Stats Opposition Rushing Attacks (C'mon, Doug, be better)

[AE 87]

@AE 87 ,
I think our defensive rush YPP was terrible because we weren't committed to stopping the run last year. To tie into the Boston College thread, BC was determined to stop the run. Both us and BC gave up about the same yards to Clemson, 535 to 537. At that point the only thing that will save either team is getting some turnovers.

Something else I think is interesting is the games against Duke. IMO Duke has a very simplistic and predictable offense. They want to run 35 times a game at least. BC was committed to stopping the run against Duke and Duke still ran 35 times but only gained 33 yards. Duke ran 36 times against us.

So basically I think BC's approach worked when they played teams that wanted to run the ball. Teams that could throw the ball had much more success. I don't think BC is a top 5 defense, nor do I think we are #80.

The stat I cited in the other thread was yds per play not per carry. BC held pwr5 opp to 2.58 ypc, 2nd only to bama for teams playing more than 2 pwr 5 teams.

Clemson rushed for 3.82 ypc vs Bama, 3.11 vs BC (4.9 vs us). You are right that they were less effective vs pass, but footballoutsiders still ranked them the #3 D in both FEI and S&P+

 

[Boomergump]

Stopping the run is pretty fundamental and a predictor of defensive success. Even pass happy offenses have trouble controlling a game from the air.

 

[ramblin' wagon]

The stat I cited in the other thread was yds per play not per carry. BC held pwr5 opp to 2.58 ypc, 2nd only to bama for teams

I know. Unless you are Alabama, you can't stop everything. BC played the run making them vulnerable in the passing game. We didn't scheme the same way BC did. BC sold out for the run against Clemson and ended up giving up 420 pass yards. We took a more balanced approach and gave up much fewer pass yard but more rush yards. Total yards the same. BC played more teams that struggled on offense than we did. That makes playing the run first less risky.

Stopping the run is pretty fundamental and a predictor of defensive success.

Maybe you should take Roof's job.

 

[AE 87]

I know. Unless you are Alabama, you can't stop everything. BC played the run making them vulnerable in the passing game. We didn't scheme the same way BC did. BC sold out for the run against Clemson and ended up giving up 420 pass yards. We took a more balanced approach and gave up much fewer pass yard but more rush yards. Total yards the same. BC played more teams that struggled on offense than we did. That makes playing the run first less risky.



Maybe you should take Roof's job.

Fwiw, you still don't seem to appreciate the problem with yds/game stats.

Vs Clemson, BC allowed 10 yds/pass and passer rating of 162.34. We allowed 10.2 ypa and 169.17. In that game, we were close on that stat but still behind them--while they were doing much better vs run.

The football outsiders rankings I cited are opponent adjusted.

 

[ramblin' wagon]

Fwiw, you still don't seem to appreciate the problem with yds/game stats.

Vs Clemson, BC allowed 10 yds/pass and passer rating of 162.34. We allowed 10.2 ypa and 169.17. In that game, we were close on that stat but still behind them--while they were doing much better vs run.

The football outsiders rankings I cited are opponent adjusted.

I appreciate YPP but, I don't universally think it is meaningful. 6.21 and 7.37 are both terrible. I never said we were as good as BC on defense but there isn't 75 spots difference.

Opponent adjusted is still flawed. Football outsiders retro actively changed how they do their offensive numbers in 2014 after we blew it up. I am pretty sure they update things occasionally but is it coincidence that it made Ohio St. and Oregon ahead of us? If you change your ranking system to say what you want it to then it isn't meaningful.

 

[AE 87]

I appreciate YPP but, I don't universally think it is meaningful. 6.21 and 7.37 are both terrible. I never said we were as good as BC on defense but there isn't 75 spots difference.

Opponent adjusted is still flawed. Football outsiders retro actively changed how they do their offensive numbers in 2014 after we blew it up. I am pretty sure they update things occasionally but is it coincidence that it made Ohio St. and Oregon ahead of us? If you change your ranking system to say what you want it to then it isn't meaningful.

No worries, dude. I can't argue against your feelings.

 

[ramblin' wagon]

No worries, dude. I can't argue against your feelings.

AKA your stats are better.

 

[vamosjackets]

I know. Unless you are Alabama, you can't stop everything. BC played the run making them vulnerable in the passing game. We didn't scheme the same way BC did. BC sold out for the run against Clemson and ended up giving up 420 pass yards. We took a more balanced approach and gave up much fewer pass yard but more rush yards. Total yards the same. BC played more teams that struggled on offense than we did. That makes playing the run first less risk.

It seems you're saying that our different scheme means you shouldn't hold our defense responsible for its worse stats/performance. Scheme is part (biggest part?) of what goes into defensive stats/performance, so you have to throw that in there to be judged with the whole. So, since BC schemed to commit to stopping the run against Duke, they had a much better result against that team than we did. So, I think the reasonable conclusion should be: Therefore, BC gets what their numbers dictate and we get what ours does - BC is a much better defense than GT, and a big part of that is due to scheme. I don't think anybody is going to try to argue that BC's personnel are significantly better than ours. Their coaching/scheme is doing a lot better job of turning the talent they have into production on the field than ours is.
The Clemson results do nothing but provide further evidence of this. Even a team that is adept at passing, it's still going to be imperative to stop the run if you want to maximize your overall ability to stop them. Our more "balanced" approach yielded worse overall results in both examples, and in every example that we have available to us to compare the two teams.

