They Have Figured Out Paul Johnson's Offense

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
dressedcheeseside said:
How else are you supposed to evaluate the offense by itself? Final outcomes are a team effort. If you want to criticize the offense, you better have more to point to than how the team did as a whole.
Click to expand...

fair enough.
Can we evaluate it vs teams that matter and not count the stats vs the poo poo teams we beat by 60.
I bet it looks a whole lot different. Let's just look at the last 2 weeks.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,056
The scheme is sound, but it needs the right players. We don't need factory players up and down the lineup, either. We can win big with guys we can get into GT.

Frankly, I think we have them on roster now, but many of them are a few years away from their full potential. Most teams go through cycles of poor depth. Schools like GT have an even harder time reloading. We've also been bit by big fluctuations in attrition rates. Years of very low attrition followed by a year of high attrition kills a 2 deep.

Then throw in injuries into an already depleeted roster. I know, I know... excuses, excuses, excuses.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,781
Rock said:
Nailed it.
Click to expand...
"I honestly think you have to be very balanced and play GREAT defense to win a NC in this day and time."

I resist the premise of this statement because the term "balanced" is very elusive in college ball.

I remember watching Alabama play a few times the last couple of years and every time I watched them I noticed the same thing. They "appear" to pass the ball well but their passing is almost always set up by their running. Under Saban they have been primarily a power running team. They have won so many games because virtually no one has been able to stop their running. Their passing is not something they rely on. It is there if they need it, like Tech last year, but more times than not it is little more than window dressing when their real MO is run down your throat.

Anyway, I would love for someone smarter than me to list all the truly balanced college football teams. Most of them tend to either run better or pass better, it seems to me, and precious few are outstanding at both. And I guess, to be fair to the original direction of this objection to CPJ's offense, one would have to check to see if (1) The team had balanced statistics against top 20 teams and (2) They actually won the game.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,056
Rock said:
fair enough.
Can we evaluate it vs teams that matter and not count the stats vs the poo poo teams we beat by 60.
I bet it looks a whole lot different. Let's just look at the last 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but then you're evaluating the offense of 2015. I agree whole heartedly the offense of 2015 is not very good right now. But, imo, that is more related to personnel than scheme. Actually, it's completely that.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
dressedcheeseside said:
The scheme is sound, but it needs the right players. We don't need factory players up and down the lineup, either. We can win big with guys we can get into GT.

Frankly, I think we have them on roster now, but many of them are a few years away from their full potential. Most teams go through cycles of poor depth. Schools like GT have an even harder time reloading. We've also been bit by big fluctuations in attrition rates. Years of very low attrition followed by a year of high attrition kills a 2 deep.

Then throw in injuries into an already depleeted roster. I know, I know... excuses, excuses, excuses.
Click to expand...


I agree with this.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
Northeast Stinger said:
"I honestly think you have to be very balanced and play GREAT defense to win a NC in this day and time."

I resist the premise of this statement because the term "balanced" is very elusive in college ball.

I remember watching Alabama play a few times the last couple of years and every time I watched them I noticed the same thing. They "appear" to pass the ball well but their passing is almost always set up by their running. Under Saban they have been primarily a power running team. They have won so many games because virtually no one has been able to stop their running. Their passing is not something they rely on. It is there if they need it, like Tech last year, but more times than not it is little more than window dressing when their real MO is run down your throat.

Anyway, I would love for someone smarter than me to list all the truly balanced college football teams. Most of them tend to either run better or pass better, it seems to me, and precious few are outstanding at both. And I guess, to be fair to the original direction of this objection to CPJ's offense, one would have to check to see if (1) The team had balanced statistics against top 20 teams and (2) They actually won the game.
Click to expand...

It is. but they are a passing threat on any given down. and don't run it 98% of the time.
That's the difference, IMO.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,781
Rock said:
It is. but they are a passing threat on any given down. and don't run it 98% of the time.
That's the difference, IMO.
Click to expand...
Last year Tech was a passing threat on any given down. That threat to pass is actually what opened up the running game, in my opinion. Looking at the toughest defensive teams we faced (VPI, Clemson, uga, FSU, Mississippi State) we threw the ball roughly 25% of the time and ran the ball roughly 75% of the time. Which sounds about right to me given our offense.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,781
Rock said:
ok.. that's not correct but ok.
Click to expand...
Sure it's correct.
Read the statements from recruits for why they came here.

I am not saying we don't lose a lot of players because they want to play in a pro style offense. Everyone acknowledges that. I am just saying that this is not a one sided equation. Going beneath the shallow talking points of ESPN reveals it to be more complicated than that.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
Northeast Stinger said:
Last year Tech was a passing threat on any given down. That threat to pass is actually what opened up the running game, in my opinion. Looking at the toughest defensive teams we faced (VPI, Clemson, uga, FSU, Mississippi State) we threw the ball roughly 25% of the time and ran the ball roughly 75% of the time. Which sounds about right to me given our offense.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is not the case this year. and it shows.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,214
BabyJacket1990 said:
We will always be near the bottom of college foot am when it comes to passing. We have always been near the top in rushing but what do you expect when you run it 80% of the time. I honestly think you have to be very balanced and play GREAT defense to win a NC in this day and time. Unfortunately , we have not been able to do neither and the inconsistency in not doing so has showed the result. Yes, last year was great but, how many close ball games did we have ? The ball or the call happen to go our way in those games(GSU,UGA,and VT). The same can be said with the loses we had also. Back to my original point, The Institution needs to decide whether they want a NC again is what it all boils down to. Until we starting recruiting against the big schools, I wouldn't expect nothing more than 6-8 wins a year. This is just part of being a Tech fan.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do not agree. Oh, yes, in terms of passing yardage, surely you are correct. But for us to be two dimensional it is not necessary to have greta passing yardage, it is necessary that we are effective when we do pass. So, QBR is the proper way to measure our passing (imho).

