What are your measures for success with the new defense?

[dressedcheeseside]

To me, it's not about hitting a number but about hitting a ranking. If we get 100 sacks but everybody else gets 120 then we're still losing. This is a competition against opponents not just a game against yourself, like solitaire or something. Maybe some new offensive idea or some new rule or something changes the way the game is played and all of the stats change - like maybe we actually have worse stats than last year, or maybe the opposite occurs and we have better stats than last year ... but that won't matter because it affects everyone - like maybe we lower our ypp down to 4 - looks great! - but then you see you're ranked 12th in the ACC and you still went 5-7 because everybody else was less than 4 ypp.

So, long story a little longer, IDEALLY, I'd love to see us be top 40 this year in the stats that tell the biggest story: ppd and ypp ... and to me that's an either/or. If we're top 40 in either of those stats, I'm VERY happy this year. If our ypp is over but our ppd is under it likely means we're getting turnovers. If our ypp is under but our ppd is over it likely means our offense and special teams have put our defense in bad situations. Eventually, my goal would be top 30.

I will honestly still be satisfied with top 50 this year due to it being the first year of a new system and new player fits and such. With CJT, we were something like 50'ish the first year and then top 30 every year after that.

Does anyone know where we ranked in those stats (PPD, YPP) last year or over the last few years? That would be great to know so that we can have a baseline by which to measure improvement. Some of y'all are wizards at finding those kinds of stats.

Generally I agree, but rankings can be deceiving. When very small increments separate the members in a ranking order, you could, hypothetically speaking, be ranked in the middle of the pack yet still be very similar in performance to the teams near the top.

 

[vamosjackets]

the only issue for me is they don't release it until like 6 or 8 weeks into the season to make sure they've got enough data so that they're getting results they can have confidence in.

Sounds like a great policy. We should probably not be trying to form any real opinions on the defense until around that time as well. And, even then, it would be too soon for any conclusions. I hope we're dominant from the first snap this season, but I'm not going to make any declarations if we aren't. I'll make declarations after year 2, and still throw some loopholes in there to be able to amend them after year 3. By years 4-5, you've got your guys and you're fully responsible for all credit/blame (barring acts of God, like 5 of top 6 injured at a position or something crazy like that).

 

[vamosjackets]

Generally I agree, but rankings can be deceiving. When very small increments separate the members in a ranking order, you could, hypothetically speaking, be ranked in the middle of the pack yet still be very similar in performance to the teams near the top.

There's a point there. But, there's also a counter-point that little differences in those metrics can signify big differences in the scoreboard and record.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

My measures will be turnovers and pressure on the QB. Both have been lacking the past 10 years (with 1-2 years exceptions).

I agree with Cheese - Rankings can be deceiving but QB Hurries, Sacks, and Turnovers are absolute.

 

[tmhunter52]

Hats on the football

 

[boger2337]

Being at minimum +10 to +12 in turnover differential on the year. That should mean a 8+ winning season. A lot to ask for, but I think we can do it. I fully believe we will finally get the most out of our defense. Ted roof was like having our defense players in mud.

 

[vamosjackets]

People are putting sacks, QB hurries, turnovers and such as measurements. One I haven't seen in this thread is run defense. The most important stat historically for a unit (offense or defense) is running the ball. If you can run the ball and stop the other team from running the ball, you usually win. I'd like to be a team at or near the top of the conference in run defense (ypa - yards per attempt, I suppose would be the best stat there). I would think CNW's scheme is geared for that as well as pressuring the passer, so I'm optimistic on that.

Of course, again, ppd, ypp, dfei and these other things take that and all of the other things into it for a final result, so to keep it simple, I would just choose one or all of those to look at.

 

[slugboy]

Does anyone know where we ranked in those stats (PPD, YPP) last year or over the last few years? That would be great to know so that we can have a baseline by which to measure improvement. Some of y'all are wizards at finding those kinds of stats.

If you ask for numbers here, your wish will be granted
Getting some numbers from https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/yards-per-play, which is easy to sort.
I can’t find all the stats you want, but I found some. A few were decent, a lot were mediocre or bad, and none were outstanding. That’s surprising to me, because even a poor defense should be outstanding at something. These are worse than I expected.
Last year, we were #33 in yards per game with 354 yards per game. We give fewer possessions to opponents, so that number is lower. Army is right next to us in the rankings. This is one of our best stats.
In YPP, We were #51 last year with 5.6 yards per play. Our average for the last 3 is 5.4 yards per play. Similar numbers from Middle Tennessee, Hawaii, Army, Oregon, and Texas A&M. This is barely above average.
In Points per Play, we’re #85, well below average at 0.423 points per play. Last 3 years, we gave up 0.505 points per play. Similar teams are UVA, UNC, Tennessee, and Navy. We gave up a lot of points. Lots of touchdowns. There’s no sugar coating this stat.
In points per game, we gave up 28.2 points per game. Our three year average is 34.3 points per game, so last year was an improvement. We were #69, which is right in the middle of big boy football. Similar teams are Utah, Louisville, and Western Kentucky.
Interceptions per game is #119 with 0.4 interceptions per game. The three year average doesn’t even register. Similar teams are Syracuse, Army, Air Force, and Baylor.
Fumbles lost per game, we’re #123 with 0.3. Similar teams are UVA, Vandy, Duke, and Missouri. This stat is just terrible, and there’s nothing to balance it out. You can’t be “feast or famine” if there’s no feast, and we didn’t feast last season.
One that a lot of people might find useful is opponent first downs per game. We were #35 in giving up 18.7 first downs per game (partly by giving up fewer possessions).
There’s also punts per offensive score; how often you scored vs being forced to punt. We we #68 at 1.1 opponent punts per offensive score. Similar teams were Louisville, Temple, Wake, and Florida (who fired their coach).
In touchdowns per game, we were #58 with 3.1. We gave up a lot of touchdowns for a team that slows the game and runs the clock.
Those aren’t strength of schedule adjusted, but we’re mostly below average.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AE 87]

