Our defense is awful...

[dressedcheeseside]

Yards per play or points per drive is a better stat. I was lazy as cfbdata is real easy to do in multiple years. But I think your data shows the same thing ..... we are and have been about the same recently with the worst in 2014. Your data puts us solidly in the bottom half of all D1 teams if I understand it. So that probably goes from mediocre to bad........

I prefer points per drive. Yards don't mean squat if you don't score.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Aaarrggghhh. You are right. I should have just started with Football Outsiders ratings which is the best I know: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef
"FEI is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted drive efficiency. Approximately 20,000 possessions are contested annually in FBS vs. FBS games. First-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores are filtered out. Defensive Efficiency (DE) is the value generated by a team's defense per non-garbage possession relative to national average scoring rates by starting field position. DFEI is value generated per possession adjusted for the strength of opponent offenses faced."

Here was our ranking for overall defense by year :
2016 - not enough games
2015 - 62nd
2014 - 70th
2013 - 77nd
2012 - 74th

So you can say we are getting better though we were mediocre is still my conclusion ........ but probably not in a statistically significant manner since the difference between 62nd and 70th is small in the amount of change in the overall rating metric.

How in the world did we rank better last year than 2014 with all those turnovers forced?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

its just so funny to read all the comments about the lack of talent NOW and in this thread

yet all offseason it was (from many of the SAME posters)

"this is the best DL under paul since 2008"
"this is the best front 7 we have had in years"
"this team is the deepest team YET under paul"
"this secondary is the most athletic we have had under paul"

FYI, I debated all of these pretty heavily and intently too

Ya'll can't have it both ways. If the talent on D is so darn good...then the D production issues fall on coaching and player execution (back to coaching as our issues are fundamental). If the talent on D is so darn bad (despite all the NFL players and Paul publicly stating not so much "you have to be kidding there is plenty talent on that side, and there are NFL players now on that side); but if the talent is so BAD and its not the coaching etc ok....then you can't support the statements above like was done.

So for me...this is funny to watch; watch the ebbs and flows of our team from same posters arguing two sides...

So I will stick to my guns so to speak:
Our talent is better than our D production by far (been saying this for years somewhat validated by recent CPJ comments); ie we are generally ranked in the 70s/80s on D. We are better than that. And surely better than that the years we were in the 100s in major categories.
Our goal with our talent should be largely a top 40 to top 35 D every year in most major categories
Our issues on D stem from scheme
Our issues on D stem from poor fundamentals (both taught and player responsible) and lack of correction game over game.
Our issues on D stem also from player execution
Our issues on D stem from lack of internal reflection that the scheme doesn't work as-is and needs a tweak.
All these things prohibit us from maximizing the quality of our defense to reach that top 35 or so range...

Not top 5. Not top 10. Not even top 20. Top 1/4 or top1/3 of D1 football...

The easiest way to decide if it's a talent issue is to ask yourself how many of our players would start for other non-factory P5 teams. I woundn't even go factory cause the answer is zero.

 

[tech_wreck47]

The easiest way to decide if it's a talent issue is to ask yourself how many of our players would start for other non-factory P5 teams. I woundn't even go factory cause the answer is zero.

Or you can ask would the other teams coach them to the ability of being a starter? I think that's what most people are getting at, we have the talent but it's not being coached up well enough or the scheme causes them to not be put in a position that plays to their strengths. You can look at other places Roof has coached with better talent and yet still no top defenses if that's what you are going by though.

 

[AE 87]

How in the world did we rank better last year than 2014 with all those turnovers forced?

