Team Efficiency - A rational discussion

[daBuzz]

Wanting the offense to improve, as I do, doesn't mean they haven't been efficient. It almost sounds like two different discussions going on. One about whether they are efficient or not and another about whether they are good enough.

Boomer, you're dead on. I tried to make it very clear in earlier posts that I'm willing to concede our offense is efficient. I do contend however that our record proves that, regardless of how efficient we are, we are not effective.

 

[AE 87]

Simple how many times have we come from behind to win when we had the ball...how many times have we messes up with a fumble pass intercept or not making it on fourth down...how many top players have we got in past yrs to really run this offense...seven and five tell me we are barely adaquatee st win loss. Will agree its a extension of the team but letsbr real......would you as a h's running back want to come to tech and run dives all day long ...if you answer yes....come to tech...if no bet you go to a spread offense.

Great! I look forward to you answering the simple questions with which this response begins. That would give us a way of comparing offenses.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I kn

LOL, so now some statistical analysis of common opponents is more effective than comparing head-to-head? Well, hell someone should call the BCS and let them know that. I think Alabama beat the other teams in the SEC worse than Auburn did, so Alabama now gets to play in the national championship!

You guys go ahead and run your linear regressions and convince yourself that "our offense kicks ***" while we continue to win 50% of our gam

LOL, so now some statistical analysis of common opponents is more effective than comparing head-to-head? Well, hell someone should call the BCS and let them know that. I think Alabama beat the other teams in the SEC worse than Auburn did, so Alabama now gets to play in the national championship!

You guys go ahead and run your linear regressions and convince yourself that "our offense kicks ***" while we continue to win 50% of our games.

I know Aubie beat Bama...I still believe Bama is the better team The best team doesn't always win....(mind blown?) this debate is going in circles though.

 

[Mack]

Great! I look forward to you answering the simple questions with which this response begins. That would give us a way of comparing offenses.

Well for starters how well do we do in overtime? Howxmany leads have we blown? How many turnovers do we have on pitches and interceptions.You are the slide rule guy but stats and rating do not win football games points do.I deal with wins and looses since that is the bog tom line.If the offense is clicking so well.....why are we seven and five.....now before you race to computer key I do realize its s team sport and offense is not the main culprit in the room.

 

[AE 87]

@Mack
You answered your own question there at the end. You throw out a lot of questions there to start with that suggest they support your point. However, without answering those questions and comparing them to how other teams have done, then they just function emotionally rather than rationally. As I've said before, I recognize that some people are more comfortable with emotional discussions. I started this thread to see if anyone could make a rational argument.

 

[cyptomcat]

LOL. We played Virginia Tech.
Our offense: 273 yards and 10 points scored
Their offense: 276 yards and 17 points scored

YES. I do believe the statistics show that Virginia Tech has a better offense than ours.

Now you can play the "rational discussion" card all you want, but in the most effective measurement of stats, which is head-to-head, they beat us. That's called being more effective and the stats back it up.

That's not comparing head to head. VT offense sucked against its own defense with stats available.

now that is head to head and shows VT is less effective.

Go ahead and compare GT and VT against ACC coastal. that would be head to head too.

Rational discussion is not a card. It's what adults do. Adults that don't need use 'lol' every post.

 

[Mack]

@Mack
You answered your own question there at the end. You throw out a lot of questions there to start with that suggest they support your point. However, without answering those questions and comparing them to how other teams have done, then they just function emotionally rather than rationally. As I've said before, I recognize that some people are more comfortable with emotional discussions. I started this thread to see if anyone could make a rational argument.

My friend .........football is a emotional game.........I doubt fans will get into the weeds with you with your efficiency on third downs etc since every game is different.I doubt we have the time to look at every play and position on the field and come up with a percentage of good play vs bad.My point is the option when run right is great if you have the folks to run it..Yeah we beat AM teams and improve our rating nationally but if we are so good .....why do we lose.It shoud be no biggie to figure our when we need a long drive in closing minutes our offense against the clock is a liability and if you have looked and sure you have...we don't dwell in overtime or making comebacks in last seconds of a game.now the biggie..........my mind is set..we were seven and five and we didnt do what we wanted to do when we needed to do it.No emotion is needed just good football sense.This is football my friend not a class in math or percentages.I would think your last sentence decides it all......coached coach on more emotion than rationale anyway.

