Next DC

[tech_wreck47]

I am not sure what you're referring to here. We went up 28-14 with 13:08 left in the 4th QTR. The final three drives were punt-fumble-missed FG. I agree that ST was the primary cause of the loss, but I can't in any way call the O "clutch" in the UT game.

I was reverting to marching the ball over 50 yards in 1:22 to set up what should have been an easy game winning FG. If he makes the FG we win and I don’t think this is even a conversation.

 

[ilovetheoption]

You are focusing on one particular stat. I don't think you'd have much success getting the rest of the world to call us a "top 3 offense" this year. Ifigure were a top 25 offense, and that's where the efficiency stats show us. It'b be similar to saying that GT is a top 15 defense because we were 11th in 3rd down conversion %. Or that we were a good defense because we were 33rd in total D. Those stats are true, but don't paint the whole picture.

I really come down to sustaining drives. Even ultimately unsuccessful drives. In years past, we were able to sustain some of our drives and at least give the D rest. This year, specifically in the second half of the season, we were unable to sustain drives against some opponents that we should have been able to. (UVA, Duke) Now, I am as big a fan of option football as you, so I don't blame the woes on scheme. I think a lot of our problems offensively stemmed from a QB who missed reads and struggled mightily in the passing game late in the season. That's why I am not labeling the O as horrible, but just not as efficient as we are used to seeing. I also think that the gaudy stats from our our easier opponents normalize the horrible stats from some of our worst games. While that is true, in some extent, of every season, I really just see the UVA game as a game where O/ST really did fairly poorly, 2 of our TDs came on short fields, but yet also a game that gave me hope for next season. The D did well most of the game in spite of the ST/O handing them short fields, and that last TD drive by our O was as good as it gets.

So yes, our O wasn't bad this year, but it was wildly inconsistent, and that is what I think hurt us late in the season. Until Duke, at which point the D went into hibernation.

But I think you and I agree on far more than we disagree.

Nonononono. I wasn't saying we were a top 3 offense. We were far from a top 3 offense. I said we were a top third offense. As in the top third of teams in the country.

I'm sorry if my phrasing made that confusing.

I was just taking issue with the fact that you were characterizing top third as sub par.

Is it fantastic? no, but it's also not awful.

I just think we've gotten spoiled by having an offense that actually is fantastic sometimes, and so when they offense is merely above-average that feels awful.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Wow the debate is getting intense

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I was just taking issue with the fact that you were characterizing top third as sub par.

I just think we've gotten spoiled by having an offense that actually is fantastic sometimes, and so when they offense is merely above-average that feels awful.

Sub-par for us. I also said how that is a testament to how good our offense usually is.

Like I said, I think we are saying the same thing.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Sub-par for us. I also said how that is a testament to how good our offense usually is.

Like I said, I think we are saying the same thing.

Ok, my apologies. I totally got what you were trying to say twisted in my head. Officially standing down to Defcon 2.

 

[Sarrick]

I think this quote from CPJ from the uga game says it all. “I tried to run the clock all the way down,” Johnson told sideline reporter Wiley Ballard. “I guess 40 seconds was too long.” We could argue all day about whose to blame but how I look at it is that there were 4 games this year where it was decided by 1 possession. All of those we had the lead until the last minute or so. And we lost 3 of those 4 games. Our offense put us in a place to win each time but our defense only stepped up to the plate 25% of the time. We can look at stats all we want but at the end of the day the defense didnt get it done.

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

So when are we making an official announcement for the new hire?

 

[Madison Grant]

We have far fewer drives than most teams due to the nature of our offense. We eat clock. Stats are useless unless they are normalized. Therefore, total Scoring is useless to use as a metric.

2016- Navy 20th in PPG Offense; 2015- Navy 22nd in PPG O; 2014- GT 12th in PPG O; 2013- GT 27th in PPG O, Navy 36th in PPG O; 2012- GT 34th in PPG O; 2011- GT 21st in PPG O; 2009- GT 15th in PPG O. Tell me again, how, don't worry, the geek stat says our offense was good. 70th in PPG doesn't matter 'cause the option is supposed to run the clock and not score. I think, also, if you look at the years above, you'll find no correlation with 'bad defenses' hurting the offense. In fact, as it often is with Navy, the bad defense actually lets the offense get the ball and score more. What we did this year was NOT complete 3rd and 8 like JT had in the past. Blow drives with TOs and penalties. And this was not one of Ted Roof's worst defenses this year, so don't try and blame the defense for the offense's inability to score. The option can score big, and it has in the past.

