Sewak

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
I agree with @Boomergump that there's a lot of evidence for good coaching despite inconsistent play at times. I disagree with @33jacket that our OL play has been mediocre. Don't get me wrong, I think there's room for improvement in terms of both coaching and talent. However, the fact is that we've been top 11 in yards per carry every year since CPJ has been our coach. That doesn't happen with just mediocre line play. From 2008 to 2011, we were top 10, even against FBS opponents and in 2012-2013 we were still top 25 against FBS.
 

GTL

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
235
Coach McWhorter will never be the coach at Tech. In fact, he has never been considered, will never be considered, and should never be considered for Tech.
Why? Because he's a UGA grad?

Or do you mean considered as HC material? If so, I can agree with that, but he's been a very good assistant here and elsewhere.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,463
Location
Poquoson Virginia
I agree with @Boomergump that there's a lot of evidence for good coaching despite inconsistent play at times. I disagree with @33jacket that our OL play has been mediocre. Don't get me wrong, I think there's room for improvement in terms of both coaching and talent. However, the fact is that we've been top 11 in yards per carry every year since CPJ has been our coach. That doesn't happen with just mediocre line play. From 2008 to 2011, we were top 10, even against FBS opponents and in 2012-2013 we were still top 25 against FBS.

We can't pass block and are 120th in pass offense. In fact, the passing game is so bad that our heralded running game becomes a 44th best total offense. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

Now the inability to pass block, throw and catch doesn't all fall on the OL. But to only talk about rushing is cherry picking the data.

We lose against good teams (e.g. those ranked above 40th in Power Rankings at the time). It's because we don't put up as many points as our D gives up (tic).

A team with a 44th best total O is mediocre in my mind. You have to be balanced and we aren't. So the OL is part of the team and just because our one trick pony offense can run against most teams doesn't make the offense great.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
We can't pass block and are 120th in pass offense. In fact, the passing game is so bad that our heralded running game becomes a 44th best total offense. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

Now the inability to pass block, throw and catch doesn't all fall on the OL. But to only talk about rushing is cherry picking the data.

We lose against good teams (e.g. those ranked above 40th in Power Rankings at the time). It's because we don't put up as many points as our D gives up (tic).

A team with a 44th best total O is mediocre in my mind. You have to be balanced and we aren't.

Thanks for the response. If you peruse my postings in this forum or pay attention to my future postings, you'll find that I'm a big fan of stats. However, you have to be careful with your use of stats. I was not cherry picking the stats.

Your stats, on the other hand are misleading. For example, the "pass offence" stat that you cite is yards/game. A moment's reflection will reveal that a team that throws the ball 11 times a game won't get as passing yards as a team that throws 50 times. So, if you notice, I didn't cite "rushing offense" stat in which we've been in the top 6 every year but yards/carry. If you look at yards/attempt, we were 20th last year passing, 2nd in 2012, 1st in 2011, (92nd in 2010), 1st in 2009, and 23rd in 2008. Being top 2 in yards/attempt 3 of 6 years and top 25 for 5 of 6 years should not be considered mediocre.

This brings us to your Total Offense stat. This stat again reflects yards/game but does not reflect the fact that teams that run the ball more eat-up more clock resulting in fewer plays and fewer possessions (meaning fewer plays and fewer possessions for their opponents as well).
 

jacketup

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
998
However, the fact is that we've been top 11 in yards per carry every year since CPJ has been our coach.

Just to clarify, number 23 in yards per carry in 2013 against FBS. We probably spend more time practicing run blocking than almost anyone, other than schools that don't have University in their name.

If you want to see good run blocking, watch Wisconsin. I admit that I don't blame Kinlaw for wanting to be a feature back behind that line.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,583
We lose against good teams (e.g. those ranked above 40th in Power Rankings at the time). It's because we don't put up as many points as our D gives up (tic).
Ah. You see the problem.

Tech fans spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the offense. This has always mystified me. It is plain as a pike staff that our problem over the last 5 years has been on the other side of the ball. If you have the TOP we do, score around 33 - 35 points a game, and still get beat 5 or 6 times a season, then you do not have a problem on offense. You have a problem on defense.

Query = has that problem been addressed so far? Answer = no. Hence the emphasis in this year's recruiting class on DBs; i.e. the source of our biggest problems on that side of the ball. Let's hope that works out within the next 2 - 3 years.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
You have to be balanced and we aren't.

Who says? Last time I checked you have to score points. Doesn't matter how.

Ah. You see the problem.

Tech fans spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the offense. This has always mystified me. It is plain as a pike staff that our problem over the last 5 years has been on the other side of the ball. If you have the TOP we do, score around 33 - 35 points a game, and still get beat 5 or 6 times a season, then you do not have a problem on offense. You have a problem on defense.

