Postgame GT 23 - Ole Miss 48

[croberts]

Basically OMiss started 3 of our best defenders on Saturday through the portal system. Imagine if we had those guys and 3 of their other starters.
I’m not complaining, as our offense is much improved through the same process. I’m super excited about our QB and the wide receiver room. I was cracking up listening to the bobble heads saying we didn’t have any deep threats to stretch the D.

 

[RamblinRed]

Basically OMiss started 3 of our best defenders on Saturday through the portal system. Imagine if we had those guys and 3 of their other starters.
I’m not complaining, as our offense is much improved through the same process. I’m super excited about our QB and the wide receiver room. I was cracking up listening to the bobble heads saying we didn’t have any deep threats to stretch the D.

The issue may be less that we don't have deep threats and more that we don't have an OL that will allow the O time to utilize the deep threats.
GT took very few deep shots Saturday and I believe alot of it was that the OC didn't believe his QB would be given enough time to make those throws.

 

[danny daniel]

I think a big issue on defense is that we are playing soft coverage because we lack the talent in our front six to create havoc behind the line of scrimmage. We are trying to limit big plays and our defensive backs are back peddling because the line gives the other team too much time. Then, the safeties and corners struggle to adjust direction on running plays and end up missing tackles. If we are going to continue to play 4-2-5, then we need the front six to step and make plays and not rely on the DB to make so many tackles.

Agree. I reran several of the big OLE Miss running plays. On the wide plays the DEs are most pften caught inside, either easily blocked because they let the blocker get outside position or they take an inside charge and are no help. They seemed to move toward where the ball was on the snap and not recognize soon enough where the ball is going. The linebackers seem to be keying on OL and early backfield movement and they often move laterally or backward flowing with that movement and not getting a bead on the ballcarrier. They often just maneuver themselves out of the play. Both groups are too often tackling from the side or behind which just helps the runner get more yards.

When our LBs or DBs make a one on one tackle (rare) they are bowled over in a mismatch of strength. As one poster so well put it, we catch the runner and not hit him. We are losing most of the one on one engages. Our poor open field tackling is partially due to lack of speed to get there, or not being where we need to be soon enough, not wrapping up, and losing the strength battle. Watch closely and you will see the Ole Miss tacklers putting big hits on our runners (poor Cooley) and their rinning backs bowling over and through our LBs and DBs.

These problems seem to be coaching details and scheme, player football IQ and instincts, and physical mismatches. There also seems to be a habit of quit when the game starts south. I am not buying the argument of depth/playing tired as the reason for our poor D performance.

The D needs to do what the O has done, a complete turnaround from previous bad play.

 

[roadkill]

Certainly I'm no expert, but it seems to me that our offense is not a good offense to try and do ball control. Seems to me that a passing offense needs to have the threat of the long ball working for it to be effective and ball control would mean when passing it needs to be shorter passes. The TO would seem to be the ideal ball control offense.
I know we were doing what we had to do, knowing we did not have what it takes on defense to slow Ole Miss down, but just wondering if the ball control game plan help limit us to just 3 pts first half. Don't know that I'm right just asking the question.

Assuming it was deliberate, our offense was successful at ball control in the first half, limiting Ole Miss to just 3 or 4 possessions and 10 points. Unfortunately, we left 10 points on the field, else we would have had the lead at halftime.
In the second half, we had to change pace after Ole Miss started to get further ahead and we didn't have as much clock to work with.

 

[tmhunter52]

550 yards in 56 plays.

Ouch

 

[roadkill]

Agree. I reran several of the big OLE Miss running plays. On the wide plays the DEs are most pften caught inside, either easily blocked because they let the blocker get outside position or they take an inside charge and are no help. They seemed to move toward where the ball was on the snap and not recognize soon enough where the ball is going. The linebackers seem to be keying on OL and early backfield movement and they often move laterally or backward flowing with that movement and not getting a bead on the ballcarrier. They often just maneuver themselves out of the play. Both groups are too often tackling from the side or behind which just helps the runner get more yards.

When our LBs or DBs make a one on one tackle (rare) they are bowled over in a mismatch of strength. As one poster so well put it, we catch the runner and not hit him. We are losing most of the one on one engages. Our poor open field tackling is partially due to lack of speed to get there, or not being where we need to be soon enough, not wrapping up, and losing the strength battle. Watch closely and you will see the Ole Miss tacklers putting big hits on our runners (poor Cooley) and their rinning backs bowling over and through our LBs and DBs.