 

[alagold]

To me ,it was pick your side on who "lost the game", with the STs being a CONSTANT albatross.
So where is the new DC?

 

[lv20gt]

Admittedly, I've only read about half of the back-and-forth between you guys, but I have to ask: does it get exhausting constantly trying to prove that our team and coach suck? Maybe try the alternative for a couple days... or go fishing.

Nope. I don't have to convince people we sucked. We've missed a bowl in two out of the last 3 years. Everyone knows we sucked. The struggle is convincing Johnson fans that the head coach of a team is somehow a cause for his team sucking and not just laying it all at the feet of the dc.

 

[Cam]

2016- Navy 20th in PPG Offense; 2015- Navy 22nd in PPG O; 2014- GT 12th in PPG O; 2013- GT 27th in PPG O, Navy 36th in PPG O; 2012- GT 34th in PPG O; 2011- GT 21st in PPG O; 2009- GT 15th in PPG O. Tell me again, how, don't worry, the geek stat says our offense was good. 70th in PPG doesn't matter 'cause the option is supposed to run the clock and not score. I think, also, if you look at the years above, you'll find no correlation with 'bad defenses' hurting the offense. In fact, as it often is with Navy, the bad defense actually lets the offense get the ball and score more. What we did this year was NOT complete 3rd and 8 like JT had in the past. Blow drives with TOs and penalties. And this was not one of Ted Roof's worst defenses this year, so don't try and blame the defense for the offense's inability to score. The option can score big, and it has in the past.

Legitimate question: do you know what normalization of data means? It's not used in all professions and I didn't fully understand it until I entered research. You normalize data to make it more easily compared. Points Per Game is weakly normalized because the amount of attempts at scoring points in a game varies from team to team and game to game. FEI, the almighty geek stat, does a very careful job at normalizing their data not just per attempt, but also by competition and many other factors. Thus their results are very reliable. Points Per Game is a very small component of evaluating an offense even though points are ultimately what decides who wins and loses a game. But just because you are accident prone and come up empty in some drives does not mean that you aren't moving the ball well (aka offensive efficiency). Technically speaking, a team that drives for 99 yards each possession and comes up scoreless is still a highly efficient offense.

However, it's unlikely that the above situation occurs considering PPG is often correlated to offensive efficiency. For the individual years and teams you picked out, here are their individual FEI ranks:
2016 Navy - #1, 2015 Navy - #1, 2014 GT - #3, 2013 GT - #39; Navy - #17, 2012 GT - #11, 2011 GT - #16, and 2009 GT - #2.
They don't disagree with you. Those were very good offenses. But the PPG was, again, only a small reason of WHY they were good. GT seemed to be streaky this season. For instance, FEI says that our individual offensive first down rate (OFD) which measures the percentage of drives that result in at least a first down was ranked 95th. However, FEI also says our TD after first down rate was really high and ranked 24th. This says that we were prone to boom or bust drives. A high amount of three and outs, but if we made it past that we were likely to score. This is the advantage of advanced stats, they let you better evaluate what you are doing right and wrong.

 

[Milwaukee]

Still no announcement?

 

[stech81]

Still no announcement?

I'm old and fat.

 

[gtpi]

I'm old and fat.

ill second that announcement... "he's old a fat." heh

 

[coldbeer]

Back to the “next DC”, we just have a few rumors, right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pure speculation - Glenn Spencer from Okie State.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Madison Grant]

Legitimate question: do you know what normalization of data means? It's not used in all professions and I didn't fully understand it until I entered research. You normalize data to make it more easily compared. Points Per Game is weakly normalized because the amount of attempts at scoring points in a game varies from team to team and game to game. FEI, the almighty geek stat, does a very careful job at normalizing their data not just per attempt, but also by competition and many other factors. Thus their results are very reliable. Points Per Game is a very small component of evaluating an offense even though points are ultimately what decides who wins and loses a game. But just because you are accident prone and come up empty in some drives does not mean that you aren't moving the ball well (aka offensive efficiency). Technically speaking, a team that drives for 99 yards each possession and comes up scoreless is still a highly efficient offense.

