1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Offense and defense ACC coastal division common opponent stats

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by Longestday, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    6,348
    IN 17 it did seem that we at least tried to defend 3rd downs.
    Prior years our defense after kickoffs was so passive , we often could have tried on side kick with better results.

    Our offense requires time to score since it is run oriented.
    ( PLEASE NO TURNOVERS OR MISTAKE THAT END DRIVES. )
    This is what we do.
    By being passive on defense and running on offense we burned a lot clock in the red zone

    At end of games when we are significantly behind:
    1. it's hard for O to be a great passing team.
    2. It was hard for passive defense to suddenly become effective at getting the ball back.

    3. NOT LETS HOPE THE new DEFENSIVE MISTAKES that lead to scores are way fewer than the" drive enders."


    With defense getting off field faster (hopefully w somewhat better points per drive) , the offense should get more touches and wear down the opponents defense on the additional drives. End of game fun!!
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  2. BurdellJacket

    BurdellJacket Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    145

    Just kidding LD. It won’t change the story. Don’t go to much added work.
     
  3. slugboy

    slugboy Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,640
    I think adding UVA will change the story a little. Everyone else beat up on them.
    Nice job Longestday!



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  4. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    Added UVA

     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  5. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    Stats don't win games... but they can help you see your issues. This says VT was one heck of a team last year and GT beat them... any given Saturday!
     
  6. cuttysark

    cuttysark Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    580
    I understand it rains on both sides of the LOS, but the three rain storm (Monsoon) games GT played in last year is the best way to neutralize our offense. You need footing to block those beasts on the DL for Clemson. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but did any of these other Coastal teams play three games in those conditions? Probably not.

    Duke couldn't win a game for five weeks, or was it six? Then they play us and beat us like a drum. That CTR defense was easy to scheme against as he never made adjustments to the bubble screen in the Miami game. They ran that all day for at least 9 yards on every completion. Too passive makes a defense easy to scheme against in football. The short passing game by Duke chewed up our defense to the point it was humiliating for the players. The CTR plain vanilla defense only works when you have a dominant DL like Clemson or Bama. Not a good fit at GT in this millennium.

    I hope we get a reprieve this year and have no more Monsoon games.
     
  7. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    You have to wonder what a better defense could do for the team.

    Field position/less yards to score! Less kickoffs to GT (something we are struggling with)! Turnovers/more chances to score!
     
    iceeater1969 and COJacket like this.
  8. lv20gt

    lv20gt Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,389
    The same holds true for other teams as well. That is true. The problem though is people don't want to look at the actual games. We scored 7 against UGA, and 10 against clemosn, 3 when the game was on the line. The rest of the year aint going to change the fact that in those games the offense sucked. Same with the o only scoring 17 against Miami and only managing 3 offensive points in the second half. Or getting shut out against Duke in the second half. Or all the stuff that went wrong in the UVA game. The overall season numbers can be nice, but in the individual games that's not really what's important. Last year our defense played well enough for us to win 9 of the 11 games (or at the very least 8).

    Yes in theory you can win 14-7. We beat Pitt while giving up only 10 points from the defense ( 7 came directly from the ST). We beat UNC only giving up 7 (and that score was in garbage time). We beat VT only giving up 16 points from our defense (6 came off an INT return) and of those 16, 6 came off the back of a long KO return. Against JSU we gave up only 10. So in 4 of our 5 wins our defense basically gave up 10 or fewer. 2016 was a similar story with 6 similar games where we won with the D playing at around that level. The problem though is that it's not really realistic to expect us to have a defense like that when we have a HC who is his own OC, calls his own plays, and only advantage recruiting is finding guys who can fit in his offense. People always talk about the scout team, but all the players on the scout team are still recruited to play in our offense, and are being coached by guys who are trained to coach our offense. Is it really a wonder why our DL looks lost trying to get through better lines when they are used to going up against option OL being coached by the guys who coach our own 1st stringers who struggle with pass pro themselves? Ditto with QBs in the passing game, or TEs and short passing in general.

    Another thing, the opposite also holds true. You can win games when the other team scores 28 or more, and with the way we have set up our program, I expect us to. But we have lost that ability. In the last three years we are 1-13 in games where the other team scores at least 28. The one game we won, 2016 against Duke, the reason they scored 28 was because we gift wrapped them 14 points with turnovers deep in our territory. If we even won half of those types of games we'd have won 2 more games on average the last 3 years, and that shouldn't be a big deal. In that same time we lost 6 games in which the opposing team didn't score 28 or more. We shouldn't be losing two games a year in which the opposing team doesn't get to 28 with the way our program is set up.

    I do think it's a problem when we invest so heavily in the offense, and it still requires us to have a defense that can hold teams under 28 to have a chance to win.
     
  9. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    @lv20gt Good points... each game is an individual game and stats only tell trends. You make me want to go back through all the games and remove all other scores except offense (including offensive scores after turnovers).

    I still say GT has a good offense, the defense needs to be better, and ST has a long way to improve from a rank of 125.

    We do not recruit, have not been able to recruit in the past, and will not be able to recruit due to school obstacles to be competitive with semi pro teams. No offenses (even ones that pass) did well against Clemson and uGA. Any given Saturday (like Syracuse) we can win and these games, but it will be tough.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  10. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,302
    Which 9 games did the D play well enough to win?
     
