Smoke Screen On Statistics

[Rodney Kent]

The article in the AJC stating that PJ's teams are in line with Tech's history of football is completely misleading. It stated that Tech has never had a consistent record of double-digit winning seasons. This may be so, but it is also true of most teams in the NCAA.

In the past, there were only ten games. If your record was 9-1, it was not double-digit, but it was a 90% winning record. Only a fraction of the teams in the nation held consistent double-digit seasons, and most of the time, these teams could go 9-1 and then win a bowl game to get into the double-digit rating. This was extremely hard to do in the past.

Tech would go 7-3 in a season and get left out of the bowl games because there were so few bowl games. There were other good teams with the same problem.

Coaches should never be graded on the their double-digit seasons or their number of bowl games. Almost any team can now go to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. In fact, a few have gone to bowl games with a 6-7 record.

All coaches should be rated on their percentage of wins and never on their total number of wins per year. A Tech team that had a record of 7-3 was more deserving than a Tech team with a 7-6 record. PJ's record by percentage has not been very good in the recent past. In fact, the truth of the matter is that he had his best two years before the defenses caught up with his offenses. We cannot blame any of it on the defenses, because none of his teams have had a good defensive team, not even last year's team. However, most people do not like the truth.

I would not have made this post if the article had not appeared in the AJC showing a one-sided affair. This post was made to show the fallacy of the assumptions made in the AJC article.

 

[prifle2]

Kent,

Dating back through almost 50 years of Tech football, you are correct that the paper did a spin job on Paul Johnson being consistent with past coaches. The truth is he has the second best winning percentage of any coach we've had since 1967. So I don't get your complaint about it favoring him, unless you just hate him being the coach at which time I would wonder why not just state that and not bother with the whole, he's ruining the program speil... either way, here are the numbers.. wins, losses, ties, and overall win pct... Count bonus pts if you like for Conference champs and natl titles and he's still no worse than 3rd best in over 45 years of coaching at tech..


George O'Leary 1994-2001 8 85 52 33 0 .612
Paul Johnson 2008-pre 6 79 47 32 0 .595
Chan Gailey 2002-2007 6 76 44 32 0 .579
Bobby Ross 1987-1991 5 58 31 26 1 .543
Bill Fulcher 1972-1973 2 23 12 10 1 .543
Pepper Rodgers 1974-1979 6 67 34 31 2 .522
Bud Carson 1967-1971 5 54 27 27 0 .500
Bill Curry 1980-1986 7 78 31 43 4 .423
Bill Lewis 1992-1994 3 30 11 19 0 .367

 

[Squints]

We cannot blame any of it on the defenses, because none of his teams have had a good defensive team, not even last year's team. However, most people do not like the truth.

After reading these two sentences you really seem like one of those who doesn't like the truth. I mean seriously you are completely dismissing the defense being an issue in your evaluation?? That's insane and almost invalidates this entire post in my opinion.

 

[prifle2]

Kent,
Dating back through almost 50 years of Tech football, you are correct that the paper did a spin job on Paul Johnson being consistent with past coaches. The truth is he has the second best winning percentage of any coach we've had since 1967. So I don't get your complaint about it favoring him, unless you just hate him being the coach at which time I would wonder why not just state that and not bother with the whole, he's ruining the program speil... either way, here are the numbers.. wins, losses, ties, and overall win pct... Count bonus pts if you like for Conference champs and natl titles and he's still no worse than 3rd best in over 45 years of coaching at tech..

Seasons Games Wins Loss Ties Win Pct
George O'Leary 1994-2001 8 85 52 33 0 .612
Paul Johnson 2008-pre 6 79 47 32 0 .595
Chan Gailey 2002-2007 6 76 44 32 0 .579
Bobby Ross 1987-1991 5 58 31 26 1 .543
Bill Fulcher 1972-1973 2 23 12 10 1 .543
Pepper Rodgers 1974-1979 6 67 34 31 2 .522
Bud Carson 1967-1971 5 54 27 27 0 .500
Bill Curry 1980-1986 7 78 31 43 4 .423
Bill Lewis 1992-1994 3 30 11 19 0 .367

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

The article in the AJC stating that PJ's teams are in line with Tech's history of football is completely misleading. It stated that Tech has never had a consistent record of double-digit winning seasons. This may be so, but it is also true of most teams in the NCAA.

