post spring Q&A with CPJ

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Isn't part of the idea of passing at all in our offense to go over the defense if they are cheating forward? In theory our deep balls should have a higher completion percentage than a standard offense.
Sure, that's part of it. But what I'm saying is this:
In the QB pro days, you often see it considered to be a truly outstanding day for a QB who hits 26 or more out of 30 passes. These are scripted plays to a talented WR of the QB's choosing with nothing but air defending. I would venture to say that few QB's will hit even this percentage if you're throwing 30 deep balls with no one defending.

I don't know the answer to the question. I'm just curious as to what a decent percentage would be for defended deep balls? I'm hoping some of our guys with football coaching experience might have a clue.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,103
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I'm pretty sure CPJ has always stated that you need a legitimate passing game to keep the defense honest. I fail to see where his statement "we are going back to the basics" equates to a running game without a legitimate passing game.

To me "back to the basics" means establish the dive, make proper reads in the 3-O and other options and gash the defense. It also means to create a credible passing threat.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I'm pretty sure CPJ has always stated that you need a legitimate passing game to keep the defense honest. I fail to see where his statement "we are going back to the basics" equates to a running game without a legitimate passing game.

To me "back to the basics" means establish the dive, make proper reads in the 3-O and other options and gash the defense. It also means to create a credible passing threat.
Right. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion, based on his comments, that we are not going to throw. In fact, I expect that we will throw in 2014 about the traditional amount we have always thrown. I take his comments to mean that we have to get good at running the option again and I agree with him 100%. I like the idea of having good throwers at QB, but if we are not good at running the football, we are sunk as an offense. We are not going to "out pass" the passing teams. It just isn't going to happen with the roster we have built and that is OK. Force the defense up close to the LOS to stop your run and then burn them on play action over the top. It is a good formula. We just need to develop some dump offs when the defense is really crashing and there is little time. Throwing, or dumping off, over the top of the blitz is one of the time tested fundamentals of good football that we have failed to do consistently. When we have done it, it has been very effective.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
Nah I typically only post a response to something I think is wrong, misguided, disingenuous, etc. Basically where there's something to debate. You just post a lot and I disagree with you. A lot. Nothing personal.

How does that add to the board if you only post to something you disagree with? How about you just respond to someone else
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
Right. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion, based on his comments, that we are not going to throw. In fact, I expect that we will throw in 2014 about the traditional amount we have always thrown. I take his comments to mean that we have to get good at running the option again and I agree with him 100%. I like the idea of having good throwers at QB, but if we are not good at running the football, we are sunk as an offense. We are not going to "out pass" the passing teams. It just isn't going to happen with the roster we have built and that is OK. Force the defense up close to the LOS to stop your run and then burn them on play action over the top. It is a good formula. We just need to develop some dump offs when the defense is really crashing and there is little time. Throwing, or dumping off, over the top of the blitz is one of the time tested fundamentals of good football that we have failed to do consistently. When we have done it, it has been very effective.

You are right and I agree with you.
But we've never been consistent in passing, nor do we do much dumping off. In 2010 Nesbitt was able to make some crucial plays in passing, but that's been it. Take Alabama (I know it's a totally different offensive scheme) when teams focused to much on stopping the run McCarron was able to burn them enough to loosen the defense back up to pound them with the run. They force you to respect their passing game which opened up the run more. That's the case no matter who the quarterback has been definitely not consistently. We've been a top 10 in rushing every year, yet at the bottom in passing every where. Bottom tier in passing efficiency as well (when their enough attempts per game to qualify for measurement). In theory it's sounds good and it works for the most part until we face strong run defenses and then we might as well fold the tent and call it day we done. I'm tired of that m.o. Are we gonna adjust/adapt the offense to improve remedy this or are we gonna settle for 8-4 or less?
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
You are right and I agree with you.
But we've never been consistent in passing, nor do we do much dumping off. In 2010 Nesbitt was able to make some crucial plays in passing, but that's been it. Take Alabama (I know it's a totally different offensive scheme) when teams focused to much on stopping the run McCarron was able to burn them enough to loosen the defense back up to pound them with the run. They force you to respect their passing game which opened up the run more. That's the case no matter who the quarterback has been definitely not consistently. We've been a top 10 in rushing every year, yet at the bottom in passing every where. Bottom tier in passing efficiency as well (when their enough attempts per game to qualify for measurement). In theory it's sounds good and it works for the most part until we face strong run defenses and then we might as well fold the tent and call it day we done. I'm tired of that m.o. Are we gonna adjust/adapt the offense to improve remedy this or are we gonna settle for 8-4 or less?
Are you sure about the passing efficiency stat? I seem to remember that we very often had YPA numbers better than our opponents and it wasn't just the JN years. Certainly the completion percentage has been low. I offer no challenge to that assertion. Avoiding picks has been a problem though, and that affects efficiency numbers a great deal. I guess I am going to have to go look up the numbers because I like to deal in truth.

Dumping off has been a problem. Vad always seemed to lock in early on a deep guy and ignore the high percentage underneath stuff under duress. That is part of the reason we saw so much pressure. Teams knew he was shaky and hesitant running option and also quick to lock in on the deep throw. Under those constraints, what would you dial up as a DC?

ATL, I am not against passing at all, but whatever we choose to do, we need to be very good at it. Looking down the roster, as it sits right now and thinking about each kids relative strengths and weaknesses, we are built to run. Making the commitment to be a heavier pass oriented offense will mean a pretty painful transition period. Is that something we all want to undergo?
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
Are you sure about the passing efficiency stat? I seem to remember that we very often had YPA numbers better than our opponents and it wasn't just the JN years. Certainly the completion percentage has been low. I offer no challenge to that assertion. Avoiding picks has been a problem though, and that affects efficiency numbers a great deal. I guess I am going to have to go look up the numbers because I like to deal in truth.

