Postgame BC

[danny daniel]

Backing up Will or Shamire?

Will on paper but Coach says he is #3 guard so he probably is first to back up either.

 

[vamosjackets]

If someone says, "We don't have the players we need to be 'aggressive'", wouldn't the counter-argument to that just be "We don't have the players we need to not be 'aggressive'".

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There is that argument to make. And I really do not have a counter argument to make. Georgia Tech's "notoriety" stems (sorry) from academics, not athletics.
Georgia Tech is not known around the world for athletics like, say, Notre Dame. But Georgia Tech is known around the world for it's academics.

Can you have both? (Please no Stanford talk, we have beat that to death!)

That's not entirely true. When I was on a tour in Turkey 5 years ago, our guide was very familiar with the Jackets basketball team from having watched some games, even in Turkey, when Cremins was coaching. Academic types know Tech for its academics, but Tech athletics are still recognized too.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

The defense is always better on 3rd and 8. It's the other two downs we have trouble with.

 

[Sideways]

It really irks me that CTR makes this argument. Are we really expected to believe that BC, for example, recruits at that much higher of a level? I put very little stock in recruiting rankings. But for what it's worth, rankings indicate BC recruits slightly worse than GT. Example: GT #55 - BC #66 . Others have made this point as well. Maybe BC really does recruit Saban level talent only on D, but I doubt it. Are we really saying GT has less talent on D than every FCS team that runs bilitzes?

App State was getting after Dobbs and nearly upset Tennessee (E.g.) . If Roof thinks GT's talent level is that far behind the Sun Belt... maybe we should just de-emphasize athletics and be done with it.

If I see Mercer send five next week I'm gonna lose it.

Good points. I thought about this as I watched the UMass and Florida game. The Minutemen will never be mistaken for a football powerhouse but they were "bringing the House"; if you get my drift nearly every play brought blitzes and although Florida was never in real trouble they were having all kinds of problems moving the ball. The "Fun and Gun" it wasn't. Maybe we should go all out on the blitzes big plays be damned. Unless of course, CTR is under orders from the ball coach to play a more conservative style and not give up big plays. In which case, there is not really a whole lot he can do.

 

[Sideways]

Thx

God speed Leonard. Keep the faith. "Let not your heart be troubled You who believed in God believe also in me"

 

[tech_wreck47]

If someone says, "We don't have the players we need to be 'aggressive'", wouldn't the counter-argument to that just be "We don't have the players we need to not be 'aggressive'".

Thank you, we are not Alabama who can play the style D We play and do it well. You best have a stout front 7 to play the way we do and be affective imo. I have always felt the more talent and dominant players the more of a simple D you can play but if you don't have that then you must get creative and be aggressive.

 

[Fatmike91]

we gave up over 7 yards per play, and they didn't run hardly any plays which plays a factor into only scoring 14. Let us play a high powered O and us play D like we did Saturday and we will be in trouble.

We gave up 5.8 YPP. 313 total yards on 54 plays. I'm not sure where you got "over 7" from.

Take away one long run and we gave up an average of 4.5 YPP. That compares pretty favorably to the 5.8 YPP last year and the 6.2 YPP the year before...

I happen to think that long touchdown run in this game was an anomaly.

/

 

[tech_wreck47]

We gave up 5.8 YPP. 313 total yards on 54 plays. I'm not sure where you got "over 7" from.

Take away one long run and we gave up an average of 4.5 YPP. That compares pretty favorably to the 5.8 YPP last year and the 6.2 YPP the year before...

I happen to think that long touchdown run in this game was an anomaly.

/

I thought I heard cpj say something about 7 yards but I think it was on passing downs because it was around 8 yards per play. Also we weren't playing a very good offense, and it's hard to say we would have been at 4.5 if not for a long run without taking out the long runs from the other two season if we are going to compare them. It's football and stuff like that happens. we were awful at angles, tackling, and having our eyes in the right place. If we would have been playing a better offense we would have been in trouble imo.

 

[Boomergump]

We gave up 5.8 YPP. 313 total yards on 54 plays. I'm not sure where you got "over 7" from.

Take away one long run and we gave up an average of 4.5 YPP. That compares pretty favorably to the 5.8 YPP last year and the 6.2 YPP the year before...

I happen to think that long touchdown run in this game was an anomaly.

/

I don't worry too too much about the occasional run out that throws off the average. It is what the opposing team is able to sustain that is important. Would you be more, or less, worried if BC had rammed the ball down our throats at 6 yards a pop for that TD instead of a one play bust? I know what my answer would be. So, I think I agree with your point.

Nobody wants to give up the big plays, but some things are more worrisome than others.

 

[AE 87]

I don't worry too too much about the occasional run out that throws off the average. It is what the opposing team is able to sustain that is important. Would you be more, or less, worried if BC had rammed the ball down our throats at 6 yards a pop for that TD instead of a one play bust? I know what my answer would be. So, I think I agree with your point.