In the past, there were only ten games. If your record was 9-1, it was not double-digit, but it was a 90% winning record. Only a fraction of the teams in the nation held consistent double-digit seasons, and most of the time, these teams could go 9-1 and then win a bowl game to get into the double-digit rating. This was extremely hard to do in the past.

Tech would go 7-3 in a season and get left out of the bowl games because there were so few bowl games. There were other good teams with the same problem.

Coaches should never be graded on the their double-digit seasons or their number of bowl games. Almost any team can now go to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. In fact, a few have gone to bowl games with a 6-7 record.

All coaches should be rated on their percentage of wins and never on their total number of wins per year. A Tech team that had a record of 7-3 was more deserving than a Tech team with a 7-6 record. PJ's record by percentage has not been very good in the recent past. In fact, the truth of the matter is that he had his best two years before the defenses caught up with his offenses. We cannot blame any of it on the defenses, because none of his teams have had a good defensive team, not even last year's team. However, most people do not like the truth.

I would not have made this post if the article had not appeared in the AJC showing a one-sided affair. This post was made to show the fallacy of the assumptions made in the AJC article.

I will say comparing eras is not possible. But for those that missed Dodd, I would suggest a major difference was his lean year still were good football teams. For example, 1960 5-5 four losses to Auburn, Florida, Alabama and Georgia were by a TOTAL of 5 points, and we lost to Duke 6-0. The next year, 1961, he went 7-3 in the regular season--the losses being at Knoxville, at Baton Rouge and at Birmingham against Alabama in the middle of their huge winning streak. He lost to Penn State in the Gator Bowl.. Even Dodd's "BAD" teams played great football most Saturdays, and if you didn't watch out, he'd beat you. It is definitely a different world now.

 

[GTRX7]

I will say comparing eras is not possible. But for those that missed Dodd, I would suggest a major difference was his lean year still were good football teams. For example, 1960 5-5 four losses to Auburn, Florida, Alabama and Georgia were by a TOTAL of 5 points, and we lost to Duke 6-0. The next year, 1961, he went 7-3 in the regular season--the losses being at Knoxville, at Baton Rouge and at Birmingham against Alabama in the middle of their huge winning streak. He lost to Penn State in the Gator Bowl.. Even Dodd's "BAD" teams played great football most Saturdays, and if you didn't watch out, he'd beat you. It is definitely a different world now.

Great point about comparing eras. I find it particularly difficult to judge a coach today based on a standard set before integration (which didn't happen until the 60s and not at Georgia Tech until after Dodd, around 1970).

 

[GTRX7]

In fact, the truth of the matter is that he had his best two years before the defenses caught up with his offenses. We cannot blame any of it on the defenses, because none of his teams have had a good defensive team, not even last year's team. However, most people do not like the truth.

If that is the case, how do you explain the points per game trend under Johnson?
2008 - 24.4
2009 - 33.8
2010 - 26.0
2011 - 34.3
2012 - 33.6
2013 - 35.1

 

[Techster]

Kent,
Dating back through almost 50 years of Tech football, you are correct that the paper did a spin job on Paul Johnson being consistent with past coaches. The truth is he has the second best winning percentage of any coach we've had since 1967. So I don't get your complaint about it favoring him, unless you just hate him being the coach at which time I would wonder why not just state that and not bother with the whole, he's ruining the program speil... either way, here are the numbers.. wins, losses, ties, and overall win pct... Count bonus pts if you like for Conference champs and natl titles and he's still no worse than 3rd best in over 45 years of coaching at tech..

