Team Efficiency - A rational discussion

[Lexjacket]

87 that is a good question, for which there is no easy answer. I have been coaching sports at the HS level for a while now and I still don't know. Some years (or games for that matter) teams come out with a certain character and personality that says "we are going to get this done, one way or another" and they do. Other teams just don't and it has little to do with physical ability. Some kids play too tight. Some kids can't focus through the emotional distractions of competition. Obviously greater talent is a cure for a lot of problems, but the list of really talented teams that accomplish nothing is pretty long (at all levels). I have tried to the best of my ability to teach the kids the nuances of the game and put them in position to perform and win. Despite my efforts and the talent level of the kids I have worked with, the results are all over the place. Generally speaking, good coaching, good schemes, and good players tend to win, but they don't always click like you may think.

In others words your saying it's not just a matter of mathematics, such as, recruit stars, money, curriculum, etc. Are you saying it has mostly to do with the character of the kid?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

87 that is a good question, for which there is no easy answer. I have been coaching sports at the HS level for a while now and I still don't know. Some years (or games for that matter) teams come out with a certain character and personality that says "we are going to get this done, one way or another" and they do. Other teams just don't and it has little to do with physical ability. Some kids play too tight. Some kids can't focus through the emotional distractions of competition. Obviously greater talent is a cure for a lot of problems, but the list of really talented teams that accomplish nothing is pretty long (at all levels). I have tried to the best of my ability to teach the kids the nuances of the game and put them in position to perform and win. Despite my efforts and the talent level of the kids I have worked with, the results are all over the place. Generally speaking, good coaching, good schemes, and good players tend to win, but they don't always click like you may think.

Look no further than our 1990 team.

 

[Boomergump]

In others words your saying it's not just a matter of mathematics, such as, recruit stars, money, curriculum, etc. Are you saying it has mostly to do with the character of the kid?

I don't know Lex, maybe the character of the influential ones.

I am sure you have read my rants about the "star system" at the other sight. I am going to try and articulate my thoughts a little better. I am a lifelong Red Sox fan (born and raised in ME). Why did they win this year? I spend a lot of my life evaluating baseball talent. IMHO, ST. Louis was the better team, especially in the pitching staff. Boston had a thing called chemistry as a team. If they got 2 hits in a game, they probably got them when they counted. They are all high character guys with an unselfish mindset and a great work ethic. They simply refused to quit ever. If they had an identity it was "scrappy" or "hard nosed". They supported each other and played together like they loved each other and it was the last time they would ever get to do it. Over 162 games and playoffs, it isn't a fluke any more. They earned it and literally NOBODY saw it coming with the "Talent" they had on the roster in spring training.

See, right now, TECH doesn't really have an identity, or if they do, it isn't positive. I was sure that they would get one this year because of the fire and leadership and charisma that Vad showed last year. I thought he would be infectious. It didn't happen. He went back into a shell when he started to struggle and we have been in a fog as a team ever since. We are good enough, in one sense, to have a better record, but we have remained a team that falters when the going gets tough. We win the one sided affairs and fail to win the tough ones, generally speaking.

In summary, I would take a 3 star kid who fits the system, is unselfish, is willing to work very hard, is coachable, has courage under fire and a supreme level of confidence in himself before I would take a 4 star kid without those additional qualities, every day and twice on Sunday. Those other qualities are the stars that ultimately matter.

 

[Longestday]

Boomer...3 star with courage is Byerly.

 

[Lexjacket]

So, we need a John Dewberry.

 

[Boomergump]

So, we need a John Dewberry.

A contemporary of mine.

I think we have some good kids. Somehow we have to find some moxie in the group.

 

[Lexjacket]

A contemporary of mine.

I think we have some good kids. Somehow we have to find some moxie in the group.

One thing I liked about CPJ when he first came to Tech, was the fact that he got in kids faces. I understand that many did not like that about him, but for those who have been through boot camp (especially Marines) a little butt chewing can be an effective motivator....

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So, we need a John Dewberry.

Tashard Choice fits that mold, too.

 

[AE 87]

Since we have a lot of newer people on here, some of whom don't seem to like our offense, I thought I'd bump this thread with end of regular season data.

For 12 games:
OPPD = 3.01, 17th, tied w/Auburn
DPPD = 1.96, 51st

These stats are obviously biased by playing two FCS opponents whom we were able to dominate even playing our backups. By comparison, Auburn played WCar and FlAtlantic.

footballoutsiders F/+ (combining FEI, primarily per drive efficiency, and S&P+, primarily per play efficiency) stat looks only at competitive (non-blowout, non-garbage time) drives and plays and adjusts for opponents:
Off F/+ = 24th (Aubie is 10th, coincidentally +/-7 from OPPD)
Def F/+ = 55th

Program ranking over time:
Off F/+ = 14th, last 6 yrs; 17th, last 3 yrs
Def F/+ = 58th, last 6 yrs; 59th, last 3 yrs
OPPD = 11th, last 5 yrs; 15th, last 3 yrs

In other words, I still thinks that our offense has been one of the most efficient offenses in FBS under CPJ. We've been top 25 even with Tevin and Vad at QB and without Dwyer, Allen, BayBay, etc.