Nobody wants to give up the big plays, but some things are more worrisome than others.

Fwiw, I think he's saying he'd rather have a D that allowed less than 5ypp, full stop.

 

[vamosjackets]

I don't worry too too much about the occasional run out that throws off the average. It is what the opposing team is able to sustain that is important. Would you be more, or less, worried if BC had rammed the ball down our throats at 6 yards a pop for that TD instead of a one play bust? I know what my answer would be. So, I think I agree with your point.

Nobody wants to give up the big plays, but some things are more worrisome than others.

Yes, the one long play is better than a 17-play ram it down our throat thing because it seems like cutting out the one big play is easier to fix than getting physically dominated. BUT, there is no validity in throwing it out when looking at our YPP because the YPP stat is going to be one that we use as a comparative stat - we're in competition with every other team. So, throwing out our long play would mean every other team should throw out their long play. You've got to keep the whole body of work in there if you want to have a valid comparison to other teams. I'm not as worried about getting less than 6 ypp as much as I am getting in the top 40 in ypp. We don't have to be a perfect football team to win a NC, we just have to be better than everyone else. Plus, a long TD will beat you (and almost did) on the scoreboard the same as a short one will.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

A lot of times what people call "aggressive" isn't really what I would like to see. It's not just about blitzing, it's how you blitz. And, what do we even mean by "blitz".

For most in the football business, a blitz is when you send 6 or more and you're playing man or man-free behind it. Tenuta did this some, but more often, he sent 5. This was called a "zone-dog". And, you never knew who the 5 were going to be and where they would be coming from. It could be 4 DL and a LB or 3 DL and 2 LB's or 3 DL a LB and a DB, you get the picture. Now, is this aggressive? Yes and no. I'd call it creative, controlled-aggressiveness. Sending 5 still gives you 6 to cover all of the zones in the passing game, so you've still got 3 deep and 3 underneath or 2 deep and 4 underneath. So, it's got elements of the aggressive blitz and elements of the safe zone coverage and run fits/support. And, a big part of what made it effective is the deception/disguise. Everybody in the back 7 were moving, buzzing up and back, and the OL/QB would be very taxed to try to know before the snap who was coming and where they were going to be coming from. So, sending 5 in this way could very well provide more pressure on the QB than just sending 6 with less disguise.

As ibeeballin pointed out in his vids, we actually ran some similar stunts in the first series against BC. Bench-Falcon-9-Anchor ... a zone dog where the Sam comes off the edge, the DE big sticks (crash inside hard), and the Mike loops through the B-gap. Weak DE actually drops into coverage. We're playing 3 deep behind it. So, you've got the Will covering the middle who is also able to run to the ball freely in case a ball carrier gets through the penetration from the zone-dog, the weak DE covering the hook/curl/flat and acting as an outside force player on that side, a safety buzzed up to cover hook/curl/flat on the other side and acting as outside force defender. Then you've got another safety and 2 corners playing cover 3 behind all that. The buzz-safety and WDE are taught to anticipate and take away the quick throw which takes away the QB's hot route. Again, you have the benefit of aggressive defense without sacrificing the conservativeness of zone support behind it (thus still minimizing chance of a big offensive play that gets by/behind everybody - you heard ibeeballin say it - "Live to play another down").

When we ran this against BC, it was wide open for a big sack (possibly a strip-sack) both times on the first series. The lane for the Mike was wide open, unimpeded to the QB. Once the Mike just inexplicably decided to go into the trash inside instead of looping through the lane in the B-gap. Another time he does loop correctly and is immediately in on the QB for a sack but the QB steps up and easily avoids the Mike who slips down and makes it into a positive run rather than a sack. So, when we run this stuff, it isn't getting home ... why? Lack of disguise or simply lacking making the play. Why didn't the mike make the play? Was it the player, was it lack of coaching up, lack of reps doing that kind of stuff, or maybe we chalk it up to first game mistakes. One was bench-falcon, another was tomahawk I believe ibeeballin said. I don't remember that one as much. Was that a Tenuta stunt @Ibeeballin ? I remember most of his being named after birds and drinks and weather. My mind is getting fuzzier, but I seem to remember bird names being zone-dogs, drink names were blitzes (man free?), and weather names were sending 7 (0 - man-coverage).

My whole point is that simply saying "We need to be more aggressive" or "We need to blitz more" is not going to be sufficient to cause our defense to get better results. It has to be whole-sale systematic defensive play. And, it has to be sound and complimentary to everything else you're doing on defense and compatible with all of your different personnel packages.