Seasons Games Wins Loss Ties Win Pct
George O'Leary 1994-2001 8 85 52 33 0 .612
Paul Johnson 2008-pre 6 79 47 32 0 .595
Chan Gailey 2002-2007 6 76 44 32 0 .579
Bobby Ross 1987-1991 5 58 31 26 1 .543
Bill Fulcher 1972-1973 2 23 12 10 1 .543
Pepper Rodgers 1974-1979 6 67 34 31 2 .522
Bud Carson 1967-1971 5 54 27 27 0 .500
Bill Curry 1980-1986 7 78 31 43 4 .423
Bill Lewis 1992-1994 3 30 11 19 0 .367

What should be taken away from this is CPJ isn't as great as some of the "gold tinted" set like to say, but neither is he as bad as the "doom and gloom" crowd. The same for Gailey.

The money question is: Can CPJ take GT the next level of just an average program that Gailey sustained, to a consistent top 25-30 program. It's obvious that everyone has their own opinion on how he can (or can't) accomplish it. As we saw from 2008-2009, if he has the talent, CPJ can certainly make GT a top 15 team. CPJ can coach, but can he replicate the recruiting that brought him the success of 2008 and2009? That's TBD.

 

[ATL1]

What should be taken away from this is CPJ isn't as great as some of the "gold tinted" set like to say, but neither is he as bad as the "doom and gloom" crowd. The same for Gailey.

The money question is: Can CPJ take GT the next level of just an average program that Gailey sustained, to a consistent top 25-30 program. It's obvious that everyone has their own opinion on how he can (or can't) accomplish it. As we saw from 2008-2009, if he has the talent, CPJ can certainly make GT a top 15 team. CPJ can coach, but can he replicate the recruiting that brought him the success of 2008 and2009? That's TBD.

Here's the rub.
Does he need to modify the offense in order to recruit better? (A developed passing attack would help with that immensely)
Does he need to change his approach to recruiting, which I think he has to some degree?
I definitely think he needs to do a better job with the media but so does the entire GT program as a whole.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Here's the rub.
Does he need to modify the offense in order to recruit better? (A developed passing attack would help with that immensely)
Does he need to change his approach to recruiting, which I think he has to some degree?
I definitely think he needs to do a better job with the media but so does the entire GT program as a whole.

I think if we can have a small level of sustained success, we can reel in more big time recruits w/o drastically altering the offense. The biggest thing we've lacked is an elite quarterback. JT may or may not be that, but there's a chance that he is. Vad might have been if he had bought in 100%. Despite our lack of national ranking in the most recent recruiting class, I think it shows an upswing in recruiting. We filled every need on the team except for DT and that was down the priority list. Add to that one of the most successful Junior Days on the flats in a long time and it appears the coaching and recruiting personnel changes look to be working, at least to some degree.

 

[Tech First]

The article in the AJC stating that PJ's teams are in line with Tech's history of football is completely misleading. It stated that Tech has never had a consistent record of double-digit winning seasons. This may be so, but it is also true of most teams in the NCAA.

In the past, there were only ten games. If your record was 9-1, it was not double-digit, but it was a 90% winning record. Only a fraction of the teams in the nation held consistent double-digit seasons, and most of the time, these teams could go 9-1 and then win a bowl game to get into the double-digit rating. This was extremely hard to do in the past.

Tech would go 7-3 in a season and get left out of the bowl games because there were so few bowl games. There were other good teams with the same problem.

Coaches should never be graded on the their double-digit seasons or their number of bowl games. Almost any team can now go to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. In fact, a few have gone to bowl games with a 6-7 record.

All coaches should be rated on their percentage of wins and never on their total number of wins per year. A Tech team that had a record of 7-3 was more deserving than a Tech team with a 7-6 record. PJ's record by percentage has not been very good in the recent past. In fact, the truth of the matter is that he had his best two years before the defenses caught up with his offenses. We cannot blame any of it on the defenses, because none of his teams have had a good defensive team, not even last year's team. However, most people do not like the truth.