Query = has that problem been addressed so far? Answer = no. Hence the emphasis in this year's recruiting class on DBs; i.e. the source of our biggest problems on that side of the ball. Let's hope that works out within the next 2 - 3 years.

But but but but but the offense! It's different than what everyone else does! So that means it's wrong!
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,463
Location
Poquoson Virginia
You gotta be balanced so that when you face other teams that take away your one trick, you still have a chance. And by being able to run or pass, you spread the D.

I should have said it (I did many times on GTSportsTalk), but you need to be good on O, D and ST. And ST has about 4 to 6 independent parts, most of which we are ok on. We are ok on O (44th), getting better on D (28th this year after 43rd in 2012) and getting better on ST. Problem is that we haven't had the horsepower to beat teams ranked above about 40th.

So last year, the problem was the O. And that is CPJ's ugly baby after 6 years.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
You gotta be balanced so that when you face other teams that take away your one trick, you still have a chance. And by being able to run or pass, you spread the D.

I should have said it (I did many times on GTSportsTalk), but you need to be good on O, D and ST. And ST has about 4 to 6 independent parts, most of which we are ok on. We are ok on O (44th), getting better on D (28th this year after 43rd in 2012) and getting better on ST. Problem is that we haven't had the horsepower to beat teams ranked above about 40th.

So last year, the problem was the O. And that is CPJ's ugly baby after 6 years.

This is just an incredible misreading of the data, imo. You simply ignored the fact I presented in my last post about how misleading the total offense rankings are. Let me try and explain what I mean with reference to scoring rather than yards. If GT and their opponents each average 10 possessions in the game, and GT's offense scores 30 pts and their defense allows 15 on average they would be ranked the same in scoring offense and scoring defense as a team that averaged 15 drives/game. However, GT would have averaged 3pts/drive on offense and allowed 1.5 pts/drive on D while the other team would have averaged 2pts/drive on offense and allowed 1pt/drive on defense. In other words, by averaging fewer drives per game our offense is under valued and our defense in over-valued.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,463
Location
Poquoson Virginia
This is just an incredible misreading of the data, imo. You simply ignored the fact I presented in my last post about how misleading the total offense rankings are. Let me try and explain what I mean with reference to scoring rather than yards. If GT and their opponents each average 10 possessions in the game, and GT's offense scores 30 pts and their defense allows 15 on average they would be ranked the same in scoring offense and scoring defense as a team that averaged 15 drives/game. However, GT would have averaged 3pts/drive on offense and allowed 1.5 pts/drive on D while the other team would have averaged 2pts/drive on offense and allowed 1pt/drive on defense. In other words, by averaging fewer drives per game our offense is under valued and our defense in over-valued.

What you say is true: when the O and the ST do well, they put the D in a better position to do well. The O can do well by holding the ball and forcing the D to have to face the team fewer times. Likewise, the ST can pin the O deep and give the D more opportunities to stop the other O before they score.

Looking at scoring O, we were 26th in the country last year. But doing that well was largely since we played two FCS teams - scoring 66 and 70. If you take either game and give us our average scoring of about 32 points for playing a real team, we drop to 42nd in scoring O. That seems about right.

I realize I'm playing with numbers; the number I like the best is Power Ranking for the team overall since all the parts fit together as you pointed out. Plus Power Ranking takes into account Strength of Schedule and Home/Away. By that measure, our team was 40th last year. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf2013.htm

The scoring D was 29th and much improved from previous years (65th scoring D in 2012). Playing the same game by changing one of our FCS games to a real one, our D goes to about 47th in scoring D. So the D is clearly getting better.

But back to my point / frustration, our O is not getting better and is usually impotent against top 40 teams.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
What you say is true: when the O and the ST do well, they put the D in a better position to do well. The O can do well by holding the ball and forcing the D to have to face the team fewer times. Likewise, the ST can pin the O deep and give the D more opportunities to stop the other O before they score.

Looking at scoring O, we were 26th in the country last year. But doing that well was largely since we played two FCS teams - scoring 66 and 70. If you take either game and give us our average scoring of about 32 points for playing a real team, we drop to 42nd in scoring O. That seems about right.

I realize I'm playing with numbers; the number I like the best is Power Ranking for the team overall since all the parts fit together as you pointed out. Plus Power Ranking takes into account Strength of Schedule and Home/Away. By that measure, our team was 40th last year. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf2013.htm

The scoring D was 29th and much improved from previous years (65th scoring D in 2012). Playing the same game by changing one of our FCS games to a real one, our D goes to about 47th in scoring D. So the D is clearly getting better.