Also, I don't know of a single defensive minded coach, coordinator or otherwise, who wouldn't preach and practice stopping the run first, including Roof.

 

[vamosjackets]

What I said is Ted can get kids we have no business getting and that's 100% correct. You're right again about no support from the adminstration for football. Where you are wrong is you think you know more about football than Roof.

First, what kids are you talking about that are so much better than what we've gotten before without Ted? Did we have any business getting Michael Johnson, Morgan Burnett, Phillip Wheeler, Chris Reis, Kenny Scott, Adamm Oliver, Vance Walker, Joe Anoai, Darryl Richard, Darryl Robertson, Jamal Lewis? Seems like we had plenty of capable guys mixed in with a few super stars before, doesn't it?

Second, I don't think anybody on this forum could say with a straight face that they know more about football than Roof. What I think they can say with great conviction is that there are a number of DC's that get better results on the field than Roof (and not just in football factory settings). Can you dispute that?

 

[vamosjackets]

@33jacket , I think APR came in near the end of Tenuta's time, so I'm not sure it affected him. If so, academic context is not the same.

A good argument could be made that the academic context was worse for Tenuta's time. First, it directly coincided with academic probation from O'Leary's time - where athletes were played despite not being elligible (not signing up for the right classes and such). Thus, the academic reigns were tightened significantly on CCG's regime by the GT admin. IIUC, he got no academic exceptions in recruiting for a while, and then he only got two per class for the last few years. A second factor from that is that we had 5 or 6 less total scholarships per year due to the probabion. Then add in flunk-gate where we lost a crazy number of players - really major players on both sides of the ball. This further tightened the screws on our academics for football.

I don't think APR has had much of an effect on the situation we were already in. CPJ and company have done a great job in succeeding in the APR's measurement. So much so, that for the last few years, he has had no restrictions on the number of exceptions he can take in recruiting. Now, as he would say, that doesn't really help all that much because you still have to recruit guys who can handle GT's academics.

Point being, it's far from certain that Roof has had a worse academic context than Tenuta had, as far as being able to get and maintain talent for their defense.

 

[AE 87]

A good argument could be made that the academic context was worse for Tenuta's time. First, it directly coincided with academic probation from O'Leary's time - where athletes were played despite not being elligible (not signing up for the right classes and such). Thus, the academic reigns were tightened significantly on CCG's regime by the GT admin. IIUC, he got no academic exceptions in recruiting for a while, and then he only got two per class for the last few years. A second factor from that is that we had 5 or 6 less total scholarships per year due to the probabion. Then add in flunk-gate where we lost a crazy number of players - really major players on both sides of the ball. This further tightened the screws on our academics for football.

I don't think APR has had much of an effect on the situation we were already in. CPJ and company have done a great job in succeeding in the APR's measurement. So much so, that for the last few years, he has had no restrictions on the number of exceptions he can take in recruiting. Now, as he would say, that doesn't really help all that much because you still have to recruit guys who can handle GT's academics.

Point being, it's far from certain that Roof has had a worse academic context than Tenuta had, as far as being able to get and maintain talent for their defense.

I thought you said a "good argument" ... jk, I still think APR is a bigger issue but don't have data at hand to back it up.

I won't argue my feelings.

 

[ramblin' wagon]

The Clemson results do nothing but provide further evidence of this. Even a team that is adept at passing, it's still going to be imperative to stop the run if you want to maximize your overall ability to stop them. Our more "balanced" approach yielded worse overall results in both examples, and in every example that we have available to us to compare the two teams.

I said BC was better than us on defense. I have said that a few times now. My whole point was that they weren't 75 places better than us.

Also, I don't know of a single defensive minded coach, coordinator or otherwise, who wouldn't preach and practice stopping the run first, including Roof.

Roof can preach all he wants. When we have 6 guys that immediately back pedal as soon as the ball is snapped on 1st and 10 against a team that likes to run, that is not "stopping the run first in practice."

 

[PBR549]

First, what kids are you talking about that are so much better than what we've gotten before without Ted? Did we have any business getting Michael Johnson, Morgan Burnett, Phillip Wheeler, Chris Reis, Kenny Scott, Adamm Oliver, Vance Walker, Joe Anoai, Darryl Richard, Darryl Robertson, Jamal Lewis? Seems like we had plenty of capable guys mixed in with a few super stars before, doesn't it?

Second, I don't think anybody on this forum could say with a straight face that they know more about football than Roof. What I think they can say with great conviction is that there are a number of DC's that get better results on the field than Roof (and not just in football factory settings). Can you dispute that?

The ones who get better results rarely work at Tech. If they do they haven't worked here long. As far as getting kids that we have no business getting there are many at every one of his stops. He has that "something" that few have as far as relationships with players. Don't take my word for it, ask his players at any of his stops including both times here at Tech. Better yet ask his peers. I've watched him and many many others recruit kids. He's simply the best I've seen including Kirby Smart who has had a lot easier sell with many more kids to choose from.