post to which you were responding?

That's the part you're missing. I didn't say the offense had been fine. I said it had MOSTLY fine. There were games in which we sucked. VT was a clear example, the Clemson game less so.

It's easy to look at the final score in the Clemson game and think our offense played just fine. But go back & watch the game and you'll see otherwise.

We hold Clemson to a FG after a pretty decent drive by them and promptly screw up a kickoff and start off at the one. After barely moving the football, we have a chance to pick up the first down on 3rd and 3 and Synjyn Days trips over his own feet 2 yards short of the first down.

We force a Clemson punt and get the ball back. After an option play for a loss of 1, we run a counter option for a gain of 6. On 3rd and 6, Vad rolls right to pass but is chased down and hit from behind as he tries to throw the ball, causing an incomplete pass.

Next series, we hold Clemson to another field goal. Our offense? Another 3 and out.

Next series, after Clemson converts on a 4th and 1, they throw deep to the end zone, Watkins gets away with pushing off and they're up 13-0. How do we respond? Another 3 and out.

By this time, our defense is absolutely gassed from being on the field pretty much the entire half and Clemson completes another long pass on a perfectly thrown ball. 20-0 Clemson.

Now, at this point, our offense finally wakes up and we start to play a game. And at this point, our defense starts to really stink up the joint. As the offense starts to make it a game, Clemson starts playing an almost perfect offensive game until they're up 55-24 in the 4th quarter.

At this point, Clemson goes into a 3-deep zone and dares us to pass the ball. Instead, we run the ball downfield and eat up clock. We eventually score a TD but they're perfectly willing to give up 7 points when they had a 31 point lead and we're using up the clock for them.

Now, here's a question I have for you: your Football Outsiders stats that you quote so often is supposed to take "trash yards" out of the equation. Do they take those away from us because they should. It's almost like catcher's indifference in baseball when the team lets the runner steal second because it doesn't make a difference. Clemson let us have that 7 points because it didn't matter to them and we used up the most precious resource...time.

The whole point? Defense wasn't great in that game. Offense was only good for about a quarter; maybe a quarter and a half. And special teams were the culprit in poor field position. And that was my point....there were games where the offense was just as big a part of the problem as the defense and/or special teams.

 

[jeffgt14]

I’m almost convinced nobody knows what anybody is talking about in this thread. Everyone seems confused and so am I.

 

[jchens_GT]

I’m almost convinced nobody knows what anybody is talking about in this thread. Everyone seems confused and so am I.

The off-season needs to end. Everyone is losing their mind.

 

[AE 87]

That's the part you're missing. I didn't say the offense had been fine. I said it had MOSTLY fine. There were games in which we sucked. VT was a clear example, the Clemson game less so.

It's easy to look at the final score in the Clemson game and think our offense played just fine. But go back & watch the game and you'll see otherwise.

We hold Clemson to a FG after a pretty decent drive by them and promptly screw up a kickoff and start off at the one. After barely moving the football, we have a chance to pick up the first down on 3rd and 3 and Synjyn Days trips over his own feet 2 yards short of the first down.

We force a Clemson punt and get the ball back. After an option play for a loss of 1, we run a counter option for a gain of 6. On 3rd and 6, Vad rolls right to pass but is chased down and hit from behind as he tries to throw the ball, causing an incomplete pass.

Next series, we hold Clemson to another field goal. Our offense? Another 3 and out.

Next series, after Clemson converts on a 4th and 1, they throw deep to the end zone, Watkins gets away with pushing off and they're up 13-0. How do we respond? Another 3 and out.

By this time, our defense is absolutely gassed from being on the field pretty much the entire half and Clemson completes another long pass on a perfectly thrown ball. 20-0 Clemson.

Now, at this point, our offense finally wakes up and we start to play a game. And at this point, our defense starts to really stink up the joint. As the offense starts to make it a game, Clemson starts playing an almost perfect offensive game until they're up 55-24 in the 4th quarter.

At this point, Clemson goes into a 3-deep zone and dares us to pass the ball. Instead, we run the ball downfield and eat up clock. We eventually score a TD but they're perfectly willing to give up 7 points when they had a 31 point lead and we're using up the clock for them.

Now, here's a question I have for you: your Football Outsiders stats that you quote so often is supposed to take "trash yards" out of the equation. Do they take those away from us because they should. It's almost like catcher's indifference in baseball when the team lets the runner steal second because it doesn't make a difference. Clemson let us have that 7 points because it didn't matter to them and we used up the most precious resource...time.