DFEI does take into account that we were #1 in Def T/O's in 2014 and #91 in 2015. It's just that we were much worse in giving up long drives (field position and field goal opportunities) and giving up TD's in 2014 over 2015.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

DFEI does take into account that we were #1 in Def T/O's in 2014 and #91 in 2015. It's just that we were much worse in giving up long drives (field position and field goal opportunities) and giving up TD's in 2014 over 2015.

metric flaw.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Or you can ask would the other teams coach them to the ability of being a starter? I think that's what most people are getting at, we have the talent but it's not being coached up well enough or the scheme causes them to not be put in a position that plays to their strengths. You can look at other places Roof has coached with better talent and yet still no top defenses if that's what you are going by though.

I disagree. A coach's job is put guys in position to make plays. For the most part, we've been in position, but still failed to make plays.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I disagree. A coach's job is put guys in position to make plays. For the most part, we've been in position, but still failed to make plays.

I agree to some extent, but you still need to put guys out there in positions to show their strengths, and utilize them that way.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree to some extent, but you still need to put guys out there in positions to show their strengths, and utilize them that way.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. As a defender, you have to know your assignment, get off blocks, cover and tackle. If you're weak in any of those areas, you shouldn't even be out there. Who are we using the wrong way and who would be better on our roster to do that job? If you have no shut down corners, you put yourself at a big risk playing man. We don't have any legitimate pass rushers either. So no shut down corners and no pass rushers that demand a double really handcuffs a DC.

 

[Boomergump]

I am not sure what to make of this line of discussion. When I hear people say that our defense is worse than other teams who we recruit better than, I wonder, according to who? If your measuring stick is the recruiting services, that is your first mistake. I could care less what BC's recruiting rankings are. They have recruited better on that side of the ball than we have. End of story. The proof is in the pudding and it is not just coaching. If, player by player, they are more effective than you, then they have brought in better kids. Recruiting is about finding the right kids for what you want to do and how you like to do it. For those who think we are bereft of talent and our defensive rankings are commensurate with our talent level, I would pressure you to provide your scouting report of our kids and what you see. If you say none of our players would start at a factory, I would point to those who have been drafted. The simple truth is that, where we are right now as a defensive unit is far more complex than any of these opinions in simplest form. I am still trying to figure out where we are, in terms of talent right now. I want to see quite a few more reps before I form a strong opinion either way. I am less inclined to opine on defensive tactics and scheme, because I really only recognize the basics of defensive football. I can tell when a player is using good technique and or dominating another player physically, or with speed etc, way better than I can recognize if they are fluent in our scheme and making the right calls and adjustments etc. I'll leave that to "Ballin and the like. I would caution everybody to give this unit a little more time before forming a solid opinion.

If we continue to produce end results like the ones we have seen in the first two games, I will be ecstatic. If we produce results like many of you are predicting I will be morose. I am going to watch Vandy and Clempsum and then I will put a stake in the ground. I don't mean to hit and run like this, but I want more time before I commit to a position. I am surprised that so many of us are so sure.

 

[RamblinCharger]

Kallon was over ranked based on potential, and yes, I believe Gamble has lived up to his 3 star rating, but no more unfortunately. Even if you factor in a few of these guys playing up to potential, the potential is not high enough, and the depth is woeful. These are not guys that the factories would be starting, no doubt.

If we could get a few "big nasties" up front in the middle that could occupy 2 blockers each, then that would free up the LBs and ends to make more plays....that ain't what is happening, and it ain't happened very much in GT's history. And, problem is that the quantity of these "big nasties" in high school is very limited, and the number that could or would choose a school like GT is extremely limited.... (maybe looking at single digits every year out of high school for those that would even consider Tech, and that is looking nationally, not regionally) You guys that blame the coaches will continue to blame the coaches. When there is more talent, the coaches will be smarter.

Nope. Roof has been bad everywhere including auburn and penn state. Well decent at penn state against bad offenses.

 

[Milwaukee]

If a team marches down field on you all day but the kicker shanks chip shots, does that mean the D was solid?


Use your eyes and football IQ, not stats.

 

[AE 87]

@Boomergump, I appreciate you brother, but I disagree with your "End of Story" and think it's contradicted by what you say next, iiuc.