Questions for those that don't like CPJ:
Are you not satisfied with a top 20, top 25 offensive program even during seasons when we don't have top talent?

Do you blame CPJ for our struggle on Defense and doubt the ability of Roof (or any potential DC under him) to get us a Defense that compliments our offensive ranking?

Do you doubt these statistics and have others that you would offer to show that our offense has not been good?

 

[daBuzz]

Questions for those that don't like CPJ:
1. Are you not satisfied with a top 20, top 25 offensive program even during seasons when we don't have top talent?

2. Do you blame CPJ for our struggle on Defense and doubt the ability of Roof (or any potential DC under him) to get us a Defense that compliments our offensive ranking?

3. Do you doubt these statistics and have others that you would offer to show that our offense has not been good?

1. No, I'm not satisified with a top 20 - 25 offense if we're a .500 team. Noone gives a crap when you're making the argument to your friends who are fans of other schools. Them: "We're 9-3 baby". You: "Well, we're a top 25 offense". Sounds kinda lame.

2. I hold the head coach responsible for how the TEAM performs, not just the part of the team he directs. I can give you 2.5 million reasons annually why I think he is responsible.

3. I don't doubt the statistics...nor do I care about the statistics. The offense is boring to me and when the guy announcing the game versus your archrival says on national television "Others aren't running this offense because it's hard to recruit for it. Top level players don't want to play in this kind of offense", then no matter what statistics you want to present, the offense is a detractor at worst, a distraction at best.

 

[AE 87]

1. No, I'm not satisified with a top 20 - 25 offense if we're a .500 team. Noone gives a crap when you're making the argument to your friends who are fans of other schools. Them: "We're 9-3 baby". You: "Well, we're a top 25 offense". Sounds kinda lame.

2. I hold the head coach responsible for how the TEAM performs, not just the part of the team he directs. I can give you 2.5 million reasons annually why I think he is responsible.

3. I don't doubt the statistics...nor do I care about the statistics. The offense is boring to me and when the guy announcing the game versus your archrival says on national television "Others aren't running this offense because it's hard to recruit for it. Top level players don't want to play in this kind of offense", then no matter what statistics you want to present, the offense is a detractor at worst, a distraction at best.

Thanks for the response. As the thread title makes clear, the point of this thread is a rational discussion. I hope you will continue.

Given that you accept the statistics, why do you view the offense as the problem with respect to our record? If the defense is statistically ranked more than twice as bad, why do you find the offense unsatisfactory?

Second, I appreciate your view that the head coach is responsible for the whole team and not just the offense. What more would you expect from a head coach who is not also the DC to do beyond what CPJ has done?

Now, imo, it is perfectly fine to just react emotionally to such questions of who should be coach. Many make hiring and firing decisions this way, more women than men and low testosterone older men as I understand it. However, others have a more feeling or emotional personality type too.

If your references to finding the offense boring and the comments from an announcer indicate your true motivations and concerns, again that's fine. This thread is intended for people to offer RATIONAL reasons to believe our offense has been the problem.

 

[Rodney Kent]

First, I do no have to abide by your rules to state whether Tech is efficient on offense or defense. I can use my own judgment and will do so, ignoring any sarcastic remark you might make. The offense is not efficient when it counts. The teams that have the manpower to shut us down frequently do so because the option without a good passing attack is no good. The good defensive teams with good athletic linebackers, nose tackle, and cornerbacks are already familiar with the plays that CPJ runs over and over again. Also, it is innefficient to use a quarterback that is not and never will be an option quarterback. To be efficient, the coach must construct the offense around the talents of the players including the quarterback. To be efficient, he will either have to choose a system to utilize the talents of Vad Lee or remove him and place an option quarterback in his place.

On defense, we are not efficient when the other team decides it is going to neglect the running game and come out passing against us. Our worst down to defend is 3rd and long. We do not play the receivers tight, thus the linemen and linebackers have no chance to get to the quarterback before he throws a short pass for a first down. Playing man to man defense is like anything else we do in life. The more we do it the better we become at using this system of pass defense. It is the same with our passing on offense; we are not good at it because we seldom use it, therefore it is not efficient because there is not the timing of constant game day passing.

Now, that is just a glimmer of my assessment, however, I do not care one iota of all your statistics. I am not talking statistics, I am talking experience of playing and watching football all my life. You may have taken a course in statistics, but they mean nothing to me. I will trust my 68 years experience of watching most all the College football games.