I would not have made this post if the article had not appeared in the AJC showing a one-sided affair. This post was made to show the fallacy of the assumptions made in the AJC article.

Great
Great post.

 

[Squints]

What should be taken away from this is CPJ isn't as great as some of the "gold tinted" set like to say, but neither is he as bad as the "doom and gloom" crowd. The same for Gailey.

The money question is: Can CPJ take GT the next level of just an average program that Gailey sustained, to a consistent top 25-30 program. It's obvious that everyone has their own opinion on how he can (or can't) accomplish it. As we saw from 2008-2009, if he has the talent, CPJ can certainly make GT a top 15 team. CPJ can coach, but can he replicate the recruiting that brought him the success of 2008 and2009? That's TBD.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[foggy]

If that is the case, how do you explain the points per game trend under Johnson?
2008 - 24.4
2009 - 33.8
2010 - 26.0
2011 - 34.3
2012 - 33.6
2013 - 35.1

It's easy to get those type numbers when you have year in year out the likes of A&M/ELON what did we get with those two >120 points goes a long way to inflate your yearly average. Now throw in VT/Mia etc and leave out the Elons and A&M types then see what the average per game is then.

 

[AE 87]

In my opinion, the smoke screen was with @Rodney Kent in the op, not in Bradley's article or his ESPN source.
1) The article characterizes Johnson as saying double-digit wins, but doesn't quote him within any context. The double-digit win stat was not the basis of the article.
2) The article was based on program efficiency over the last twenty-five years. I'm pretty sure we've played at least 11 games every year for the last 25 years so the OP's reference to 10 game seasons is off-point.
3) The OP says, "All coaches should be rated on their percentage of wins and never on their total number of wins per year." That is, in fact, the focus of the article which reports, "Johnson’s record against FBS opponents in his six years with the program matches Georgia Tech’s record over the past 25 years (56 percent) and their FBS closed set record, too (55 percent)."

 

[Rodney Kent]

AE 87: Yes, we have had some bad coaches over the past 25 years, that is obvious, but Tech and winning goes back much further than that. I want the kind of winning we had with the first three coaches. It is also obvious, the article left off the records of the first three coaches. Personally, I don't want Tech to be judged by the past 25 years, I want it to return to the era when we won consistently.

priffle2: You left out the winning percentages of our good coaches. Also, George O'Leary was 18-20 without Ralph Friegden. He was 0-4 against UGA without Friegden, and he never won a bowl game without Friegden.

If you want to compare PJ with the losers and say he is doing fine, be my guest. If you want to compare him with the winners, you are not faring very well. By the way, I do not hate Paul Johnson, I actually like him as a person. From the little I have heard of his personal life, he appears to be an honest and decent man. The only thing I don't like about Paul Johnson, is his record and seeming inability to hire good assistants. Who knows, matybe he could become a good coach in D1, if he used all of his time on the details of the team as a whole and hired an offensive coordinator.

Squints: Paul Johnson is responsible for the defense. The buck stops with him on every phase of the game.

At any rate, this year may well determine his future at Tech.

 

[AE 87]

What should be taken away from this is CPJ isn't as great as some of the "gold tinted" set like to say, but neither is he as bad as the "doom and gloom" crowd. The same for Gailey.

The money question is: Can CPJ take GT the next level of just an average program that Gailey sustained, to a consistent top 25-30 program. It's obvious that everyone has their own opinion on how he can (or can't) accomplish it. As we saw from 2008-2009, if he has the talent, CPJ can certainly make GT a top 15 team. CPJ can coach, but can he replicate the recruiting that brought him the success of 2008 and2009? That's TBD.

This is pretty good, but I would offer one possible point of clarification. I think most people (or least me) that you label "gold tinted" don't defend CPJ's record, they defend the ability of his offense to out-perform its talent. So, the story of his record doesn't change that opinion because they blame the defense. Now, it could be that time will prove that, for some reason, no FBS defensive coordinator can get a more effective defense while CPJ is the head coach, even though this didn't seem to be a problem at the FCS level.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post doesn't seem to recognize that our offense in 2011 was very close statistically to our offense in 2009, even without most of the 2007 recruiting class. The question is whether CPJ can, with the help of Roof, field a competitive defense.

