Ted Roof's job

[Vespidae]

GT is 33rd in the nation, allowing 21.9 pts per game.Our offense should be able to put up 23 points a game without much pressure.

Averages are deceptive. And heavily skewed towards light opponents.

Still, we should put up a lot of points with better field position. As CPJ has said, that comes from (his words) "Cha-cha-cha" ... Three and out. We don't play a defense that delivers three and outs.

Right now, it feels like we don't play a totally integrated game. Defense has to contribute to the offense.

 

[jandrews]

Averages are deceptive. And heavily skewed towards light opponents.

Still, we should put up a lot of points with better field position. As CPJ has said, that comes from (his words) "Cha-cha-cha" ... Three and out. We don't play a defense that delivers three and outs.

Right now, it feels like we don't play a totally integrated game. Defense has to contribute to the offense.

If you only account for P5 teams we are giving up 23ish ppg. Still not that bad. That's including the 14 points given up by the fumbles, take that out and it goes down to 21.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Averages are deceptive. And heavily skewed towards light opponents.

Still, we should put up a lot of points with better field position. As CPJ has said, that comes from (his words) "Cha-cha-cha" ... Three and out. We don't play a defense that delivers three and outs.

Right now, it feels like we don't play a totally integrated game. Defense has to contribute to the offense.

Our opponents (so far) average 36.4 points per game. We've held them to 25.4 points per game. (I threw out the Mercer results) GT has held every team but Pitt to a TD or more less than its season average for points scored. Pitt pretty much hit its season average (38.4) against us.

I know that averages aren't always the best statistical measurements, but my point was that you can't just ignore them, as JMonty suggested. We are a mediocre D. We're not good, but we're not horrible either. There is a lot of room for improvement, but we're definitely better off today than we were under CAG.

 

[Vespidae]

If you only account for P5 teams we are giving up 23ish ppg. Still not that bad.

It is when you think about our offense ... it's generating 23.4 points per game against these same opponents. Net net .. we are short against P5 opponents.

 

[jandrews]

It is when you think about our offense ... it's generating 23.4 points per game against these same opponents. Net net .. we are short against P5 opponents.

So basically is a toss up every single time we are playing. But which games exactly has the defense lost for us? We are not playing well on the o side. Too many penalties, negative plays, and turnovers. I'm waiting for that first mistake free game.

 

[Vespidae]

So basically is a toss up every single time we are playing. But which games exactly has the defense lost for us? We are not playing well on the o side. Too many penalties, negative plays, and turnovers. I'm waiting for that first mistake free game.

That's right. Against P5, we're a coin flip. If you look at the offensive and defensive efficiency stats, it states the same thing.

Old coaches (Woody Hayes, Bear Bryant, etc.) used to always say, "More games are lost than won. And they are lost by committing mistakes."

So, you're perspective is right in line ... with some of the greats. Playing great football starts with playing mistake free. Control the things you can control and don't beat yourself.

 

[tech_wreck47]

And thank you for proving my point. GT is 33rd in the nation, allowing 21.9 pts per game.Our offense should be able to put up 23 points a game without much pressure. Your assertion earlier was don't look at points per game as a meaningful stat. That's just wrong. It's certainly not the only stat, but it's arguably one of the most important ones.

Even cpj has said that stat is pretty pointless, so you know more than the head coach? The good offenses we are playing are scoring on around 70 percent of their drives, I'm sorry but that is awful. Pitt scored on 7 of 9 drives lol, when we play decent offenses they are scoring at pretty much will, and one of those drives was stopped because of a fumble that we didn't even force. You can expect lower points against you when a team has only 8 drives. Now I'm not saying the offense has been great because they haven't but imo they have deffenitly been better than the D.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Even cpj has said that stat is pretty pointless, so you know more than the head coach? The good offenses we are playing are scoring on around 70 percent of their drives, I'm sorry but that is awful. Pitt scored on 7 of 9 drives lol, when we play decent offenses they are scoring at pretty much will, and one of those drives was stopped because of a fumble that we didn't even force. You can expect lower points against you when a team has only 8 drives. Now I'm not saying the offense has been great because they haven't but imo they have deffenitly been better than the D.

When did CPJ say scoring D was a pointless stat? (I am not arguing, I just don't recall it)

Also, let's quantify "good offenses." Of our opponents so far, only 4 could qualify as a good offense. Here is the scoring rate against us, end of half, clock killing drives excluded:

Pitt scored on 7/9 for a 77% rate

Clemson scored on 4/12 (not including the safety) for a 33% rate

Miami scored on 3 of 9 for a 33% rate

GaSo scored on 4/8 for a 50% rate

Overall, these four offenses have scored on 18/38 for a 47% rate.