 

[AE 87]

First, I do no have to abide by your rules to state whether Tech is efficient on offense or defense. I can use my own judgment and will do so, ignoring any sarcastic remark you might make. The offense is not efficient when it counts. The teams that have the manpower to shut us down frequently do so because the option without a good passing attack is no good. The good defensive teams with good athletic linebackers, nose tackle, and cornerbacks are already familiar with the plays that CPJ runs over and over again. Also, it is innefficient to use a quarterback that is not and never will be an option quarterback. To be efficient, the coach must construct the offense around the talents of the players including the quarterback. To be efficient, he will either have to choose a system to utilize the talents of Vad Lee or remove him and place an option quarterback in his place.

On defense, we are not efficient when the other team decides it is going to neglect the running game and come out passing against us. Our worst down to defend is 3rd and long. We do not play the receivers tight, thus the linemen and linebackers have no chance to get to the quarterback before he throws a short pass for a first down. Playing man to man defense is like anything else we do in life. The more we do it the better we become at using this system of pass defense. It is the same with our passing on offense; we are not good at it because we seldom use it, therefore it is not efficient because there is not the timing of constant game day passing.

Now, that is just a glimmer of my assessment, however, I do not care one iota of all your statistics. I am not talking statistics, I am talking experience of playing and watching football all my life. You may have taken a course in statistics, but they mean nothing to me. I will trust my 68 years experience of watching most all the College football games.

Thanks for your response. I know other forums have catered to those who reject the "love thy neighbor" ethic assumed by keeping to a thread's topic. I'm not a forum moderator setting "rules" but just a guy wanting to know if opponents of our offense as a scheme have a rational basis.

Clearly, it's always possible to disrespect those who start threads by hijacking them for other purposes. Other forums specialize or have specialized in promoting that activity. I hope you don't bring that mean-spirited approach to this forum.

I welcome your contribution, but I don't consider, "because I said so" evidence for a rational discussion. Again, please hear me when I say that I respect those who prefer to discuss things emotionally rather than rationally. My 78 yr old mother prefers this approach. I wanted this thread to focus on rational discussion.

 

[daBuzz]

Thanks for the response. As the thread title makes clear, the point of this thread is a rational discussion. I hope you will continue.

Given that you accept the statistics, why do you view the offense as the problem with respect to our record? If the defense is statistically ranked more than twice as bad, why do you find the offense unsatisfactory?

Second, I appreciate your view that the head coach is responsible for the whole team and not just the offense. What more would you expect from a head coach who is not also the DC to do beyond what CPJ has done?

Now, imo, it is perfectly fine to just react emotionally to such questions of who should be coach. Many make hiring and firing decisions this way, more women than men and low testosterone older men as I understand it. However, others have a more feeling or emotional personality type too.

If your references to finding the offense boring and the comments from an announcer indicate your true motivations and concerns, again that's fine. This thread is intended for people to offer RATIONAL reasons to believe our offense has been the problem.

What wasn't RATIONAL about my reasons?
The head coach is paid to win. Period. No amount of charts or stats will change that.

Why do I view the offense to be the problem? Because it's the public perception of the offense that hurts the recruiting. And no matter how good a coach is at coaching the X's and the O's, it won't matter if he doesn't get the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

I work for a living but I'm also a coach of very high-level travel baseball team (this year it is 16 year olds). Without exception, every one of these kids says of GT football, "it's a boring high school offense" or "it's not sexy". One kid pointed out "It really isn't that different from Oregon's offense, because both teams run the ball a lot. But Oregon's offense just seems.....cooler and less boring...maybe because they run so much up-tempo".

Now you can say what you want, but when that is the perception, it becomes reality. I don't work with football players so I won't speak for them. But I can surely infer by the difficulty we have had in luring top-level players to come play in this offense that it absolutely isn't HELPING recruiting. So if it isn't helping, it's hurting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What wasn't RATIONAL about my reasons?
The head coach is paid to win. Period. No amount of charts or stats will change that.

Why do I view the offense to be the problem? Because it's the public perception of the offense that hurts the recruiting. And no matter how good a coach is at coaching the X's and the O's, it won't matter if he doesn't get the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

I work for a living but I'm also a coach of very high-level travel baseball team (this year it is 16 year olds). Without exception, every one of these kids says of GT football, "it's a boring high school offense" or "it's not sexy". One kid pointed out "It really isn't that different from Oregon's offense, because both teams run the ball a lot. But Oregon's offense just seems.....cooler and less boring...maybe because they run so much up-tempo".

Now you can say what you want, but when that is the perception, it becomes reality. I don't work with football players so I won't speak for them. But I can surely infer by the difficulty we have had in luring top-level players to come play in this offense that it absolutely isn't HELPING recruiting. So if it isn't helping, it's hurting.