If you ask for numbers here, your wish will be granted
Getting some numbers from https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/yards-per-play, which is easy to sort.
I can’t find all the stats you want, but I found some. A few were decent, a lot were mediocre or bad, and none were outstanding. That’s surprising to me, because even a poor defense should be outstanding at something. These are worse than I expected.
Last year, we were #33 in yards per game with 354 yards per game. We give fewer possessions to opponents, so that number is lower. Army is right next to us in the rankings. This is one of our best stats.
In YPP, We were #51 last year with 5.6 yards per play. Our average for the last 3 is 5.4 yards per play. Similar numbers from Middle Tennessee, Hawaii, Army, Oregon, and Texas A&M. This is barely above average.
In Points per Play, we’re #85, well below average at 0.423 points per play. Last 3 years, we gave up 0.505 points per play. Similar teams are UVA, UNC, Tennessee, and Navy. We gave up a lot of points. Lots of touchdowns. There’s no sugar coating this stat.
In points per game, we gave up 28.2 points per game. Our three year average is 34.3 points per game, so last year was an improvement. We were #69, which is right in the middle of big boy football. Similar teams are Utah, Louisville, and Western Kentucky.
Interceptions per game is #119 with 0.4 interceptions per game. The three year average doesn’t even register. Similar teams are Syracuse, Army, Air Force, and Baylor.
Fumbles lost per game, we’re #123 with 0.3. Similar teams are UVA, Vandy, Duke, and Missouri. This stat is just terrible, and there’s nothing to balance it out. You can’t be “feast or famine” if there’s no feast, and we didn’t feast last season.
One that a lot of people might find useful is opponent first downs per game. We were #35 in giving up 18.7 first downs per game (partly by giving up fewer possessions).
There’s also punts per offensive score; how often you scored vs being forced to punt. We we #68 at 1.1 opponent punts per offensive score. Similar teams were Louisville, Temple, Wake, and Florida (who fired their coach).
In touchdowns per game, we were #58 with 3.1. We gave up a lot of touchdowns for a team that slows the game and runs the clock.
Those aren’t strength of schedule adjusted, but we’re mostly below average.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good stuff.

As you say, per game stats hide our fewer possessions per game. It will make our pts allowed look better than it is and interceptions look worse.

Still awful regardless.

 

[gtwcf]

More punts by other team.

I'd be ok with 0 punts and 8-9 turnovers a game.

Its somewhat harder to judge defense when hopefully they're only on the field 20-25 minutes a game. A below average defense can look good when they've only got to defend 8 series a game.

In basic statistics, I'd like to see a top 50 defense (yardage-wise). I'm hoping for top 30, but will give it time for implementation and we're going to be playing a lot of young LBs from what I see.

I'd like to see our negative plays go up a bit, even at the expense of big plays. The offenses at the college level have gotten proficient enough that you can't wait for a mistake. You've got to create them and not get cut to bits by dink and dunks. I think there are enough QBs that get flustered under pressure still, so I think our aggressive nature will help out a bit.

 

[MidtownJacket]

It would be cool to have a Sub thread for tracking our defense against point in time snapshots of the last few years (maybe per year then also an average under CTR).

If anyone is interest in the idea I might start trying to work something out in a google sheet or somewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alentrekin]

I'm with dfei.

On eye-test, I would like to see us blitz enough to get to a ball is out in "3 seconds or he's sacked". This can add some reassurance that we can pressure a bad QB and become a D that you have to plan around -- like "don't want to be in 3rd and 7 against this D".

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

1. 24ppg or less

2. Under 40% for 3rd down

3. 24+ sacks

For #2 we wouldn't have to improve. GT was 12th in the NCAA FBS last year holding opponents to a .309 conversion rate on third down.

 

[1979jacket]

Stopping the run and not giving up the long play.
1. I worry about 3-4's stopping the run - always have given less beef up front. We don't have the "Battleship" in the middle.
2. Long plays whether run or pass - sounds like we will be blitzing off the edge a good bit, which I like, but that often makes you susceptible to the big play. At times may need the containment guy to make a saving tackle so we can play another down.

I am not a bend don't break guy yet can't get gashed.

 

[GTRambler]

I just want a better defense, period. I don’t care how it happens.

 

[Techster]

Top 30 DFEI + Top 30 OFEI = ACC Championship Game and a New Years bowl game

 

[jacket_fan]

For #2 we wouldn't have to improve. GT was 12th in the NCAA FBS last year holding opponents to a .309 conversion rate on third down.

I would simply like an improvement on the the third down conversion average from last year and an improved turnover ratio. Those two stats would make me a happy camper.

I recall a saying of "live by the blitz, die by the blitz". Under Roof, blitzes did not seem effective and Tech got burned often with blitzes. Would be nice to see CNW bring new blitz packages where a defender actually gets free and is able to make a play.

 

[GTJake]

1. 3rd down conversion %
2. Sacks/hurries
3. TO margin
4. Completion %

Do well in those 4 and most other metrics will take care of themselves!

IMO, this is spot-on ... tackles for loss, TO's and 3-and-outs.

 

[Eastman]

From a different angle I would love to see the defense provide our offense with a couple more possessions a game because of shorter drives and more turnovers. Of course without increasing their ppg.

 

[GTHOSCHTON]

Average yards on first down in my stat.......