 

[GTRanj]

This is pretty good, but I would offer one possible point of clarification. I think most people (or least me) that you label "gold tinted" don't defend CPJ's record, they defend the ability of his offense to out-perform its talent. So, the story of his record doesn't change that opinion because they blame the defense. Now, it could be that time will prove that, for some reason, no FBS defensive coordinator can get a more effective defense while CPJ is the head coach, even though this didn't seem to be a problem at the FCS level.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post doesn't seem to recognize that our offense in 2011 was very close statistically to our offense in 2009, even without most of the 2007 recruiting class. The question is whether CPJ can, with the help of Roof, field a competitive defense.

Too true

 

[Techster]

This is pretty good, but I would offer one possible point of clarification. I think most people (or least me) that you label "gold tinted" don't defend CPJ's record, they defend the ability of his offense to out-perform its talent. So, the story of his record doesn't change that opinion because they blame the defense. Now, it could be that time will prove that, for some reason, no FBS defensive coordinator can get a more effective defense while CPJ is the head coach, even though this didn't seem to be a problem at the FCS level.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post doesn't seem to recognize that our offense in 2011 was very close statistically to our offense in 2009, even without most of the 2007 recruiting class. The question is whether CPJ can, with the help of Roof, field a competitive defense.

I didn't mention anything about his offense. CPJ is responsible for the entirety of the team.

People like to point out the offensive talent of the 2008 and 2009 team, but those teams were loaded with defensive talent as well...more so the 2008 team than the 2009 team. Pretty much every starter for the 2008 team save the LB corp spent time in the NFL. That DL in 2008 had guys who spent multiple years in the League, 3 of whom are still making a nice living there. We weren't getting blown out back then as much as we were the past few seasons. An interesting study would be our margin of defeat from 2008-present.

One of the things people forget about the 2008 and 2009 teams offensively is that CPJ actually used his offense to play defense. Remember the end of the 2008 UGA game? Pretty much the entirety of the 2009 VT game. That's where the now famous "CPJ march of death" came from. In a lot of games, CPJ was able to utilize the offensive talent to control the clock, or throttle it in another gear when called for (FSU 2009). When you play ball control, you're not going to put up massive numbers all the time, but we were certainly capable of it.

 

[augustabuzz]

It's easy to get those type numbers when you have year in year out the likes of A&M/ELON what did we get with those two >120 points goes a long way to inflate your yearly average. Now throw in VT/Mia etc and leave out the Elons and A&M types then see what the average per game is then.

ACC Games Only:

2013 31.1
2012 40.0
2011 28.0
2010 23.6
2009 32.6
2008 22.5

 

[AE 87]

I didn't mention anything about his offense. CPJ is responsible for the entirety of the team.

People like to point out the offensive talent of the 2008 and 2009 team, but those teams were loaded with defensive talent as well...more so the 2008 team than the 2009 team. Pretty much every starter for the 2008 team save the LB corp spent time in the NFL. That DL in 2008 had guys who spent multiple years in the League, 3 of whom are still making a nice living there. We weren't getting blown out back then as much as we were the past few seasons. An interesting study would be our margin of defeat from 2008-present.

One of the things people forget about the 2008 and 2009 teams offensively is that CPJ actually used his offense to play defense. Remember the end of the 2008 UGA game? Pretty much the entirety of the 2009 VT game. That's where the now famous "CPJ march of death" came from. In a lot of games, CPJ was able to utilize the offensive talent to control the clock, or throttle it in another gear when called for (FSU 2009). When you play ball control, you're not going to put up massive numbers all the time, but we were certainly capable of it.

I know that you didn't mention CPJ's offense specifically. That was my point. Those who support CPJ do. You don't fairly speak to what they should take away when you don't.