Tech's Likelihood of Winning

[Augusta_Jacket]

I think the playmakers that we had before CBK achieved it in spite of the coaching, not because of it. Without the disorganization and trainwreck that was TFG, players will be better prepared , having greater confidence and freedom to "make a play".

I'm not knocking current coaching at all, but losing an EDGE defender to the NFL, along with two ALL-ACC LBs and a promising DT who was honored for his performance in the Spring Game leaves some big holes to fill on a D that finished in the bottom half of NCAA football last year. As I said, I have major questions about how good that unit will be, especially early on.

 

[Root4GT]

I'm not knocking current coaching at all, but losing an EDGE defender to the NFL, along with two ALL-ACC LBs and a promising DT who was honored for his performance in the Spring Game leaves some big holes to fill on a D that finished in the bottom half of NCAA football last year. As I said, I have major questions about how good that unit will be, especially early on.

Bingo - a realistic post for a change! There is reason to be concerned about our defense. Last year they were "ok" but not more than that. As you state they lost 3 of the top players from the defense. This year is clearly TBD on defense. Hoping for the best but not expecting anything special.

 

[slugboy]

Here are the strength of schedule definitions:
Strength of schedule ratings represent the expected number of losses an elite team two standard deviations better than average would have against each team's schedule to date (ELS), the expected number of losses a good team one standard deviation above average would have against the schedule to date (GLS), and the expected number of losses an average team would have against the schedule to date (ALS).

An average team goes 5-7 against our schedule (last year). We were projected for 3.6 wins last year, and Key had most of the wins, so he overachieved vs projections. I don’t have the 2023 numbers yet. A good team (top 25-30) wins about 8 or 9 games against last year’s schedule. An elite team (playoff contender) wins 10 or 11.

That shows a couple of things—if you have six patsies and six top ten teams, you’re not going to see much difference between ALS and GLS—you’ll see six wins.
Our schedule (based on last year) has
Top 10: 1 team - UGA
11-20: 1 team - Clemson
21-30: 2 teams - Louisville and Ole Miss
31-40: 1 team - Wake (no Pitt this year ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
41-50: 1 team - Syracuse
51-60: 0 teams
61-70: 1 team - UNC
71-80: 0 teams
81-90: 1 team - Miami
91-100: 1 team - UVA
101-110: 1 team - Boston College
Beyond 110: Bowling Green and South Carolina State

If we ignore home field advantage (we shouldn’t ) and we assume Miami doesn’t improve (they will) and we assume matchups don’t matter (they do) and overlook luck and injuries (etc.):

A BC quality team gets 3 wins.
A GT team last season gets 5 wins (4 if we factor in home field)
An average team gets 5 wins. So, we could improve A LOT and get the same number of wins
An above-average top 50 team gets 6 wins
A top 40 team gets 7 wins
A number 25 team gets 8 wins
A top 20 team gets 10 wins
A top 10 team gets 11 wins
A number 1 team gets 12 wins.

I’m overestimating a little—you could take one win away from those and still have about the same view of the schedule. Anywhere from +1 win to -2 wins from the numbers above is a conservative range.

Also, Louisville is a tough team to start the season with. If we win that, it’s a BIG win.

These are last year’s numbers. The first third of the columns (through DFEI RK) are opponent adjusted efficiencies. The middle third are unadjusted. The right third of the columns are strength of schedule.

.