 

[Mack]

LOL, so now some statistical analysis of common opponents is more effective than comparing head-to-head? Well, hell someone should call the BCS and let them know that. I think Alabama beat the other teams in the SEC worse than Auburn did, so Alabama now gets to play in the national championship!

You guys go ahead and run your linear regressions and convince yourself that "our offense kicks ***" while we continue to win 50% of our games.

I repeat..........why are we seven and five ? Is this a blame game ? Do we blame the defense for giving up points or the o for not scoring enough..........you can use stats anyway you want to but final stat is..........WHO WON ?

 

[daBuzz]

I repeat..........why are we seven and five ? Is this a blame game ? Do we blame the defense for giving up points or the o for not scoring enough..........you can use stats anyway you want to but final stat is..........WHO WON ?

You and I are on the same page. That's really all I care about. Who won.

 

[daBuzz]

That's not comparing head to head. VT offense sucked against its own defense with stats available.

now that is head to head and shows VT is less effective.

Go ahead and compare GT and VT against ACC coastal. that would be head to head too.

Rational discussion is not a card. It's what adults do. Adults that don't need use 'lol' every post.

No. Let's be rational here. Who won? Did we beat VT or did they beat us? They won. They were more effective. There really is no argument.

Oh, and LOL.

 

[cyptomcat]

No. Let's be rational here. Who won? Did we beat VT or did they beat us? They won. They were more effective. There really is no argument.

Oh, and LOL.

Their defense was certainly effective. Their offense wasn't.

You sound ridiculous suggesting that 2013 VT offense was an effective offense. Try that anywhere and you would be laughed at.

 

[CuseJacket]

No. Let's be rational here. Who won? Did we beat VT or did they beat us? They won. They were more effective. There really is no argument.

Oh, and LOL.

This thread was meant to discuss efficiency and not effectiveness, but I'll still ask... Is there any middle ground to the absolute W and L argument? If GT beats Ole Miss 2-0 due to their long snapper snapping a ball through the endzone, was our offense more effective? What if we win despite turning the ball over 6 times and Ole Miss outgains us 350 yards to 100 yards?

 

[daBuzz]

Their defense was certainly effective. Their offense wasn't.

You sound ridiculous suggesting that 2013 VT offense was an effective offense. Try that anywhere and you would be laughed at.

You should write a book. This stuff is priceless.

So let me get this straight. If VT's offense had gained 500 yards against us and they had lost, THAT would have been effective?
But, since they scored 7 more points than us and WON, that's not effective?

Uh huh...you try your argument to other people. See who gets laughed at.

 

[daBuzz]

This thread was meant to discuss efficiency and not effectiveness, but I'll still ask... Is there any middle ground to the absolute W and L argument? If GT beats Ole Miss 2-0 due to their long snapper snapping a ball through the endzone, was our offense more effective? What if we win despite turning the ball over 6 times and Ole Miss outgains us 350 yards to 100 yards?

I'd be happy as hell with that. I don't care if we win 726-725 or 2-0. As long as we win. As long as we win, our TEAM is more effective. And that's what counts.

But to your point, no our offense would not have been more effective in that game. Our defense would have been though.

I'll relate this to baseball again.
Sometimes we're playing a really good pitcher. In that case, I need my pitcher to match their guy and throw up as close to a shutout as possible. If their guy gives up one, I need my offense to score 2. To insist that my offense score 7 while only giving up 1 is overkill (although it does help us coaches breathe easier!).

In football, some games like Virginia Tech happen. Our defense held them to 17 points. By any measure that's pretty decent for our defense. So our offense needed to score 18...they didn't.

Turn that around though and look @ it from VT's point of view. Their defense threw up a 10-spot, so their offense only needed to score 11. They scored 17. I wouldn't say their offense was very efficient, but it was effective because they scored enough to win the game. That's all they needed to do. To put up 40 would have just been padding. That 11th point won the game.

 

[CuseJacket]

I'd be happy as hell with that. I don't care if we win 726-725 or 2-0. As long as we win. As long as we win, our TEAM is more effective. And that's what counts.

But to your point, no our offense would not have been more effective in that game. Our defense would have been though.

I'll relate this to baseball again.
Sometimes we're playing a really good pitcher. In that case, I need my pitcher to match their guy and throw up as close to a shutout as possible. If their guy gives up one, I need my offense to score 2. To insist that my offense score 7 while only giving up 1 is overkill (although it does help us coaches breathe easier!).