These problems seem to be coaching details and scheme, player football IQ and instincts, and physical mismatches. There also seems to be a habit of quit when the game starts south. I am not buying the argument of depth/playing tired as the reason for our poor D performance.

The D needs to do what the O has done, a complete turnaround from previous bad play.

I keep going back to our apparent lack of speed. Speed gives you momentum, which gives you hitting force. It also helps you position yourself for a proper tackle. When you're out of position and/or late getting to the ball carrier, you have to reach out with your arms. The result is often a missed arm tackle. I also noticed our guys trying to tackle high around the shoulder pads, which allows the runner to out-leverage you. The latter tendency should be able to be coached out, but the lack of speed cannot.

 

[Golden Tornadoes]

I'm extremely tired of the excuse that the "defense was just gassed". If they are consistently gassed, then why have a S&C program? It's obviously not helping any. When you run 89 offensive plays to their 56 and have almost double their TOP, your defense shouldn't be getting gassed. The offense has done their job in keeping your defense off the field and letting them rest up between drives. That's all you can ask for. It's time the "defense was just gassed" argument to die and for us to paint a different narrative. Is it a depth issue? Possibly. Is it coaching? Probably. But it isn't a conditioning issue. Not for this game....Not unless the defensive players decided they didn't want to participate in S&C.

 

[jeffgt14]

Assuming it was deliberate, our offense was successful at ball control in the first half, limiting Ole Miss to just 3 or 4 possessions and 10 points. Unfortunately, we left 10 points on the field, else we would have had the lead at halftime.
In the second half, we had to change pace after Ole Miss started to get further ahead and we didn't have as much clock to work with.

We can talk about the defense all we want but leaving those points off the board is huge. It's college football against an offensive guru. Sometimes you have to win the shootouts and unfortunately we couldn't score when we needed too. Ole Miss at times was just as bend but don't break as we were. They just succeeded at the don't break part (mostly our own doing).

 

[roadkill]

We can talk about the defense all we want but leaving those points off the board is huge. It's college football against an offensive guru. Sometimes you have to win the shootouts and unfortunately we couldn't score when we needed too. Ole Miss at times was just as bend but don't break as we were. They just succeeded at the don't break part (mostly our own doing).

Agree it would have been significant if we had at least tied the game at half. Our D, however, failed at the "don't break" part in the second half, particularly in Q4.

 

[GT33]

I'm extremely tired of the excuse that the "defense was just gassed". If they are consistently gassed, then why have a S&C program? It's obviously not helping any. When you run 89 offensive plays to their 56 and have almost double their TOP, your defense shouldn't be getting gassed. The offense has done their job in keeping your defense off the field and letting them rest up between drives. That's all you can ask for. It's time the "defense was just gassed" argument to die and for us to paint a different narrative. Is it a depth issue? Possibly. Is it coaching? Probably. But it isn't a conditioning issue. Not for this game....Not unless the defensive players decided they didn't want to participate in S&C.

If you’re a P5 scholarship athlete and you can’t muster 10 mins of physical activity over 3 hrs there’s something radically wrong with both you and your coach. We defended 56 plays Saturday not 90. If anyone should have been gassed they would have been wearing red and blue.

 

[Ramble1885]

It was a seven-point game with eight minutes left. Not too bad, really, if you look at it that way.

I know, just a bit upset with how quickly the score got out of hand.

 

[4shotB]

The D needs to do what the O has done, a complete turnaround from previous bad play.

the O turnaround was done in the offseason with a hire of a new OC and the recruitment of a seasoned QB. I don't think a turnaround in season is realistics given the other things you pointed out. Yes we did see a significant jump last season when Collins was fired but this team is without the 3 best players from that unit plus the injury to the DE plus the loss of a few key guys to the portal. I don't look for there to be a step improvement during the course of the season. We have never seen that (outside of the exception noted already) even in years past when we have tried to "simplify" things. No matter how bad it gets, i hope CBK refrains from using that phrase!

 

[TampaBuzz]

I have been reading this thread and want to offer a comment. I think we can all agree that we had no expectation to beat Louisville or Ole Miss. Wasn't the general expectation that we would actually look like a football team and not a clown show? I don't get all the gloom and doom; we knew the defense was gonna regress this year; we hoped the offense would improve, and we hoped special teams would be better. What I see is an offense that is greatly improved in all phases. The defense has regressed (arguably more than expected) and I hope they figure it out quickly - because we need someone to step up and be a disrupter. Special teams are (also arguably) slightly better - no blocked punts this year, and kick coverage is better. Still need to improve on the field goal kicking (it was just as bad last year after 3 games), but I think it will get better.

