Our defense is awful...

[CuseJacket]

Question from Ken @ 21:00 minute mark in today's presser re: creating negative plays on D earned this response from CPJ. I only pulled the part that I interpreted as relevant to the "do we have talent on D?" question.

"Every year we talk about 'we don't have any players on defense'".... "Last year's team had 6 guys in NFL camps. It's not like somebody we just pulled off the street. There's guys over there. There's guys playing on defense over there right now that will be in the NFL. So we gotta make plays. We sound like it's the scout team trotting out."

 

[tech_wreck47]

Yeah, I think that's my point. And that includes the 70 or so yard touchdown, which is an outlier (though, of course, it still counted). It's impossible to make a declaration about the state of the defense so far, but if that's your inclination, then the conclusion isn't that it's terrible, but that it's been pretty good.

I think people are more concerned with how the D has looked the previous 4 years under roof, continuing this year. What would make us think it's going to be any different from previous year if we look to be doing the same things?

 

[AE 87]

Question from Ken @ 21:00 minute mark in today's presser re: creating negative plays on D earned this response from CPJ. I only pulled the part that I interpreted as relevant to the "do we have talent on D?" question.

"Every year we talk about 'we don't have any players on defense'".... "Last year's team had 6 guys in NFL camps. It's not like somebody we just pulled off the street. There's guys over there. There's guys playing on defense over there right now that will be in the NFL. So we gotta make plays. We sound like it's the scout team trotting out."

Watch it CPJ, we've got some experts at gtswarm who will tell you that getting guys into NFL camps doesn't mean anything. That's what they told me when I raised this point during the off-season.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

TE??? What was the last TE that really gave us trouble. I recall a couple but they were damn good and gave every team they faced fits. TE troubles have not been systemic....that hypothesis certainly does fit the "our scheme on O will always prevent us from having true success"......smh

 

[AE 87]

I think I'll offer a contrarian opinion. Our defense, while not dominant, is okay. Not great, but okay. We're allowing 6.7 YPA through the air, which, if we continued, would be an excellent year. Run defense is allowing about 4 YPC. That's pretty good, too. Granted the sample is really, really small, but the numbers are not bad. If the offense can continue to improve - and I think they will - and we play games where there are only 10 or 11 possessions, we are going to be okay.

You've got to look at the opponents.

BC vs GT: 4.76 yds/carry
BC vs Mass: 3.73 yds/carry

BC vs GT: 64.7%; 8.5 yds/att passing
BC vs Mass: 54.5%; 8.7 yds/att passing

Mercer vs GT: 3.0 yds/carry
Mercer vs Cit: 6.1 yds/carry

Mercer vs GT: 67.2%; 5.9 yds/att
Mercer vs Cit: 60%; 6.9 yds/att

 

[jeffgt14]

TE??? What was the last TE that really gave us trouble. I recall a couple but they were damn good and gave every team they faced fits. TE troubles have not been systemic....that hypothesis certainly does fit the "our scheme on O will always prevent us from having true success"......smh

Tenuta got messed up by a few tight ends IIRC

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think I'll offer a contrarian opinion. Our defense, while not dominant, is okay. Not great, but okay. We're allowing 6.7 YPA through the air, which, if we continued, would be an excellent year. Run defense is allowing about 4 YPC. That's pretty good, too. Granted the sample is really, really small, but the numbers are not bad. If the offense can continue to improve - and I think they will - and we play games where there are only 10 or 11 possessions, we are going to be okay.

Well, hello there JorgeJonas. ¿Cómo estás? LOL Really great to hear from you today.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@jeffgt14
Tenuta predates our current scheme on O. My TE post was in response to others speculating our scheme makes our D susceptible to schemes that use a TE.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

TE??? What was the last TE that really gave us trouble. I recall a couple but they were damn good and gave every team they faced fits. TE troubles have not been systemic....that hypothesis certainly does fit the "our scheme on O will always prevent us from having true success"......smh

I don't think GT has covered a TE since 1990.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

BS.....name 5 that have gone over 100 yards against us since 90...

More to this actual argument though, name 3 that have done so since 08. Even the 2 I kinda recall probly didn't break 100.

 

[AE 87]

Easy one: Ebron, 2013, 108 rxg yds

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Ebron was a good one...quick search showed he went for about 70 vs almost everyone. Got us for 108, Duke for 121, and dah U for 199. Had success against everyone, not just us.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I wonder how our practice squad simulates TE's? We don't have that position in our offense, therefore we don't have anyone on the roster that plays it. Who do we put there? A WR? I mean, our WRs are usually bigger, but it's hard to simulate all a TE does for an offense in blocking and receiving if you're using a WR in practice. We're certainly not using our top of the rotation WR to practice at TE to help the defense. So we're using a freshmen or 3rd string guy to simulate a position we don't even have for scout team.

I think there's truth to the fact that our offense DOES affect how we practice, and it's more practice personnel than the scheme CPJ is running on offense. Let's face it. If we're playing a pass heavy offense that week, who on our roster is a talented enough passer to give our defensive secondary a good look? JeT? I doubt we're using him during a scrimmage on the 3rd team to simulate the other team's QB. This year we might be better off with Lucas Johnson, but last year it was probably walk on Brady SWilling or Christian Campbell. You compare that to other teams who sign QBs who were talented passers in HS that are available for the practice squads.