But back to my point / frustration, our O is not getting better and is usually impotent against top 40 teams.
Nuke, I am trying to understand your point. When you remove the FCS games from the offense's record to obtain the adjusted ranking, are you doing the same for all the other teams? or are they keeping their results against their FCS competition? I only ask because that would skew the argument some. In any case. We need to be more consistent on offense, especially against good teams.
 

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
We can't pass block and are 120th in pass offense. In fact, the passing game is so bad that our heralded running game becomes a 44th best total offense. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category10/sort01.html

Now the inability to pass block, throw and catch doesn't all fall on the OL. But to only talk about rushing is cherry picking the data.

We lose against good teams (e.g. those ranked above 40th in Power Rankings at the time). It's because we don't put up as many points as our D gives up (tic).

A team with a 44th best total O is mediocre in my mind. You have to be balanced and we aren't. So the OL is part of the team and just because our one trick pony offense can run against most teams doesn't make the offense great.

Opposing defenses didn't respect our run game as much this past season. Vad just took too long to develop plays and was indecisive. We also lacked a true threat at B-Back. In years past, the dive was what defenses tried to shut down. If we get the dive going again, we'll see safeties start to cheat up and we can BURN EM with a much-improved WR unit.
 

Rodney Kent

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
558
Location
McDonough, GA
GTL: I don't think he will ever be a coach at GT again in any capacity. His presence would be too devisive from the past squabble over his rejection of the head coaching job. He was told he would not get the HC job, but was insistant that he get an interview. He was finally given an interview at his insistance, but it was not a serious one. No, I don't think he will ever be back at Tech in any capacity.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
Opposing defenses didn't respect our run game as much this past season. Vad just took too long to develop plays and was indecisive. We also lacked a true threat at B-Back. In years past, the dive was what defenses tried to shut down. If we get the dive going again, we'll see safeties start to cheat up and we can BURN EM with a much-improved WR unit.
In 2013 defenses tried to crash the gaps and force quick instinctive decisions out of Vad if he wanted to run the option. They got to watch film, just like we did, and they could see Vad tentative and hesitant. So, we didn't run as much option as we normally do and had to resort to a plethora of called dives and rocket tosses. If we did option it was usually the double option variety off a fake TO look. We had to pound out yards last season with physical play up front and also RG making something out of nothing. There wasn't really any fooling the defense. It really wasn't hard to find the football. It will be interesting to see how D's scheme against us next season and how smoothly we run TO..
 

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
In 2013 defenses tried to crash the gaps and force quick instinctive decisions out of Vad if he wanted to run the option. They got to watch film, just like we did, and they could see Vad tentative and hesitant. So, we didn't run as much option as we normally do and had to resort to a plethora of called dives and rocket tosses. If we did option it was usually the double option variety off a fake TO look. We had to pound out yards last season with physical play up front and also RG making something out of nothing. There wasn't really any fooling the defense. It really wasn't hard to find the football. It will be interesting to see how D's scheme against us next season and how smoothly we run TO..

Went back and watched the latter half of the Syracuse game (full thing on youtube) and watched JT. Gotta say that the option is almost instinctual for this guy. There was a play where he was running to the outside, had a defender around his ankles, noticed his pitch man was still there, and made a great pitch that resulted in a nice chunk of yards and 1st down.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,672
Went back and watched the latter half of the Syracuse game (full thing on youtube) and watched JT. Gotta say that the option is almost instinctual for this guy. There was a play where he was running to the outside, had a defender around his ankles, noticed his pitch man was still there, and made a great pitch that resulted in a nice chunk of yards and 1st down.
Vad ran the ball and the option very well in that game. Why it fell apart later is a mystery.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,463
Location
Poquoson Virginia
In 2013 defenses tried to crash the gaps and force quick instinctive decisions out of Vad if he wanted to run the option. They got to watch film, just like we did, and they could see Vad tentative and hesitant. So, we didn't run as much option as we normally do and had to resort to a plethora of called dives and rocket tosses. If we did option it was usually the double option variety off a fake TO look. We had to pound out yards last season with physical play up front and also RG making something out of nothing. There wasn't really any fooling the defense. It really wasn't hard to find the football. It will be interesting to see how D's scheme against us next season and how smoothly we run TO..

Q: So why did CPJ play Vad so much?

A: Because he was the best CPJ thought we had. As you know Boomer, I've been continually making the point that we need to play two QBs regularly to develop the second one. I made the case based on probable injury. I didn't expect Vad to bolt.

Anytime your starting QB leaves as a rSo, it is bad. Now it's worse since JT wasn't developed as much. Or Byerly.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,672
Went back and watched the latter half of the Syracuse game (full thing on youtube) and watched JT. Gotta say that the option is almost instinctual for this guy. There was a play where he was running to the outside, had a defender around his ankles, noticed his pitch man was still there, and made a great pitch that resulted in a nice chunk of yards and 1st down.
1:34:34

 
Top