All four of those teams had minimum 8 drives. Clemson had 12, and only scored 24 (26). The only team to score at will on us was Pitt. I was in China for that game, so I can't honestly say what broke down there. The games I have seen, however, tell me that we have a mediocre D.

I also agree that our O has been better than our D. My point was that the O lost the Miami game. Those two fumbles were the difference in the game. If we were 5-2 right now, with a close loss to Pitt, I think the general conversation would be entirely different.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I've followed Tech my entire life. The only DC I can recall who wasn't hated on, while actively coaching, was O'leary. I don't recall much hate for him then but he also wasn't as popular as the Fridge.

All the others have been hated. Including Tenuta. Their detractors have always spewed out the deficiencies in their schemes and ability to coach up players. I can't count how many times I defended Tenuta while he was here. Which is nuts considering his overall results. But fans always know better. This is more of the same so I should be used to it by now.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I've followed Tech my entire life. The only DC I can recall who wasn't hated on, while actively coaching, was O'leary. I don't recall much hate for him then but he also wasn't as popular as the Fridge.

All the others have been hated. Including Tenuta. Their detractors have always spewed out the deficiencies in their schemes and ability to coach up players. I can't count how many times I defended Tenuta while he was here. Which is nuts considering his overall results. But fans always know better. This is more of the same so I should be used to it by now.

This.

 

[AE 87]

When did CPJ say scoring D was a pointless stat? (I am not arguing, I just don't recall it)

Also, let's quantify "good offenses." Of our opponents so far, only 4 could qualify as a good offense. Here is the scoring rate against us, end of half, clock killing drives excluded:

Pitt scored on 7/9 for a 77% rate

Clemson scored on 4/12 (not including the safety) for a 33% rate

Miami scored on 3 of 9 for a 33% rate

GaSo scored on 4/8 for a 50% rate

Overall, these four offenses have scored on 18/38 for a 47% rate.

All four of those teams had minimum 8 drives. Clemson had 12, and only scored 24 (26). The only team to score at will on us was Pitt. I was in China for that game, so I can't honestly say what broke down there. The games I have seen, however, tell me that we have a mediocre D.

I also agree that our O has been better than our D. My point was that the O lost the Miami game. Those two fumbles were the difference in the game. If we were 5-2 right now, with a close loss to Pitt, I think the general conversation would be entirely different.

CPJ's talked about this a lot lately, including the podcast linked in a thread in this forum. Also Sean talked about it in the last coach's show. The issue is whether you are talking about points/game or points/possession. Total D looks at points/game. Before this past Saturday, games involving Pwr5 teams averaged 12.6 drives/game, fbs teams averaged from 8 to 17 drives/game against pwr5 comp. GT averaged 10.6. If you look at total points/game, you are often comparing apples and oranges.

Between 2008 and 2014, FBS offenses averaged less than 2 points/drive, and defenses allowed about 2.1 ppd, against Pwr5 competition. Scoring on average 3 points/drive against pwr5 competition is typically top 10 offense. So, when Ga South scores 24 pts in 8 drives, that's a significant performance against our D.

 

[CTJacket]

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Quoted because you used their real name!

 

[tech_wreck47]

When did CPJ say scoring D was a pointless stat? (I am not arguing, I just don't recall it)

Also, let's quantify "good offenses." Of our opponents so far, only 4 could qualify as a good offense. Here is the scoring rate against us, end of half, clock killing drives excluded:

Pitt scored on 7/9 for a 77% rate

Clemson scored on 4/12 (not including the safety) for a 33% rate

Miami scored on 3 of 9 for a 33% rate

GaSo scored on 4/8 for a 50% rate

Overall, these four offenses have scored on 18/38 for a 47% rate.

All four of those teams had minimum 8 drives. Clemson had 12, and only scored 24 (26). The only team to score at will on us was Pitt. I was in China for that game, so I can't honestly say what broke down there. The games I have seen, however, tell me that we have a mediocre D.

I also agree that our O has been better than our D. My point was that the O lost the Miami game. Those two fumbles were the difference in the game. If we were 5-2 right now, with a close loss to Pitt, I think the general conversation would be entirely different.