Watching the Ole Miss game was a painful emotional roller coaster. Going into the game and at the end of the 1st quarter, I was resigned to a big loss with little emotional engagement and could only laugh at the chain gang shenanigans. At half, the team had me feeling vaguely hopeful (dangerous with GT football) since we were only down 7. Early in the 3rd I again resigned myself to a big loss. Then late 3rd and early 4th, I was actually getting really excited and almost(?) confident that we were gonna figure out a way to pull the upset. Then the wheels fell off. So, we ended with the pre-game expected kind of result; but the team fought and that is what I want to see (along with wins against lesser competition) right now. The wins against high level competition will come.

As stupid as it sounds....I want a reason to sit on the edge of my seat, pace the floor, and yell at the TV again when we are playing. The last few years it has been turn on the TV, get beer, lie down on the sofa and submit to three hours of numbness expecting disaster on every play.

 

[roadkill]

I’m not against firing him today. But the simple fact is Key won’t. We can argue it either way, but in the coaching fraternity you have to follow the unwritten rules or you’ll lose your membership card. No coach wants that because they all know they are destined to be fired and need the membership card to get the next job. And unfortunately our dwindling fanbase doesn’t have to be convinced of anything because we are a non-factor.

More of an observation rather than a prediction, but no one has mentioned that Key brought in a veteran coach to be co-defensive coordinator. Obvious choice for an interim guy if necessary. Just sayin'.

 

[slugboy]

the O turnaround was done in the offseason with a hire of a new OC and the recruitment of a seasoned QB. I don't think a turnaround in season is realistics given the other things you pointed out. Yes we did see a significant jump last season when Collins was fired but this team is without the 3 best players from that unit plus the injury to the DE plus the loss of a few key guys to the portal. I don't look for there to be a step improvement during the course of the season. We have never seen that (outside of the exception noted already) even in years past when we have tried to "simplify" things. No matter how bad it gets, i hope CBK refrains from using that phrase!

I think some starting positions will be up for grabs this week. Some players looked bad in the last 8 minutes.

The transfer portal is a fact of life. We got a receiver from Alabama and our QB is from TA&M. We benefited some—and in the offseason the talk was about how well we’d done in the portal. Yes, we lost 3 really good defenders. Good teams replace departures with other players.

Our defense is less effective than other schools. As an example, Charlotte held SCST to fewer points and yards than we did.

If you look at F+ (a combination of FEI and SP+), it ranked our defense at #75 after week 2. I think it will drop after the Ole Miss game is factored in. Wyoming, Army, San Diego State, Sam Houston, Northwestern, FAU, VT, Troy, Fresno State, Texas Tech, and a lot of teams not known for defense or their recruiting advantages over us are ranked better.

We have an excuse to drop off from last year. It’s not an excuse for how badly we’ve played though. Early grade for defense is a D-.

 

[GTpdm]

If you’re a P5 scholarship athlete and you can’t muster 10 mins of physical activity over 3 hrs there’s something radically wrong with both you and your coach. We defended 56 plays Saturday not 90. If anyone should have been gassed they would have been wearing red and blue.

Nah. The Ole Miss defense kept getting those freebie "breather" timeouts while the refs fumbled around pretending to have equipment problems...

 

[tmhunter52]

I think some starting positions will be up for grabs this week. Some players looked bad in the last 8 minutes.

The transfer portal is a fact of life. We got a receiver from Alabama and our QB is from TA&M. We benefited some—and in the offseason the talk was about how well we’d done in the portal. Yes, we lost 3 really good defenders. Good teams replace departures with other players.

Our defense is less effective than other schools. As an example, Charlotte held SCST to fewer points and yards than we did.

If you look at F+ (a combination of FEI and SP+), it ranked our defense at #75 after week 2. I think it will drop after the Ole Miss game is factored in. Wyoming, Army, San Diego State, Sam Houston, Northwestern, FAU, VT, Troy, Fresno State, Texas Tech, and a lot of teams not known for defense or their recruiting advantages over us are ranked better.

We have an excuse to drop off from last year. It’s not an excuse for how badly we’ve played though. Early grade for defense is a D-.

You are grading on the curve, right?