I agree. I am not one of those who has been saying, "We need to get more aggressive." I was just trying to understand what people meant by this. What you describe, and what @Ibeeballin seemed to confirm, is the style that CTR employed at Penn State and how he generally described his defensive philosophy before coming to Tech (apply pressure without giving up the big play). Saturday, it appeared to me that Tech's main problem was just not quite being up to game speed, either because first game of the year or jet lag. Others suggest it is lack of personnel.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I thought I heard cpj say something about 7 yards but I think it was on passing downs because it was around 8 yards per play. Also we weren't playing a very good offense, and it's hard to say we would have been at 4.5 if not for a long run without taking out the long runs from the other two season if we are going to compare them. It's football and stuff like that happens. we were awful at angles, tackling, and having our eyes in the right place. If we would have been playing a better offense we would have been in trouble imo.

When one single data point skews an average to such a degree, it's an anomaly.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yes, the one long play is better than a 17-play ram it down our throat thing because it seems like cutting out the one big play is easier to fix than getting physically dominated. BUT, there is no validity in throwing it out when looking at our YPP because the YPP stat is going to be one that we use as a comparative stat - we're in competition with every other team. So, throwing out our long play would mean every other team should throw out their long play. You've got to keep the whole body of work in there if you want to have a valid comparison to other teams. I'm not as worried about getting less than 6 ypp as much as I am getting in the top 40 in ypp. We don't have to be a perfect football team to win a NC, we just have to be better than everyone else. Plus, a long TD will beat you (and almost did) on the scoreboard the same as a short one will.

I agree and disagree. Bottom line, we held 'em to 14 points. I think your last statement is more of an indictment of our offense than our defense. If we have to hold our opponent to 7 points, we're screwed and it's not the defenses' fault.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

FTRS has a new segment of The Little Big Plays

http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2016/9/7/12806744/georgia-tech-football-little-big-plays---week-1

 

[cmathis]

I just wish CPJ showed a little more "ownership" on that side of the ball. I realize the O is CPJ's baby to some degree, and I do think he wants a good D, but it just feels like he lets Roof and the D assistants do their own thing over there. I don't like it when CPJ says to the media, "we need to a better job of bringing pressure," or something to that effect. If CPJ wants to be more aggressive on D, he should just tell Roof that's the style he wants to run. Stuff like that makes me think there's not much communication between CPJ and the D coaches.

I really have no clue about what goes on behind the scenes, but something just doesn't add up with what CPJ says and how our D plays...JMO

That's exactly what he did in 2014. He said something to the effect that our offense was so good, that he just wanted the D to play aggressively and get off the field so the offense could get back on. If they scored, whatever. If they didn't, great. He just knew that even if they did score, our offense was good enough to answer, and take a LONG time doing it.

People questioned CPJ last year about why the defense didn't play aggressively, and he said it was because the offense wasn't near as capable. If we see our offense return to 2014 form, we'll see a more aggressive D. If not, we won't. It's not that he doesn't show "ownership". It's that he realizes what works best in our system, and realizes that taking a chance and playing aggressively with a very sub-par offense is a bad idea.

 

[tech_wreck47]

When one single data point skews an average to such a degree, it's an anomaly.

I agree with that, my point is if we are going to compare prior stats and then compare the first game of this season with those stats, compare them the same way, don't say what we gave up in ypp in prior years and then say without the long run it would have been down to 4.5 ypp this year, because we gave up big plays those other years as well. And beyond that even though we only gave up 14 our D did not look good, we could have given up way less yards if we would have taken proper angles, keep our eyes in the right place and made tackles even with the bad weather, but we didn't do those things. We had 3 missed sacks, if we do that against a Clemson, Miami, or unc type O we would be in more trouble imo, honestly Boston college doesn't have a good O.

 

[vamosjackets]

I agree and disagree. Bottom line, we held 'em to 14 points. I think your last statement is more of an indictment of our offense than our defense. If we have to hold our opponent to 7 points, we're screwed and it's not the defenses' fault.

Oh, I agree with you on that. For the record, I have no opinion on our 2016 defense yet. I see reasons for optimism and pessimism Saturday, and more of the former than the latter. I enjoyed the way we mostly stopped the run Saturday and the way Simmons got to the backfield, and of course holding them to 14 points and winning the game. BUT, you've got to look at the ypp and ppd of the opponent and how your ypp and ppd compare to the average of that opponent so that you know where you stand relative to the rest of the teams in CFB. Wayyyy too early in the season to get anything useful out of those metrics. It's not too favorable compared to last year's version of the BC offense, but it could be good compared to this year's version with their new QB ... no way to judge yet. I see good and bad in our defense so far and am pulling for them as well as the offense to get to the highest level they are capable.

All I was saying in the previous post is that you can't/shouldn't throw out the big plays when doing a meaningful comparison of your team vs others.

 

[GTBandit22]

Sitting in my hotel waiting for my flight back to the States tomorrow.
I'm proud of the effort and can't really comment on the game as I haven't watched the replay yet.
I will say that I'm proud of our fellow yellow jackets and can't wait to see you all Saturday. Let's make it 2-0!!