My bad on the percentages I thought they were higher for some reason, maybe I should say they held on to the ball at will lol. But cpj lately has said many times that points per game are very miss leading and points per drive and yards per play ect are better to go by.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I've followed Tech my entire life. The only DC I can recall who wasn't hated on, while actively coaching, was O'leary. I don't recall much hate for him then but he also wasn't as popular as the Fridge.

All the others have been hated. Including Tenuta. Their detractors have always spewed out the deficiencies in their schemes and ability to coach up players. I can't count how many times I defended Tenuta while he was here. Which is nuts considering his overall results. But fans always know better. This is more of the same so I should be used to it by now.

I've followed Tech my entire life. The only DC I can recall who wasn't hated on, while actively coaching, was O'leary. I don't recall much hate for him then but he also wasn't as popular as the Fridge.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I've followed Tech my entire life. The only DC I can recall who wasn't hated on, while actively coaching, was O'leary. I don't recall much hate for him then but he also wasn't as popular as the Fridge.

All the others have been hated. Including Tenuta. Their detractors have always spewed out the deficiencies in their schemes and ability to coach up players. I can't count how many times I defended Tenuta while he was here. Which is nuts considering his overall results. But fans always know better. This is more of the same so I should be used to it by now.

Not sure what happened on my previous attempt to respond to this, but I will try again. I don't recall Don Lindsey (sp?) being hated, and Bud Carson, WHEN he was DC, was definitely not hated.

 

[ilovetheoption]

PPG is a bad stat for both, because it discounts pace.

Being efficient is what's important. FEI is basically a SOS corrected effeciency stat.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

GT has the 13th best offense in the country.

GT has the 97th ranked defense in the country.

(it also predicts GT to finish 7-5)

 

[jandrews]

PPG is a bad stat for both, because it discounts pace.

Being efficient is what's important. FEI is basically a SOS corrected effeciency stat.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

GT has the 13th best offense in the country.

GT has the 97th ranked defense in the country.

(it also predicts GT to finish 7-5)

So the best offense we face for the remaining schedule is UNC. Our offense better be efficient the second half. If the offense can play mistake free football I like our chances.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

My bad on the percentages I thought they were higher for some reason, maybe I should say they held on to the ball at will lol. But cpj lately has said many times that points per game are very miss leading and points per drive and yards per play ect are better to go by.

I think most people think that the %s are higher. Again, the reality is we have a very mediocre defense. My purpose in quoting points per game was to refute the notion JMonty had that we needed to score 30+ per game in order to win. That's not true, and the stats bear it out.

I'll also say that I don't think scheme is our problem. I have watched all but the Pitt game this year, and what I have consistently seen is that our main weakness is tackling. Way too many times I have seen us make contact before the markers on third down and still have the opposing O make the first down. I haven't researched the stats, but I haven't seen us give up a lot of plays over 20 yds. Of the few I remember/know of, 2 were deflected passes that were caught. Most of the plays that have burned us are in the 6-10 yard range, most coming after initial contact by a GT defender. The same goes with our pass rush. I've seen us whiff an awful lot on the QB, when we were in the backfield with a shot. I am not sure how much of this is due to bad angles or bad form. This is what I see holding us back so far. (Again, I haven't watched the Pitt game yet, so my observations may change somewhat)

How much of that is coaching vs execution? I really can't say. But I would tend to believe that the coaches are aware of and trying to correct the tackling deficiencies, just as CPJ was aware of and correcting the OL deficiencies from last year. That's why I am not, yet, on the fire CTR bandwagon.

 

[Jmonty71]

Our opponents (so far) average 36.4 points per game. We've held them to 25.4 points per game. (I threw out the Mercer results) GT has held every team but Pitt to a TD or more less than its season average for points scored. Pitt pretty much hit its season average (38.4) against us.

I know that averages aren't always the best statistical measurements, but my point was that you can't just ignore them, as JMonty suggested. We are a mediocre D. We're not good, but we're not horrible either. There is a lot of room for improvement, but we're definitely better off today than we were under CAG.

Well there is something we can agree on. CAG was much worse. Mediocre is a very good word to sum up the defense. Needs more improvement. With our offense, we should be holding teams to a low ppg average. Just because we chew a good bit of clock up. When the offense doesn't maintain the ball, our defense is exposed. Good to great teams have defenses that can control a game. We don't have that.

 

[Jmonty71]

PPG is a bad stat for both, because it discounts pace.

Being efficient is what's important. FEI is basically a SOS corrected effeciency stat.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei

GT has the 13th best offense in the country.

GT has the 97th ranked defense in the country.

(it also predicts GT to finish 7-5)

Good read and pretty much goes with what I have been saying.