The only time going against our O in practice adversely affects our D, and it's debatable, is in scrimmages. When we do scout work, we line up just like our opponents with their personnel packages not ours. These sessions are meant to familiarize our D with scheme and formation, not simulate tackling/covering in real time. Btw, that's how everybody does it, not just us. Now, getting back to scrimmages.... that can affect how we perform because we don't simulate opponents in scrimmages, we go against what we do. However, it can be argued that it's not necessarily a negative because it forces our D to use their eyes, stay in their lanes and play disciplined. It should help with qb containment and rush lane discipline because they're chasing a jitterbug back there. It would hurt with covering TE's and other short routes, but it's a trade off.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Ebron was a good one...quick search showed he went for about 70 vs almost everyone. Got us for 108, Duke for 121, and dah U for 199. Had success against everyone, not just us.

Nick oleary in 2014 was close but he only had 97. I though VT had someone few years back and Miami but I'm not sure.

 

[jeffgt14]

@jeffgt14
Tenuta predates our current scheme on O. My TE post was in response to others speculating our scheme makes our D susceptible to schemes that use a TE.

Yea sorry I was agreeing with you. I was stating that in my recollection, Tenuta’s scheme struggled with TE’s more than any other coordinators we’ve had.

 

[Techster]

The only time going against our O in practice adversely affects our D, and it's debatable, is in scrimmages. When we do scout work, we line up just like our opponents with their personnel packages not ours. These sessions are meant to familiarize our D with scheme and formation, not simulate tackling/covering in real time. Btw, that's how everybody does it, not just us. Now, getting back to scrimmages.... that can affect how we perform because we don't simulate opponents in scrimmages, we go against what we do. However, it can be argued that it's not necessarily a negative because it forces our D to use their eyes, stay in their lanes and play disciplined. It should help with qb containment and rush lane discipline because they're chasing a jitterbug back there. It would hurt with covering TE's and other short routes, but it's a trade off.

To sum up your post: It doesn't hurt us...but it may hurt us...

Okay.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

To sum up your post: It doesn't hurt us...but it may hurt us...

Okay.

Well, not exactly. My point is it helps in some ways and hurts in others. It's a trade off. The question is which is more. Also, we don't scrimmage much, if at all, during the season.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

My "we haven't covered a TE" is talking more about how on 3rd and 8 we seem to always forget theres a TE in the game. I remember both Ebron and O'leary being uncovered for a few of those conversions.

 

[slugboy]

TE??? What was the last TE that really gave us trouble. I recall a couple but they were damn good and gave every team they faced fits. TE troubles have not been systemic....that hypothesis certainly does fit the "our scheme on O will always prevent us from having true success"......smh

Mercer started off with the TE pretty well. We had to adjust.

Yea sorry I was agreeing with you. I was stating that in my recollection, Tenuta’s scheme struggled with TE’s more than any other coordinators we’ve had.

Not in mine. Groh and Wommack had trouble with the TE also. I can't say Roof has particular trouble with the TE--we're giving up 3rd downs to all sorts of positions.

 

[Techster]

Well, not exactly. My point is it helps in some ways and hurts in others. It's a trade off. The question is which is more. Also, we don't scrimmage much, if at all, during the season.

I'm not sure how GT does it under CPJ, and @Ibeeballin or @flea77 can chime in here since they first hand knowledge, but usually the 1st team defense will scrimmage against the scout team full speed to simulate looks the coaches think they will see in the game. So the better the players you have at the scout team level (whether it's redshirts, walk-ons, or older players who never broke through) the better prepped you are during games to defend it. For instance, you can read about how Jabari Hunt helped the 1st team offense during the 2014 season here: http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/201...jabari-hunt-days-to-move-to-defensive-tackle/

The vice versa happens with our first team offense and the scout team defense. That's why walk-ons and scout team guys are referred to as tackling dummies. They're job is to mimmick the other team's offense/defense during these scrimmage sessions to provide the 1st teams the best possible prep. You can read about how well prepared BC was for offense because of the guy they used to mimmick JeT here: http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/college/boston-colleges-myles-willis-eager-for-shot-at-geo/nsP3y/

I also like how some posters are totally overlooking my statement that having a personnel of an option offense does limit us in practice...namely, with our QBs. If you're telling me our offensive personnel, at the 3rd and scout team level, is just as good of a prep for our defense as say...any other team that doesn't run our offense then you probably think a walk on QB is just as good as JeT. Our QBs for the most part are not strong passers to start off with. You have teams like UGA, Clemson, UNC, Miami, Duke...teams who we play that have 4/5 star QBs and tight ends on their scout teams giving their 1st teams high level SAs to practice against.

There's a saying in the Bible (not to get religious): As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

Whether it's in skeleton drills or full blown scrimmage, the better talent you have on the scout team level, the better looks you can give the defense or offense. Because we recruit option QBs who are not strong passers and because we don't have TE, we are not as equipped as the teams I mentioned to give our defense the looks it needs in practice.