I'm not '87, but I think he's not trying to get to a "bottom line" discussion. Mainly because we all agree, for the most part, that our record is unsatisfactory. What makes these forums fun is the ability to break down the discussion past the "bottom line." This thread is about the OFFENSE. Many people are very negative on the offense. It's seems to me that this is an emotional response or a stylistic one, it's not one based on statistical production.

To answer a commonly used argument against the O, yes it struggles against really good defenses. Show me another offense that has never struggled against the top defenses. In addition to that, many of us feel we haven't seen the full capability of the offense yet. Yes, it's been 6 years, but all the pieces haven't come together AT ONE TIME, yet. Each year, it seems, we lack one or two critical pieces needed to get over the hump. Each year it's the same story only which pieces we lack change. This year it was experience at the qb position. Also a depleated OL especially at OT.

 

[Minawreck]

So you're basing your perception of our offense on the words of 16 year old kids who likely all root for UGA...and complaining that he doesn't see your responses as rational?

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word rational means.

If you could say something like, "despite what our ppd is, against opponents in the top 50 of defenses our third down conversion drops to X while against lesser teams it is Y. This much lower conversion percentage makes me think the offense is inefficient against important teams but perhaps "efficient overall."

 

[AE 87]

What wasn't RATIONAL about my reasons?
The head coach is paid to win. Period. No amount of charts or stats will change that.

Why do I view the offense to be the problem? Because it's the public perception of the offense that hurts the recruiting. And no matter how good a coach is at coaching the X's and the O's, it won't matter if he doesn't get the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

I work for a living but I'm also a coach of very high-level travel baseball team (this year it is 16 year olds). Without exception, every one of these kids says of GT football, "it's a boring high school offense" or "it's not sexy". One kid pointed out "It really isn't that different from Oregon's offense, because both teams run the ball a lot. But Oregon's offense just seems.....cooler and less boring...maybe because they run so much up-tempo".

Now you can say what you want, but when that is the perception, it becomes reality. I don't work with football players so I won't speak for them. But I can surely infer by the difficulty we have had in luring top-level players to come play in this offense that it absolutely isn't HELPING recruiting. So if it isn't helping, it's hurting.

Thanks, I apologize for apparently not being clear enough with the thread title and description of statistics. I was hoping for a discussion about the efficiency of out offense on the field, in football competition, not as a recruiting tool.

I agree with you that we would be even better with better players, but why would you say we're not efficient now?

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

1. No, I'm not satisified with a top 20 - 25 offense if we're a .500 team. Noone gives a crap when you're making the argument to your friends who are fans of other schools. Them: "We're 9-3 baby". You: "Well, we're a top 25 offense". Sounds kinda lame.

2. I hold the head coach responsible for how the TEAM performs, not just the part of the team he directs. I can give you 2.5 million reasons annually why I think he is responsible.

3. I don't doubt the statistics...nor do I care about the statistics. The offense is boring to me and when the guy announcing the game versus your archrival says on national television "Others aren't running this offense because it's hard to recruit for it. Top level players don't want to play in this kind of offense", then no matter what statistics you want to present, the offense is a detractor at worst, a distraction at best.

Outstanding post!

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

Program ranking over time:
Off F/+ = 14th, last 6 yrs; 17th, last 3 yrs
Def F/+ = 58th, last 6 yrs; 59th, last 3 yrs
OPPD = 11th, last 5 yrs; 15th, last 3 yrs

Do you blame CPJ for our struggle on Defense and doubt the ability of Roof (or any potential DC under him) to get us a Defense that compliments our offensive ranking?

A resounding yes!

Our HC is responsible for the entire team, what they eat, how they work out, them staying academically eligible, and for his hiring decisions, as well as our defense.

If you do NOT blame the HC for our struggles on Defense, then cut his pay name him OC and just let him call plays on Game day, we are paying him like a HC, then lets hold him accountable like a HC.

Too many GT fans are like you in that they only judge CPJ based on what the offense does, if that offense was so good as your rankings suggest, explain the losses to the best 5 teams on our sked, that was predicted by many going into the season?

 

[AE 87]

A resounding yes!

Our HC is responsible for the entire team, what they eat, how they work out, them staying academically eligible, and for his hiring decisions, as well as our defense.

If you do NOT blame the HC for our struggles on Defense, then cut his pay name him OC and just let him call plays on Game day, we are paying him like a HC, then lets hold him accountable like a HC.

Too many GT fans are like you in that they only judge CPJ based on what the offense does, if that offense was so good as your rankings suggest, explain the losses to the best 5 teams on our sked, that was predicted by many going into the season?

Answer my earlier question to you. How do you understand the phrase, "as a starter," from my other post? How does it relate to your use of 'setting the bar" low?

In my view, people who criticize the opinions of others but who won't discuss their own by responding to direct questions or even acknowledging them show themselves as trolls who shouldn't be tolerated.