Rk​

Team

Rec​

FBS​

FEI​

ELS​

Rk​

GLS​

Rk​

ALS​

Rk​

92​

Georgia Tech​

5-7​

4-7​

-.33​

1.45​

25​

3.69​

41​

7.06​

50​

24​

Louisville​

8-5​

8-5​

.46​

.66​

64​

3.29​

48​

7.81​

31​

22​

Ole Miss​

8-5​

7-5​

.49​

1.33​

29​

4.10​

27​

8.07​

19​

31​

Wake Forest​

8-5​

7-5​

.35​

.63​

69​

2.97​

56​

7.17​

47​

90​

Miami​

5-7​

4-7​

-.32​

.54​

74​

2.26​

67​

5.59​

72​

102​

Boston College​

3-9​

2-9​

-.46​

.73​

58​

3.11​

55​

6.74​

58​

61​

North Carolina​

9-5​

8-5​

.10​

.59​

72​

2.83​

60​

7.11​

49​

95​

Virginia​

3-7​

2-7​

-.33​

.33​

88​

1.89​

75​

4.96​

76​

18​

Clemson​

11-3​

10-3​

.57​

1.18​

32​

3.77​

40​

7.72​

33​

49​

Syracuse​

7-6​

6-6​

.17​

.85​

51​

3.58​

44​

7.59​

36​

1​

Georgia​

15-0​

14-0​

1.58​

2.26​

6​

5.96​

2​

10.22​

1​

 

[HouseDivided]

I look for Bobo to make their offense take a few steps back.

That's the prevailing narrative and hope, including my Dwag Uncle. But looking at him with somewhat objective lens.....His offenses at UGA were potent. They usually averaged high 30's or low 40s a year or 2. He set records wuth Hutson Mason, lol. If this was Bobo from the Richt years I'd agree they'd be hampered without Monken. But Bobo never had this much talent at all positions. He usually had a very good to elite RB like Gurley, but their O-lines were never as good as they have been nor their WR group. They also didn't have a Bowers type weapon as a hybrid. Bobo was actually quite good for them, sometimes elite, their idiotic fans just didn't grasp it.

Monken apparently left his playbook and Bobo was learned his system. I wouldn't expect a wholesale change in the offense under Bobo from Monken though a few concepts will change. But largely the same play calls/sets. Bobo will undoubtedly take more downfield shots than Monken did since Monken was far more "spread" oriented which is more lateral and intermediate schemes.

 

[bobongo]

That's the prevailing narrative and hope, including my Dwag Uncle. But looking at him with somewhat objective lens.....His offenses at UGA were potent. They usually averaged high 30's or low 40s a year or 2. He set records wuth Hutson Mason, lol. If this was Bobo from the Richt years I'd agree they'd be hampered without Monken. But Bobo never had this much talent at all positions. He usually had a very good to elite RB like Gurley, but their O-lines were never as good as they have been nor their WR group. They also didn't have a Bowers type weapon as a hybrid. Bobo was actually quite good for them, sometimes elite, their idiotic fans just didn't grasp it.

Monken apparently left his playbook and Bobo was learned his system. I wouldn't expect a wholesale change in the offense under Bobo from Monken though a few concepts will change. But largely the same play calls/sets. Bobo will undoubtedly take more downfield shots than Monken did since Monken was far more "spread" oriented which is more lateral and intermediate schemes.

Agree. From what I've seen Bobo seems an excellent O-coordinator, I hate to say.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Bobo will undoubtedly take more downfield shots than Monken did since Monken was far more "spread" oriented which is more lateral and intermediate schemes.

Monken also had Bennet as starting QB for his last two years, and while Bennett was a great game manager but his arm strength for the deep pass is limited.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Here are the strength of schedule definitions:
Strength of schedule ratings represent the expected number of losses an elite team two standard deviations better than average would have against each team's schedule to date (ELS), the expected number of losses a good team one standard deviation above average would have against the schedule to date (GLS), and the expected number of losses an average team would have against the schedule to date (ALS).

An average team goes 5-7 against our schedule (last year). We were projected for 3.6 wins last year, and Key had most of the wins, so he overachieved vs projections. I don’t have the 2023 numbers yet. A good team (top 25-30) wins about 8 or 9 games against last year’s schedule. An elite team (playoff contender) wins 10 or 11.