However, it's unlikely that the above situation occurs considering PPG is often correlated to offensive efficiency. For the individual years and teams you picked out, here are their individual FEI ranks:
2016 Navy - #1, 2015 Navy - #1, 2014 GT - #3, 2013 GT - #39; Navy - #17, 2012 GT - #11, 2011 GT - #16, and 2009 GT - #2.
They don't disagree with you. Those were very good offenses. But the PPG was, again, only a small reason of WHY they were good. GT seemed to be streaky this season. For instance, FEI says that our individual offensive first down rate (OFD) which measures the percentage of drives that result in at least a first down was ranked 95th. However, FEI also says our TD after first down rate was really high and ranked 24th. This says that we were prone to boom or bust drives. A high amount of three and outs, but if we made it past that we were likely to score. This is the advantage of advanced stats, they let you better evaluate what you are doing right and wrong.

Yes, I know what normed data is. I have a Masters in Education and studying the basis behind standardized testing was a major part of my graduate work. But the last part of your reply makes my point about the beloved FEI stat of many on this board. Shouldn't a good analysis of data throw out or at least address somehow outliers, and quantify range and variance of individual data points? An average score has an entirely different meaning for a data set with a very small standard deviation versus a very large one. It doesn't take overanalysis of data to read a d*mn scoreboard. If FEI correlates poorly to the real purpose of the offense, which is to score NOT HOLD THE BALL LONGER AND FAIL TO SCORE, then in the case of the 2017 season, FEI is useless. An FEI that says we had the 23rd best offense when we were 70th in average points and went 5-6 in win-loss record with a defense and ST that wasn't any worse than they've been in much more successful years has failed to capture something statistically. There's an entirely different dynamic going on in games where teams with hurry up offenses are chucking it around. There's less pressure to score, and less pressure to defend. In reality, you could argue FEI is norming us against a non-comparative population. What's going on in our games isn't what's going on in others.

And, quite frankly, it hasn't been used in good faith on here. It has been used to argue that Ted Roof is the worst and stupidest DC in the history of the world and our defense is the whole problem with our team, which to any objective fan is completely one-sided. Roof is gone now, so please put offensive FEI away until it actually measures something that correlates to meaningful results on the field. 5-6 and 70th in scoring "is what it is" as coach would say.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Yes, I know what normed data is. I have a Masters in Education and studying the basis behind standardized testing was a major part of my graduate work. But the last part of your reply makes my point about the beloved FEI stat of many on this board. Shouldn't a good analysis of data throw out or at least address somehow outliers, and quantify range and variance of individual data points? An average score has an entirely different meaning for a data set with a very small standard deviation versus a very large one. It doesn't take overanalysis of data to read a d*mn scoreboard. If FEI correlates poorly to the real purpose of the offense, which is to score NOT HOLD THE BALL LONGER AND FAIL TO SCORE, then in the case of the 2017 season, FEI is useless. An FEI that says we had the 23rd best offense when we were 70th in average points and went 5-6 in win-loss record with a defense and ST that wasn't any worse than they've been in much more successful years has failed to capture something statistically. And, quite frankly, it hasn't been used in good faith on here. It has been used to argue that Ted Roof is the worst and stupidest DC in the history of the world and our defense is the whole problem with our team, which to any objective fan is completely one-sided. Roof is gone now, so please put offensive FEI away until it actually measures something that correlates to meaningful results on the field. 5-6 and 70th in scoring "is what it is" as coach would say.

Just don't normalize the data points the way temperature data is manipulated lol.

Who was that requesting we get this thread back on track?

 

[ilovetheoption]

An FEI that says we had the 23rd best offense when we were 70th in average points and went 5-6 in win-loss record with a defense and ST that wasn't any worse than they've been in much more successful years has failed to capture something statistically.

Wait, wat? Are you honestly making the argument that ST wasn't any worse than it's been in the past? Talk about arguing in bad faith...

 

[Madison Grant]

Wait, wat? Are you honestly making the argument that ST wasn't any worse than it's been in the past? Talk about arguing in bad faith...

YES I AM. When I say the past, I'm not talking about the last couple of years. Have you been paying attention the last 10 years? With the exception of, what, 3 or 4 years of Butker, and that's only in placekicking plus opponents kickoff returns, our ST has STUNK. Punter was actually better than it's been in past years. Kick coverage and returns have NEVER been good under CPJ. ST was bad in 2009 and 2011 when we scored a lot of points.

 

[jeffgt14]

I thought the offense and defense stunk it up this year.

They sure as **** did. The worst part is both of these two were better than the third unit.