The whole point? Defense wasn't great in that game. Offense was only good for about a quarter; maybe a quarter and a half. And special teams were the culprit in poor field position. And that was my point....there were games where the offense was just as big a part of the problem as the defense and/or special teams.

Fine. Okay. I was responding to this post:

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.

I wasn't trying to take words from your mouth by not translating the "true overall" into "MOSTLY." I really think what you are saying here and what the original post to which you responded with ref to the 2013 CU and VPI games was saying is the same thing.

I think everyone agrees that there have been games where our O under-performed or was even completely shut down. Can you name one font in this forum that would disagree with that? I'm probably one of the biggest fans of CPJ and our O, and I agree with you 100% that there have been such games (I think 2013 CU is more on the D, but that's beside the point).

My only point was that it seemed like you are responding to someone saying that the offense has been fine for the last four years as if they were saying that it has been unstoppable in every game for the last four years. So, it introduces the appearance of disagreement where I don't think disagreement actually exists.

Sorry, for the long post, and I probably erred by starting my initial response to you in the way I did.

 

[zhavenor]

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

OK then.

Sorry for the delay in responding I was at work. I meant that the increased stances and techniques that were required by the use of the pistol and diamond formations limited their overall effectiveness making the o-line appear worse than what they would have been without those formations. The correlation was between the extra formations and the worsening of the line play not between the play of the o-line and the effectiveness of the offense. I hope that clarifies my point.

 

[Ggee87]

Fine. Okay. I was responding to this post:


I wasn't trying to take words from your mouth by not translating the "true overall" into "MOSTLY." I really think what you are saying here and what the original post to which you responded with ref to the 2013 CU and VPI games was saying is the same thing.

I think everyone agrees that there have been games where our O under-performed or was even completely shut down. Can you name one font in this forum that would disagree with that? I'm probably one of the biggest fans of CPJ and our O, and I agree with you 100% that there have been such games (I think 2013 CU is more on the D, but that's beside the point).

My only point was that it seemed like you are responding to someone saying that the offense has been fine for the last four years as if they were saying that it has been unstoppable in every game for the last four years. So, it introduces the appearance of disagreement where I don't think disagreement actually exists.

Sorry, for the long post, and I probably erred by starting my initial response to you in the way I did.

With CPJ knowing how short we were on depth last year, his offense didnt do the D any favors in either the Clemson or VT game. The 3O is predicated on explosion plays or grinding out 1st downs. When the O goes 3 and out several times in a row... Our already thin D is gassed before halftime. Im not trying to say the D were gang-busters or anything last year, but the O and STs put them in beyond horrible spots in both of those games. Had our O been able to sustain a drive here and there... Whos to say what might have happened?

 

[awbuzz]

In the Clemson game last season Taj Boyd could not have possibly thrown the deep ball any better. We had pretty good coverage but Boyd was having the game of his life.

This ^^^ is/was so flippin' true. Didn't hurt that he had some darn good receivers too.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Here's a couple of tidbits I found interesting:

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.

(I did not know that.)

"Still people (say) we need to throw it more," Johnson said. "No. We need to complete it more and have a higher percentage and be in situations so that when we throw it, it works."

(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.)

CPJ is wrong. Yes, the completion % is very important. But we DO need to throw more - to recruit better / to best good teams / to sell more tickets.

 

[Treb1982]

CPJ is wrong. Yes, the completion % is very important. But we DO need to throw more - to recruit better / to best good teams / to sell more tickets.

Disagree I think it really comes down to winning (especially vs UGA) as far as recruiting and selling more tickets. As far as having to throw the ball to beat the better teams if you go back and look here are some of our biggest wins:

2008: UGA (6 pass attempts); FSU (6 )
2009: VT (7); FSU (8)
2011: Clemson (9)

I think CPJ is correct we need get back to mastering what we do best and that is run the triple option. Statistically 2011 was probably our best offensive year. If we can get those kind of production numbers on offense (which I think we can) we could possibly win 10 games this year (as we should have in 2011 IMHO we pissed away the UVA and Utah game). Just FYI Tevin's Passer rating that year was 154.32 which would have put him 14th nationally if he had enough attempts to qualify.

 

[ATL1]

if he had enough attempts to qualify.

Ding