 

[4shotB]

I think some starting positions will be up for grabs this week. Some players looked bad in the last 8 minutes.

The transfer portal is a fact of life. We got a receiver from Alabama and our QB is from TA&M. We benefited some—and in the offseason the talk was about how well we’d done in the portal. Yes, we lost 3 really good defenders. Good teams replace departures with other players.

Our defense is less effective than other schools. As an example, Charlotte held SCST to fewer points and yards than we did.

If you look at F+ (a combination of FEI and SP+), it ranked our defense at #75 after week 2. I think it will drop after the Ole Miss game is factored in. Wyoming, Army, San Diego State, Sam Houston, Northwestern, FAU, VT, Troy, Fresno State, Texas Tech, and a lot of teams not known for defense or their recruiting advantages over us are ranked better.

We have an excuse to drop off from last year. It’s not an excuse for how badly we’ve played though. Early grade for defense is a D-.

I understand what you are saying logically. What i am having trouble with, after the last 10-15 years or whatever, is that it is apparently impossible for the coaches to fix the issue during the course of a season for whatever reason. If they knew what to do, they would have already done it. It sounds a bit jaded or harsh but how many bad D's and coordinators have we seen in these years??? I have come to believe that to quote one pretty smart guy, iiwii.

 

[GT33]

Nah. The Ole Miss defense kept getting those freebie "breather" timeouts while the refs fumbled around pretending to have equipment problems...

Duh, I forgot about that already!

I don’t know why old people get so mean when you forget bad stuff so quickly. You’d think we’d be a happier group.

 

[CEB]

I have been reading this thread and want to offer a comment. I think we can all agree that we had no expectation to beat Louisville or Ole Miss. Wasn't the general expectation that we would actually look like a football team and not a clown show? I don't get all the gloom and doom; we knew the defense was gonna regress this year; we hoped the offense would improve, and we hoped special teams would be better. What I see is an offense that is greatly improved in all phases. The defense has regressed (arguably more than expected) and I hope they figure it out quickly - because we need someone to step up and be a disrupter. Special teams are (also arguably) slightly better - no blocked punts this year, and kick coverage is better. Still need to improve on the field goal kicking (it was just as bad last year after 3 games), but I think it will get better.

Watching the Ole Miss game was a painful emotional roller coaster. Going into the game and at the end of the 1st quarter, I was resigned to a big loss with little emotional engagement and could only laugh at the chain gang shenanigans. At half, the team had me feeling vaguely hopeful (dangerous with GT football) since we were only down 7. Early in the 3rd I again resigned myself to a big loss. Then late 3rd and early 4th, I was actually getting really excited and almost(?) confident that we were gonna figure out a way to pull the upset. Then the wheels fell off. So, we ended with the pre-game expected kind of result; but the team fought and that is what I want to see (along with wins against lesser competition) right now. The wins against high level competition will come.

As stupid as it sounds....I want a reason to sit on the edge of my seat, pace the floor, and yell at the TV again when we are playing. The last few years it has been turn on the TV, get beer, lie down on the sofa and submit to three hours of numbness expecting disaster on every play.

Agreed!
Nobody expected 3-0 start, and only the most optimistic projected 2-1. Eventually we are going to have to outperform expectations, but this is pretty much the start we assumed.

The D is an issue… obviously. We have to get off the field. However, I also think we’ve run up against a couple of pretty good offenses. Time will tell… it’s quite possible that we made them look good. We’re playing a lot of guys with little experience on the D front right now, made even worse with Sylvian out. We have not been good, but I also don’t see any reason to think that we can’t get a lot better relatively quickly. Hopefully the O can help shoulder that burden for us. We don’t have to lock down on anyone, but we have to have enough timely stops to give our O a chance.

The O… it’s certainly a pleasant surprise and something we haven’t seen here for a while. King has been better than expected and people are stepping up around him. HOWEVER… one glaring reality I see is that we have been “out-adjusted” in both of our big games. Lville flat out shut us down offensively in the second half. Maybe the second qtr went a little too well and we relaxed a bit, but the second half was night and day difference. Similarly, we got points on the board before the half to get within a score of Ole Miss. We get the ball to start the 3rd with a chance to really put some pressure on them. O does nothing, D gives up TD and we are stuck playing catch up the rest of the night.

Something has to change in the locker room at the half. I’m not going to pretend to know anything that goes on, but in both losses, we’ve gotten whipped in the 3rd quarter on both sides of the ball.