Dumping off has been a problem. Vad always seemed to lock in early on a deep guy and ignore the high percentage underneath stuff under duress. That is part of the reason we saw so much pressure. Teams knew he was shaky and hesitant running option and also quick to lock in on the deep throw. Under those constraints, what would you dial up as a DC?

ATL, I am not against passing at all, but whatever we choose to do, we need to be very good at it. Looking down the roster, as it sits right now and thinking about each kids relative strengths and weaknesses, we are built to run. Making the commitment to be a heavier pass oriented offense will mean a pretty painful transition period. Is that something we all want to undergo?

By no means do I suggest pass heavy, we are not built for that, nor do I desire GT to become one. Just more dynamic and not one dimensional, being good/great at the run doesn't mean you have to be horrible at the pass.

I looked it up and I'm not sure Nesbit even had enough pass attempts to qualify as a stat to rank.
 

gtg936g

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,061
An element where I think we could use some drastic improvement is the screen game. I know CPJ likes to go downfield when he does pass, but I think we do not force the D to respect the screen. They just sell out for the run or a sack, but if we could setup and execute a couple screens, the D would have to do more than just think about Dive, keep, pitch. To me the screen is a natural element of our offense because we entice the blitz, and have a lot of O line movement on each play. Most linemen and LBs avoid our linemen because they think they are trying to cut them.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
Our average ranking in passing efficiency since CPJ got here is 58th. Over the last three years it is 45th. Last year was a bad year for that stat but it hasn't been the norm. In 2011 we were 14th. I would hardly call any of those three numbers "bottom tier."
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
@Boomergump and @ATL1

@ATL1 is right that our QBs don't haven't thrown enough for their passer ratings to count. I think a QB has to average at least 15 passes per game to be included. I think we've averaged around 11.

However, team passing stats are available. Our Yards/Attempt from 2008 to 2013 with national rankings are as follows:
2008, 7.8 23rd
2009, 10.6 1st
2010, 6.5 92nd
2011, 11.1 1st
2012, 9.4 2nd
2013, 8.3 20th

By these stats, we were top two in passing efficiency, ypa, for 3 of the 6 years and top 25 for 5 of 6 years. I'm guessing that @thwgjacket was averaging passer-rating rankings.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
It does just not the big ones or against above average competitive teams.
Yay(y)
Since CPJ has been here we have averaged 394 yards and 27 points against ranked teams. Those really aren't bad numbers. If you include the "above average competitive teams" then those numbers only go up. Even you count that as our season average and look at this years teams stats we average as many or more points against only ranked teams as Notre Dame, Hawaii (Who airs it out), VT, Arkansas, Kentucky, Cal, UVA, Florida, NCSU, West Virginia, Pitt, Maryland TCU and Mississippi State did this year against their normal schedules, FCS and all.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
@Boomergump and @ATL1

@ATL1 is right that our QBs don't haven't thrown enough for their passer ratings to count. I think a QB has to average at least 15 passes per game to be included. I think we've averaged around 11.

However, team passing stats are available. Our Yards/Attempt from 2008 to 2013 with national rankings are as follows:
2008, 7.8 23rd
2009, 10.6 1st
2010, 6.5 92nd
2011, 11.1 1st
2012, 9.4 2nd
2013, 8.3 20th

By these stats, we were top two in passing efficiency, ypa, for 3 of the 6 years and top 25 for 5 of 6 years. I'm guessing that @thwgjacket was averaging passer-rating rankings.
Ummm I think passer-ratings are the same as passing efficiency. You can note that here http://football.stassen.com/pass-eff/. And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating in the first sentence. I don't believe it is just taking yards per attempt.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
That's right. Both ypa and passer rating are efficiency measures. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
You're good. I honestly had to look it up. The site I used has a "passing efficiency" stat you can click on that just ranks players on passer rating number. Threw me off for a minute.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
We seem to go round and round with these debates. I don't mind rehashing so I will jump in too. Is our offense more boring than pro style? Not to me....I find pro style short passing game offenses to be the utmost in boring football. Dinking and dunking the ball down the field doesn't do much for me but if you told me we could win with it I'd be okay with that scheme.
I personally prefer our system. I love hits and few offenses put more defenders on their butts on any given play than ours. And when we do throw it...it's often an explosion play. You say we need to improve our screen passing game? We effectively execute this type of play with various run plays such as the rocket toss. I guess you might say screen passes are effective in pro style because you hit the defense with them when they are cheating the other way and surprise them. Do we not benefit in a similar fashion with the deep ball? Ours goes for TD's when we complete them. Pro style screens will only go for TDs if everyone makes their block and perhaps the receiver makes one guy miss...kinda like our veer or rocket toss maybe?
You want to compare our offense to Bama's? Compare their balance to our run heavy orientation? You say McCarron can sling it downfield when defenses cheat bama's run game? How many McCarrons have you seen Tech recruit in your lifetime? None in mine. I've seen some great QBs...Shawn Jones and Joe Ham to name two. Neither would be considered superior to McCarron in a pro set. Ask yourself this. How many elite pro style QBs do you think we could land in the next ten years if we switched to a pro set tommorow? How many could we steal away from Bama, UGA, FSU? If we were to find a better one it will most likely only happen by stealing an unknown and under recruited gem. Do we maybe stand a better shot of landing an elite athletic QB? History would indicate yes. I'll take our current system thank you.
 
Top