Performance on the field is a result of the talent you come in with, how it's developed, and how it's used. To suggest that you can bracket out the latter two components by saying, iiuc, that performance is a direct indicator of recruiting is wrong. Making NFL camps is also a talent indicator which in the case of GT tells a different story than performance of our D.

Our O has been more efficient than many factories, but I don't think anyone would conclude that we recruited better.

 

[rosebud78]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. As a defender, you have to know your assignment, get off blocks, cover and tackle. If you're weak in any of those areas, you shouldn't even be out there. Who are we using the wrong way and who would be better on our roster to do that job? If you have no shut down corners, you put yourself at a big risk playing man. We don't have any legitimate pass rushers either. So no shut down corners and no pass rushers that demand a double really handcuffs a DC.

Who are you to bring logic and reason in here? You need to focus on conjecture, opinions, and feelings. Get it together man. This is no way to make a lynch mob work.

 

[rosebud78]

Here's the stats that matter.
2-0.
12 ppg allowed.
yeah let's fire the guy, based on what could happen, genius.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I am not sure what to make of this line of discussion. When I hear people say that our defense is worse than other teams who we recruit better than, I wonder, according to who? If your measuring stick is the recruiting services, that is your first mistake. I could care less what BC's recruiting rankings are. They have recruited better on that side of the ball than we have. End of story. The proof is in the pudding and it is not just coaching. If, player by player, they are more effective than you, then they have brought in better kids. Recruiting is about finding the right kids for what you want to do and how you like to do it. For those who think we are bereft of talent and our defensive rankings are commensurate with our talent level, I would pressure you to provide your scouting report of our kids and what you see. If you say none of our players would start at a factory, I would point to those who have been drafted. The simple truth is that, where we are right now as a defensive unit is far more complex than any of these opinions in simplest form. I am still trying to figure out where we are, in terms of talent right now. I want to see quite a few more reps before I form a strong opinion either way. I am less inclined to opine on defensive tactics and scheme, because I really only recognize the basics of defensive football. I can tell when a player is using good technique and or dominating another player physically, or with speed etc, way better than I can recognize if they are fluent in our scheme and making the right calls and adjustments etc. I'll leave that to "Ballin and the like. I would caution everybody to give this unit a little more time before forming a solid opinion.

If we continue to produce end results like the ones we have seen in the first two games, I will be ecstatic. If we produce results like many of you are predicting I will be morose. I am going to watch Vandy and Clempsum and then I will put a stake in the ground. I don't mean to hit and run like this, but I want more time before I commit to a position. I am surprised that so many of us are so sure.

Don brown became the defensive coordinator for Boston college in 2013 and that year they ended up Ranked in the 90's on defense the following year they were in the top 15 and last year they were number 1. If that's not coaching idk what is. So that right there shows it wasn't them recruiting superior talent than us, it just shows he coached them up because the guys that played for him in 2014 and 2015 when they had a great D were not even most of his recruits. And why do you say they have recruited better on D than us? What would indicate that? The fact that they had a top D and we haven't? I'll say it was coaching that caused them to be where they are considering they jumped from the 90's on D in his first year to the top 15 his past two years, that doesn't just magically happen. Go look at their players they recruited the past 5 years on D and look at ours and tell me that the guys they got were just that much more superior than ours, I honestly don't think you will feel that way if you look it up. Remember a lot of the players from the 2014 and 2015 team that started were not even his players he recruited to fit what he wanted to do there.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Here's the stats that matter.
2-0.
12 ppg allowed.
yeah let's fire the guy, based on what could happen, genius.

I don't think anyone wants to fire anyone. But ask yourself.... Can we stop Pitt, UM, Vt, UGAG, UNC, or Clemson playing like we have so far? I'll be the first to say I hope we improve and go back to the ACC CG.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. As a defender, you have to know your assignment, get off blocks, cover and tackle. If you're weak in any of those areas, you shouldn't even be out there. Who are we using the wrong way and who would be better on our roster to do that job? If you have no shut down corners, you put yourself at a big risk playing man. We don't have any legitimate pass rushers either. So no shut down corners and no pass rushers that demand a double really handcuffs a DC.

