Team Efficiency - A rational discussion

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

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.

Next year we lose Sims, OLs, RobbieG, and 6 starters off of our defense, so does that mean we need to hold off until year 10 to accurately judge this guy.

Please tell us when it is "fair" to assess CPJ's coaching ability?

On most CFB teams rarely does everything line up perfectly, that is why the HC and his Coordinators have to adjust to their TALENT, and that is why those 3 guys make the big bucks.

Let's see, CPJ shouldn't be held accountable because all the pieces haven't come together at one time, but OTOH when ReggieB didn't develop at the same time we had great players like Calvin, then too bad we still hold the HC accountable.

Why are your standards so inconsistent?

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

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.

I'll go back and look at that thread, I wasn't ignoring you.

 

[daBuzz]

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."

LOL, talk about lack of rationality. One of the kids on that team is committed to play baseball for GT. Three of the kids on the team are GT fans. Five are UGA fans. One is a UCF fan, two are UF, three are FSU, one is LSU, one is committed to play for Vandy, one is hoping to go to UCLA (they're recruiting him but haven't offered yet), two are Alabama fans, one is Auburn, and one is Tennessee.

All are very good athletes, all follow college sports religiously (especially football). If you don't think they're more representative of what a high school football player thinks than a bunch of middle-aged or older white guys like us are, then you're sadly disillusioned.

But hey, don't let not knowing facts stop you from sharing your opinion.

 

[CuseJacket]

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.

I feel like there are statistics for the two bolded statements:

1. "The offense is not efficient when it counts." Are there stats for the 4th quarter alone that we can compare relative to other teams?
   
2. "Our worst down to defend is 3rd and long." There has to be a stat for this readily available.

I have no idea what those stats would show, but I think those are relevant points in making a case for/against GT's performance, and they don't have to be backed by 68 years of experience.

 

[AE 87]

I feel like there are statistics for the two bolded statements:

1. "The offense is not efficient when it counts." Are there stats for the 4th quarter alone that we can compare relative to other teams?
   
2. "Our worst down to defend is 3rd and long." There has to be a stat for this readily available.

I have no idea what those stats would show, but I think those are relevant points in making a case for/against GT's performance, and they don't have to be backed by 68 years of experience.

Thanks for these clarifying questions. In my op, I invited people to define efficiency as they consider most helpful to give us a way to measure and compare. I hope he follows up.

 

[Minawreck]

LOL, talk about lack of rationality. One of the kids on that team is committed to play baseball for GT. Three of the kids on the team are GT fans. Five are UGA fans. One is a UCF fan, two are UF, three are FSU, one is LSU, one is committed to play for Vandy, one is hoping to go to UCLA (they're recruiting him but haven't offered yet), two are Alabama fans, one is Auburn, and one is Tennessee.

All are very good athletes, all follow college sports religiously (especially football). If you don't think they're more representative of what a high school football player thinks than a bunch of middle-aged or older white guys like us are, then you're sadly disillusioned.

But hey, don't let not knowing facts stop you from sharing your opinion.

more emotional reaction to critical commentary. My underlying point is that whether or not kids like the offense is not even germane to the discussion. The topic of the discussion is the efficiency of the offense. Not whether or not it attracts athletes, or whether or not it's exciting. If the basis of your opinion of the efficiency of an offense is the perceived coolness of it from 16-year old high level baseball players, then you are not thinking rationally.

 

[daBuzz]

more emotional reaction to critical commentary. My underlying point is that whether or not kids like the offense is not even germane to the discussion. The topic of the discussion is the efficiency of the offense. Not whether or not it attracts athletes, or whether or not it's exciting. If the basis of your opinion of the efficiency of an offense is the perceived coolness of it from 16-year old high level baseball players, then you are not thinking rationally.

OK, how about this?

In 50% of the games over the past 3 seasons, our offense has failed to score at least 1 more point than our opposition. So while it may be "efficient" by the definition you guys are putting forward, it isn't "effective" enough.

 

[AE 87]

OK, how about this?

In 50% of the games over the past 3 seasons, our offense has failed to score at least 1 more point than our opposition. So while it may be "efficient" by the definition you guys are putting forward, it isn't "effective" enough.

So, seriously, you are saying that the defense is never the problem?

 

[daBuzz]

So, seriously, you are saying that the defense is never the problem?

Absolutely not. Our defense has been horrendous for the most part the entire time Johnson has been the coach. This year was better than the past but still not earthshattering.

But the goal of the offense is to score at least 1 more point than the opposition scores. If your defense holds the other team to 3 points, you better score 4 or more. If they score 50, you better score 51.

In 2008 and 2009, we had a Swiss-cheese defense but our offense was able to overcome the porousness of the defense the majority of the time. Since that point, however our offense has not been able to do that at more than 50% pace.

Look at the Atlanta Falcons. Last year, their defense was marginal at best but they were able to make it to the NFC Championship game because their offense was able to overcome their defensive issues. This year, injuries and the lack of an offensive line being able to give time to Matt Ryan has changed the entire outcome of the season and they are now vying for one of the first picks in the draft.

Some teams are set up to be defensive focused and their offense is required to score fewer points in order for the team to win. Alabama is a key example of this. Other teams are set up to be offensive focused and, in order for those teams to win consistently, the offense has to carry the main burden of the team. Oregon is traditionally one of those types of teams.