In football, some games like Virginia Tech happen. Our defense held them to 17 points. By any measure that's pretty decent for our defense. So our offense needed to score 18...they didn't.

Turn that around though and look @ it from VT's point of view. Their defense threw up a 10-spot, so their offense only needed to score 11. They scored 17. I wouldn't say their offense was very efficient, but it was effective because they scored enough to win the game. That's all they needed to do. To put up 40 would have just been padding. That 11th point won the game.

I can get behind this explanation because I agree that effectiveness is measured by ensuring the end result is a W vs. a L.

I think the confusion in this thread from others has been the stances around differentiating effectiveness vs. efficiency, and in either scenario differentiating team performance from the individual unit performance. Effectiveness and efficiency are two different ways of evaluating performance.

In fairness to the offenses alone, which seemed to be the original point of the thread, I don't think it's fair to say the performance of GT's O against a VT D is the same as comparing the performance of VT's O against a GT D. An apples to apples comparison would be comparing both O's against the same D.

Acknowledging this is only hypothetical, I think that GT's O would have been capable that Thursday night of scoring more than 17 points against GT's D. If that's true I think it's fair to say that our O is better than VT's O.

As for team performance you'll get no argument from me that VT's team has been better than GT's team, especially head to head. I doubt anyone would debate that.

 

[cyptomcat]

In fairness to the offenses alone, which seemed to be the original point of the thread, I don't think it's fair to say the performance of GT's O against a VT D is the same as comparing the performance of VT's O against a GT D. An apples to apples comparison would be comparing both O's against the same D.

Acknowledging this is only hypothetical, I think that GT's O would have been capable that Thursday night of scoring more than 17 points against GT's D. If that's true I think it's fair to say that our O is better than VT's O.

As for team performance you'll get no argument from me that VT's team has been better than GT's team, especially head to head. I doubt anyone would debate that.

Yup, this!

In fact we do know Logas Thomas threw three interceptions against VT D last year, 2 of them pick six. That's more apples apples. Only scored 9 points.

Which is what you expect since 2013 VT offense was not efficient or effective.

 

[AE 87]

My friend .........football is a emotional game.........I doubt fans will get into the weeds with you with your efficiency on third downs etc since every game is different.I doubt we have the time to look at every play and position on the field and come up with a percentage of good play vs bad.My point is the option when run right is great if you have the folks to run it..Yeah we beat AM teams and improve our rating nationally but if we are so good .....why do we lose.It shoud be no biggie to figure our when we need a long drive in closing minutes our offense against the clock is a liability and if you have looked and sure you have...we don't dwell in overtime or making comebacks in last seconds of a game.now the biggie..........my mind is set..we were seven and five and we didnt do what we wanted to do when we needed to do it.No emotion is needed just good football sense.This is football my friend not a class in math or percentages.I would think your last sentence decides it all......coached coach on more emotion than rationale anyway.

I have repeatedly said that I recognize the emotional aspect of the game and respect those who address questions of our team's performance emotionally. I wanted a rational discussion.

 

[Rodney Kent]

To AE 87: What you have not learned is that you cannot dictate a discussion on your terms. Each person will respond with his own views of a situation regardless of your insistance in a format dictated by you.

 

[AE 87]

To AE 87: What you have not learned is that you cannot dictate a discussion on your terms. Each person will respond with his own views of a situation regardless of your insistance in a format dictated by you.

I understand you. I was simply expressing my desire, not dictating. GTSportstalk was a place where people could outshout those who disagreed with them. Those who do not know how to respect people of differing opinions often do this. I don't know what in your life has filled you with so much hate, but I hope that putting it on me in a football forum is in some way helpful for you.

 

[IronJacket7]

Boomer, you're dead on. I tried to make it very clear in earlier posts that I'm willing to concede our offense is efficient. I do contend however that our record proves that, regardless of how efficient we are, we are not effective.

I agree. And let me piggy back off this if I may. I feel our offense is effective and efficient when it is executed correctly. Making your blocks, correct reads by the QB, no false starts, etc... equal good execution. I think the offense did not execute as well this year as it has in prior years. Jmo.

Boomer, you're dead on. I tried to make it very clear in earlier posts that I'm willing to concede our offense is efficient. I do contend however that our record proves that, regardless of how efficient we are, we are not effective.