Football on D is so much more than what you mentioned, if You have a kid who does not have quick area speed at CB and you tell him to play 7 to 10 yards off the ball and back petal as soon as the ball is snapped and he cant get to the WR fast enough on quick routes because he doesn't have quick area speed am I playing to his strength? Or should I have him start to back petal when the reciver has ran 4 or 5 yards that way if it's a quick route he can jump it quicker. That's the type of stuff in talking about. I do agree we have made some bad tackles and that's not on roof, but there is other things you can do not to play to the strength of a player. Is he a bad pass rusher or blitzer yet you ask him to do that or is he bad in coverage yet you ask him to do it often. Dan Quin of the Falcons said he is going to play to his guys strengths and show them off if specific ways to help them out. Kroy for the Falcons was awful in coverage yet he keep dropping back when smith was the D coordinator, so was he playing to his strength or weakness? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about, scheme not ability to get off blocks or make tackles, because you are right that's not completely on the coach although it's his job to coach the kid up to be able to do that.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I agree with this. The wet field generally is harder on the D....as they have to react. Not on the O...generally....

yet at GT we have found a way to state the wet field was an issue on both sides of the ball. But for some reason it wasn't for BC and thats why we didn't do well vs BC.

haha...its just funny...the excuses for poor play.

My "excuse" of choice is still our cleats. Forget the wetness. Both our O and D couldn't cut very well and slipped a lot more than BC on both sides of the ball.

I haven't found PPD stats going back very far, but I did find YPP defensive stats going back to 2003. https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-yards-per-play?date=2005-01-05

What that shows is that our defense was ranked consistently in the 20s and 30s under Tenuta, averaging around 4.5 to 4.9 YPP. In 2003 we gave up 4.4 YPP, good for #15 in the country.

In 2008 we dropped to #43. Since then we've been between #68 (2011) and #111 (2014), giving up between 5.5 and 6.2 YPP.

So unless our talent level dropped precipitously...

Thanks for a good site.

metric flaw.

Not a metric flaw at all IMHO. It is based on not allowing points to be scored. So they take different events and applying where you are on the field when the event (fumble or rushing gain happens) provides the difference in probability of points scored per play. I did a book report on the method a few years ago ..... "Study Hall, College Football, It's Stats and its Stories". I really like their approach, but in the end the variance is too big to be sure of much.

If a team marches down field on you all day but the kicker shanks chip shots, does that mean the D was solid? ......

If you win, yes.

 

[elwoodgt]

I'm not itching to fire anyone either. This is the first time in years I've really gotten into a thread, digging up old stats and whatnot. I've even learned a good bit about the defensive schemes we have run.

The fact is, we have never recruited dominant DL talent. Probably never will, for reasons we don't need need to rehash. To say our current (last few years) mediocre performance is due to a unusual lack of talent is to obscure the problem. We have to play defense with the players we have, not the players we want.

The scheme that has been most successful since I've been a fan (1992-), by YPP and PPD stats as well as my non-expert eyeball, is the zone blitz under Jon Tenuta. It relied on smart, quick linemen who could drop into coverage and quick, rangy linebackers who could time the snap. It didn't require a dominant nose tackle like Groh's 3-4, or dominant 2-gap DT like Roof's 4-3. It made stars out of guys like Michael Johnson, a converted tight end.

Now you can say it's not coaching, it's execution, but if the coaches are asking our players to do things they can't do, then it's coaching. Just like Paul Johnson's offense is a great fit because it can perform well with the players we actually have at Tech, we need a defensive scheme that can perform well with the players we actually have.

Again, Boomer, I'm not talking about these first two games. Trying to look at the last several years.