Under CPJ, I would contend that our offense has been the primary "carrier" of the burden because the defense was so totally ineffective. When they were able to score heaps of points, even against the good teams, then we won more than we lost. In 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, we are a roughly .500 team because they haven't been able to score 1 more point than the opposition.

 

[LibertyTurns]

When was the last time we had a "cool" offense? I'd say it was back when Fridge was here. Before that? That was before my time. You'd have to have been a fan back when Dodd prowled the sidelines. That's one 3 yr period of being "cool" in 50yrs by my count and it was probably only "nerd cool" at that.

 

[Chad]

@AE
CPJ needs to develop a passing! Point blank! It's been six season and tech is still almost dead last in the FBS. GT will never contend for a NC running the ball 78% of time. I don't want to read that AU is about to. WE ARE NOT AU! I don't see how you can call a offense efficient when GT is poor in all aspect of passing the ball.

 

[Chad]

@daBuzz
If I remember correctly in 2008 and 2009 GT wasn't blowing people out. We were winning the tight ball games. Since then GT has not won the close ball games.

 

[AE 87]

Absolutely not. Our defense has been horrendous for the most part the entire time Johnson has been the coach. This year was better than the past but still not earthshattering.

But the goal of the offense is to score at least 1 more point than the opposition scores. If your defense holds the other team to 3 points, you better score 4 or more. If they score 50, you better score 51.

In 2008 and 2009, we had a Swiss-cheese defense but our offense was able to overcome the porousness of the defense the majority of the time. Since that point, however our offense has not been able to do that at more than 50% pace.

Look at the Atlanta Falcons. Last year, their defense was marginal at best but they were able to make it to the NFC Championship game because their offense was able to overcome their defensive issues. This year, injuries and the lack of an offensive line being able to give time to Matt Ryan has changed the entire outcome of the season and they are now vying for one of the first picks in the draft.

Some teams are set up to be defensive focused and their offense is required to score fewer points in order for the team to win. Alabama is a key example of this. Other teams are set up to be offensive focused and, in order for those teams to win consistently, the offense has to carry the main burden of the team. Oregon is traditionally one of those types of teams.

Under CPJ, I would contend that our offense has been the primary "carrier" of the burden because the defense was so totally ineffective. When they were able to score heaps of points, even against the good teams, then we won more than we lost. In 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, we are a roughly .500 team because they haven't been able to score 1 more point than the opposition.

Fair enough. I don't expect that you'll find many who will agree this logic. I think most people want to compare all offenses and defenses against each other and not try and figure out first whether it's an o team or a d team.

As I understand it, you're basically saying that CPJ's offense is the not very good because it is so much better than our defense, it is not judged against other offenses but against its ability to compensate for the D. Ok

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Fair enough. I don't expect that you'll find many who will agree this logic. I think most people want to compare all offenses and defenses against each other and not try and figure out first whether it's an o team or a d team.

As I understand it, you're basically saying that CPJ's offense is the not very good because it is so much better than our defense, it is not judged against other offenses but against its ability to compensate for the D. Ok

By that logic we could average 100 points a game but if our defense gave up 101, it'd mean our offense sucks. Sounds good to me.

 

[AE 87]

@AE
CPJ needs to develop a passing! Point blank! It's been six season and tech is still almost dead last in the FBS. GT will never contend for a NC running the ball 78% of time. I don't want to read that AU is about to. WE ARE NOT AU! I don't see how you can call a offense efficient when GT is poor in all aspect of passing the ball.

I answered this in my op. I defined how I use 'efficient', how I measured it and how it can be used to compare GT's O to others.

@Chad @daBuzz I still invite others to do this for the other side. Define it, how it's measured, and how GT compares to other Os.

 

[Chad]

Tech will never be much in college football until out recruiting gets better. We can all defend cpj and his offense or make excuses why the defense has been poor. The bottom line is, your only as good as your players. Tech and cpj could be a top 20 team every year if they could have a top 30 recruiting class year in and year out. To bad we lose to Uga,vt,clem, and thugu every year. Poor recruiting is a direct result of the wins and loses vs these teams.

 

[daBuzz]

Fair enough. I don't expect that you'll find many who will agree this logic. I think most people want to compare all offenses and defenses against each other and not try and figure out first whether it's an o team or a d team.

As I understand it, you're basically saying that CPJ's offense is the not very good because it is so much better than our defense, it is not judged against other offenses but against its ability to compensate for the D. Ok

No, I disagree. That's not what I said at all. I said the MOST IMPORTANT statistic of an offense is one that is shared with the TEAM. Did they win the game or not?

In the end, the only real statistic that endures from season to season...is wins vs losses.

So, I said that I was summarily rejecting the "efficient" argument and looking at the "effective" argument.

 

[daBuzz]

By that logic we could average 100 points a game but if our defense gave up 101, it'd mean our offense sucks. Sounds good to me.

No. If we scored 100 points a game and gave up 101, it would mean our TEAM sucked and that we lost a hell of a lot of games.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

No. If we scored 100 points a game and gave up 101, it would mean our TEAM sucked and that we lost a hell of a lot of games.

That doesn't jive with other comments you made.

 

[Chad]

I'm ready for December 30!