  11. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    6,348
    1. It gets fuzzy before 2014! Our defense has always been charged with not causing a loss. I heard the lack of adjustments by DC which "lead to losses" (miami duke) is why he went his own way.

    2. For first time under COACH , we are going to be clearly less risk averse! RISK WINS BIG , RISK LOOSES BIG , BUT LOOSING BIG WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT WILL BE.......
     
  12. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    Games that a better defense would have turned in 2017
    • 100% sure: Tenn and UVA
    • Heavily Impacted to win: Miami, Duke (almost scored every drive in second half)
    • Smaller loss: UGA
    Each game has their own factors... that is why stats don't win games.
     
    augustabuzz and GTdragons like this.
  13. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,302
    I was replying to a post mentioning 9 of 11 last year.
     
    iceeater1969 likes this.
  14. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    6,348
    The coach using his free will directed the defense play bend but dont break defense predestined us to 9 losses last year . It's the antimony of ga techs defense.
    Yes , gt defense loosing slowly is acceptable and it is not acceptable.

    These tracks merge into one truth which is 7 men near the line and send 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or none!
     
  15. ilovetheoption

    ilovetheoption Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,574
    [​IMG]
     
  16. lv20gt

    lv20gt Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,389
    The 5 we won plus UT, Miami, and UVA for sure. Clemson is the 4th one, hard to tell because they took their foot off the gas when it was clear our offense couldn't do anything. That's why I put the (or at the very least 8).
     
  17. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,302
    UT scored 28 pts in regulation. Their offense scored fewer than 20 pts/game for the season. They did that in 11 drives which was also likely fewer drives/game than average. So, no, our D did not do well enough. We should not have needed the FG or overtime.

    UVA? Our D allowed 25 of their 40 pts to an offense that averaged 22.5 pts/game. While our D was put in a bad position a couple of times, being barely average is not "good enough to win."

    We allowed only 25 pts to an O that averaged 29 ppg. However, in the first half, we allowed them to score a 77 yd TD with 1 3/4 min on the clock.

    In ppd, D was average vs Miami O and O was above average vs Miami D.

    A childish perspective says that a D which gets 1 stop has done enough if the O scores every time. You only get a little less childish if you don't look at the opposition to determine a baseline of expected results.
     
    GTdragons likes this.
  18. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    2,703
    • UT... the first half their own offense did more to hurt their own offense than anything. It was perfect for last years scheme of let them make mistakes. Once UT got going they rolled/rolled hard and that offense proved very poor. This was a defensive scheme loss.
    • Miami was a loss by both defense, offense, and special teams.
    • UVA was a defensive scheme loss (they average 21 points a game and scored 40 on GT)
    • uGa and Clemson was an outmanned loss on all fronts (defense did better then the O in this game)
    • Duke I assign more to defense as the O started to push. Scoring on all drives but one is not good for the one not scoring.
    Just think about turnovers. GT ranked 119th in turnover gains with 10. Average turnover gain is ~20. What would the year look like with an average turnover gain of 5 versus a -5(GT lost 15).

    That would be 10 more possessions and most likely at least 3 more wins. That would have but GT +5 and you remember how the winning follows turnovers.
     
    tech_wreck47 likes this.
  19. lv20gt

    lv20gt Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,389
    UT averaged giving up 35 a game in conference so yes, holding them to 28 should have been enough to win. We had 4 punts to start the game, and of the 6 first half drives, 4 ended in punts, one ended in downs, and the TD drive was set up by the offense giving up the ball on our side of the field. But we only had a 7 point lead. That's why we lost. We couldn't build a lead. It wasn't the only time that was a problem last year.

    They allowed 25 points on 18 drives (1.39 ppd). And UVA averaged giving up 28 a game in conference against teams that weren't us. On top of that our defense also got a pick 6 and set up another easy TD by getting a TO on the UVA 14. So yes. Giving up 25 while effectively scored 14 is good enough to win.

    I assume you mean against Miami? So we held them below their average, but because of that one drive it wasn't good enough? lol? How about our offense doesn't sputter and give them the ball back in that situation since apparently our offense is so good at holding onto the ball? How about our offense doesn't go punt punt punt punt to end the game? Yes, holding a team to 25 should be good enough to win when you dedicate your entire program to the offense.
     
    smathis30 likes this.
  20. tech_wreck47

    tech_wreck47 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,453
    I’ll put it this way, GT was 24th in offense efficiency. That means we were better than the average offense. All the things you just mentioned are things that happen to almost EVERY college team throughout a season as well, so if it happens to almost every team is that really fair to complain about? Not many teams did anything against Clemson and UGA, 29 points in a game is good regardless of field position (something they have no control over) against Miami we were actually moving the ball decent tuntil you couldn’t see because of the rain, did you not see the guys slipping and falling? Like the time we faked the option and TM could have possibly had a TD on the reverse but we had an OL slip and fall when pulling in wide open field. I get the offense wasn’t perfect, but you are complaining about a pretty good offense. If you want to say they were a problem thats fine, but your also saying 90 percent of college offenses were problems for their teams by your standard of being a problem. Your expectation imo is not very realistic.

    I think you need to start comparing us to some of our opponents, or other schools that aren’t power houses.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018

Share This Page