That shows a couple of things—if you have six patsies and six top ten teams, you’re not going to see much difference between ALS and GLS—you’ll see six wins.
Our schedule (based on last year) has
Top 10: 1 team - UGA
11-20: 1 team - Clemson
21-30: 2 teams - Louisville and Ole Miss
31-40: 1 team - Wake (no Pitt this year ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
41-50: 1 team - Syracuse
51-60: 0 teams
61-70: 1 team - UNC
71-80: 0 teams
81-90: 1 team - Miami
91-100: 1 team - UVA
101-110: 1 team - Boston College
Beyond 110: Bowling Green and South Carolina State

If we ignore home field advantage (we shouldn’t ) and we assume Miami doesn’t improve (they will) and we assume matchups don’t matter (they do) and overlook luck and injuries (etc.):

A BC quality team gets 3 wins.
A GT team last season gets 5 wins (4 if we factor in home field)
An average team gets 5 wins. So, we could improve A LOT and get the same number of wins
An above-average top 50 team gets 6 wins
A top 40 team gets 7 wins
A number 25 team gets 8 wins
A top 20 team gets 10 wins
A top 10 team gets 11 wins
A number 1 team gets 12 wins.

I’m overestimating a little—you could take one win away from those and still have about the same view of the schedule. Anywhere from +1 win to -2 wins from the numbers above is a conservative range.

Also, Louisville is a tough team to start the season with. If we win that, it’s a BIG win.

I see likely wins against UVA, Boston College, Bowling Green and South Carolina State. Likely losses in all the others but also an upset is possible against Louisville and/or Syracuse. Call it 5 wins...maybe.

 

[scotts]

We beat both Pitt and UNC last year where we were underdogs. Key got both of those wins. I expect we will have 1-2 games where will pull off upsets this season as well.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

We beat both Pitt and UNC last year where we were underdogs. Key got both of those wins. I expect we will have 1-2 games where will pull off upsets this season as well.

My take is my own. 6 wins is my ceiling for this team with an expectation and hope of winning five. IF and its a big one, IF we can beat Louisville and Wake then all bets are off and Tech should be able to win 7 with a nice bowl.

 

[AUFC]

I'm not knocking current coaching at all, but losing an EDGE defender to the NFL, along with two ALL-ACC LBs and a promising DT who was honored for his performance in the Spring Game leaves some big holes to fill on a D that finished in the bottom half of NCAA football last year. As I said, I have major questions about how good that unit will be, especially early on.

Bottom half of the NCAA is a little misleading. They had an offense that was proverbially throwing them under the bus every game as far as time of possession and field position is concerned. That defense was fun to watch, especially when the crowd was getting behind them like the Duke game. Fans/students and the team just creating a positive feedback loop of energy that day, at least the first 50 minutes of the game. I hadn't had that much fun at a GT game in a long time.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Bottom half of the NCAA is a little misleading. They had an offense that was proverbially throwing them under the bus every game as far as time of possession and field position is concerned. That defense was fun to watch, especially when the crowd was getting behind them like the Duke game. Fans/students and the team just creating a positive feedback loop of energy that day, at least the first 50 minutes of the game. I hadn't had that much fun at a GT game in a long time.

Technically, we finished somewhere near the bottom third. I cut the D some slack because of the offense. The D was improved greatly after Collins was let go, but they were far from great. Again, I think we will be a better coached unit, and I concede the possibility that we could actually be better, but my point was that I have more questions and concerns about the D next year than the O or the ST.

 

[slugboy]

Technically, we finished somewhere near the bottom third. I cut the D some slack because of the offense. The D was improved greatly after Collins was let go, but they were far from great. Again, I think we will be a better coached unit, and I concede the possibility that we could actually be better, but my point was that I have more questions and concerns about the D next year than the O or the ST.

The SP+, FEI, and other ratings I saw for last year put our defense in the top 40 (SP+ had our D around 75, which was as low as it got—most were good ratings). Most all of the analytics I saw loved our defense.
Our problem was that we kept putting them back on the field quickly and in bad field position.

An all-too-early preview of GT-UL at https://gameonpaper.com/cfb/game/401525462 shows some FEI-based stats, and you can see why Satterfield is gone from UL, too.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The SP+, FEI, and other ratings I saw for last year put our defense in the top 40 (SP+ had our D around 75, which was as low as it got—most were good ratings). Most all of the analytics I saw loved our defense.
Our problem was that we kept putting them back on the field quickly and in bad field position.