So, take a look at our QBR for two time periods again (the "good" passing years of 2009 and 2014 when we had NFL WR's and the "poor" passing years of 2010-2013 when we didn't):

2009 & 2014 QBR vs Top Teams 123.2
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 179.8

2010-2013 QBR vs Top Teams 100.7
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 156.1

NB- These stats are from College Football Stats site cfbstats.com. Their definition of QBR is different form some other definitions. The median QBR for 2015 is around 138, for example. This reflects how poorly we do passing against decent defenses, except in our "power" years....we were 12th nationally last year in this stat and in 2009, compared to being #86 in 2013, #35 in 2012, #14 in 2011, and #113 in 2010. That 2011 team finished 8-5 and probably should have won games against Virginia (QBR a record low of 0.20) and Utah in the bowl game. They were probably talented enough to be 10-3.

I still contend that we MUST have an effective passing game, in terms of QBR, so be successful offensively and to avoid being one dimensional.

I don't know how we get from where we are today to being effective with our passing, but I do believe we MUST be effective to avoid 6-6 and 7-5 type results.....
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,781
Iron Jacket, I appreciate your sentiment and agree wholeheartedly with your view of our coach and scheme. I also appreciate your starting this thread. I will probably slowly extricate myself from the discussion pretty soon here because I feel like I have been arguing about the same thing for the last five years. Some people believe that football really is a religion and that those who stray from orthodoxy (when it comes to offensive systems) are violating natural law and will be punished for their transgressions. To me the history of football proves their is no orthodoxy but rather multiple philosophies that will get you to the same place if you remain true to them.

For me, football is football. On a basic level it is not that complicated. If you beat the guy who is your assignment you win. What makes it interesting is seeing the chess match between opposing coaches and the test of wills that is going on down on the field. But virtually any established system of offense will get your the win if you have the players to execute it.

Thanks!
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
MWBATL said:
Actually, I do not agree. Oh, yes, in terms of passing yardage, surely you are correct. But for us to be two dimensional it is not necessary to have greta passing yardage, it is necessary that we are effective when we do pass. So, QBR is the proper way to measure our passing (imho).

So, take a look at our QBR for two time periods again (the "good" passing years of 2009 and 2014 when we had NFL WR's and the "poor" passing years of 2010-2013 when we didn't):

2009 & 2014 QBR vs Top Teams 123.2
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 179.8

2010-2013 QBR vs Top Teams 100.7
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 156.1

NB- These stats are from College Football Stats site cfbstats.com. Their definition of QBR is different form some other definitions. The median QBR for 2015 is around 138, for example. This reflects how poorly we do passing against decent defenses, except in our "power" years....we were 12th nationally last year in this stat and in 2009, compared to being #86 in 2013, #35 in 2012, #14 in 2011, and #113 in 2010. That 2011 team finished 8-5 and probably should have won games against Virginia (QBR a record low of 0.20) and Utah in the bowl game. They were probably talented enough to be 10-3.

I still contend that we MUST have an effective passing game, in terms of QBR, so be successful offensively and to avoid being one dimensional.

I don't know how we get from where we are today to being effective with our passing, but I do believe we MUST be effective to avoid 6-6 and 7-5 type results.....
Click to expand...

IMHO, QBR is not the way to evaluate passing.
MJ has the highest QBR in the country, so what does that mean??? nothing.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,781
MWBATL said:
Actually, I do not agree. Oh, yes, in terms of passing yardage, surely you are correct. But for us to be two dimensional it is not necessary to have greta passing yardage, it is necessary that we are effective when we do pass. So, QBR is the proper way to measure our passing (imho).

So, take a look at our QBR for two time periods again (the "good" passing years of 2009 and 2014 when we had NFL WR's and the "poor" passing years of 2010-2013 when we didn't):

2009 & 2014 QBR vs Top Teams 123.2
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 179.8

2010-2013 QBR vs Top Teams 100.7
QBR vs Power 5 Teams 156.1

NB- These stats are from College Football Stats site cfbstats.com. Their definition of QBR is different form some other definitions. The median QBR for 2015 is around 138, for example. This reflects how poorly we do passing against decent defenses, except in our "power" years....we were 12th nationally last year in this stat and in 2009, compared to being #86 in 2013, #35 in 2012, #14 in 2011, and #113 in 2010. That 2011 team finished 8-5 and probably should have won games against Virginia (QBR a record low of 0.20) and Utah in the bowl game. They were probably talented enough to be 10-3.

I still contend that we MUST have an effective passing game, in terms of QBR, so be successful offensively and to avoid being one dimensional.

I don't know how we get from where we are today to being effective with our passing, but I do believe we MUST be effective to avoid 6-6 and 7-5 type results.....
Click to expand...
Helpful and insightful.
 
Top