Can't speak to the DFEI stats because right now Football Outsiders has all 2023 2022 NCAA stats under revision and unavailable.

According to total defense, we were 85th.

Regardless, the players that contributed most to that defense, as well as one of the two best remaining defensive players, are now gone. There are legitimate questions on how they do this year.

 

[g0lftime]

The SP+, FEI, and other ratings I saw for last year put our defense in the top 40 (SP+ had our D around 75, which was as low as it got—most were good ratings). Most all of the analytics I saw loved our defense.
Our problem was that we kept putting them back on the field quickly and in bad field position.

We weren't great at getting the other team 3 and out either. This year will be a good test of whether Thacker is a decent DC or not.

 

[slugboy]

Can't speak to the DFEI stats because right now Football Outsiders has all 2023 NCAA stats under revision and unavailable.

According to total defense, we were 85th.

Regardless, the players that contributed most to that defense, as well as one of the two best remaining defensive players, are now gone. There are legitimate questions on how they do this year.

You should be able to find the main numbers at https://www.bcftoys.com/2022-dfei. 2023 isn’t out yet. The year-over-year team profile through 2021 is at https://www.bcftoys.com/georgia-tech. Our defensive ranking from 2019 through 2022 went #93 (2019)->#88->#112->#40 (2022). Turnovers were a big part of that—we were #12 there.

Special Teams was #124 last year .

There are some other numbers in places like LonghornDriveStats. All those numbers will be last year’s team, but most defensive numbers are favorable.

 

[InsideLB]

Wasnt going to post in this thread because really, who the hell knows how much a team will win. Injuries, bad bounces, crappily timed marginal penalties, team chemistry, made/missed kicks, fluke plays, etc generate a lot of randomness.

However, I rewatched Pitt and UNC games from last year, and I do see some things that lead to optimism. One was DL play. Yes Keon and those LBs are gone. In general though our DL has improved. Second, I like how we tailored available talent into game plans that won. Third I saw us play undaunted by circumstances and focus on execution of said plans...IMO that's the "toughness" Key is talking about. Fourth the coaches stuck to their plans and didn't make weird Collins-like decisions to lose the game. Fifth, an OL that was growing up last year returns and looks solid.

No idea what that means for number of wins, but I do feel confident we will field a product that is well-prepared, plays hard regardless of scoreboard, limits beating ourselves, and of which I can be proud of as Tech fan. Usually that means you win your share as well, but always it means you are headed in the right direction.

Key reminds me of the NIU head coach who played OL for NIU as Key did for GT. Both with pride in their alma mater and a focus on toughness. Ultimately the ceiling will depend on getting/keeping talent both on the team and on the staff. But I do see Key at minimum getting us to bowl contention most years, and maybe much more.

 

[MWBATL]

We beat both Pitt and UNC last year where we were underdogs. Key got both of those wins. I expect we will have 1-2 games where will pull off upsets this season as well.

and, if history is any guide, 1-2 games where we lay an egg and drop a game which we *should* win (like UVa last year).

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You should be able to find the main numbers at https://www.bcftoys.com/2022-dfei. 2023 isn’t out yet. The year-over-year team profile through 2021 is at https://www.bcftoys.com/georgia-tech. Our defensive ranking from 2019 through 2022 went #93 (2019)->#88->#112->#40 (2022). Turnovers were a big part of that—we were #12 there.

Special Teams was #124 last year .

There are some other numbers in places like LonghornDriveStats. All those numbers will be last year’s team, but most defensive numbers are favorable.

I meant 2022 numbers were under revision.

 

[RonJohn]

I meant 2022 numbers were under revision.

How can the 2022 stats be under revision? Nothing could change what happened last year at this point.

 

[GetYourBuzzOn]

How can the 2022 stats be under revision? Nothing could change what happened last year at this point.

Probably has more to do with every single relevant FO contributor- including their founder Aaron Schatz- leaving the company: https://defector.com/the-people-who-acquired-football-outsiders-are-screwing-the-people-who-built-it

I would not count on FO for anything moving forward. Personally I'll be using PFF for advanced stats this year.