Where do we go from here?

[roadkill]

But TFG is gone.
How could this happen w the new discipline put into team?
Head coach said good practice

Biggest concern is getting out adjusted during the games.

We have periods where we seem to be on autopilot no matter what is happening.

The leader of our team needs to have some rabbits in his hat. We can't wait years to find out the hat is empty.

We must show in game snap now. The future of gt as member of P5 is not a given.

I am confident Key will get the guys trying hard. I just want some (not all) of the CPJ in game coaching. We will seldom have enough superior talent to win by just working harder.

This post is spot on.

When I heard coach say we had good practices this week (a seemingly rare occurrence), in the back of my mind my pessimistic side said "uh-oh".

It does seem like our second-half swoons (or in Saturday's case, second quarter) are at least partly the result of getting out-adjusted, and not having a plan for it. Our apparent inability to think a move or two ahead is indeed troubling. Or, it could simply be that we are a one-trick pony. That trick is very good until it is countered.

 

[roadkill]

Per 247 we have 18 former 4 stars and have at least one at every position group with the most at DB. Overwhelmingly though, they have not contributed at 4 star level.

Scouts and coaches can miss on a player evaluation and often do. But taken in aggregate as the ranking does, the hits and misses should tend to average out. So if your team is performing well below its talent ranking, that's an indictment of coaching and development.
That's the really worrisome thing to me - we don't seem to have an isolated area of underperformance that can be explained by a lack of talent at one or two positions - it has been across the board in all phases of the game with the exception of our passing game. We should have enough talent to win 7-8 games against our schedule.

 

[JacketFan137]

Scouts and coaches can miss on a player evaluation and often do. But taken in aggregate as the ranking does, the hits and misses should tend to average out. So if your team is performing well below its talent ranking, that's an indictment of coaching and development.
That's the really worrisome thing to me - we don't seem to have an isolated area of underperformance that can be explained by a lack of talent at one or two positions - it has been across the board in all phases of the game with the exception of our passing game. We should have enough talent to win 7-8 games against our schedule.

our secondary has been one of the most underperforming units throughout the collins/key era and that is even including at the start of the collins era where it seemed like many of our secondary was experienced seniors that we expected good performances out of.

to me that screams that there is something fundamentally wrong with our scheme or we have a terrible approach to coaching the positions in terms of technique.

the fact that they make up most of our higher rated recruits shows that our development for that position group has been missing

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Per 247 we have 18 former 4 stars and have at least one at every position group with the most at DB. Overwhelmingly though, they have not contributed at 4 star level.

Highlighted are the 4*'s that played. Those three black dots are the starters that aren't rated by 247, which generally means 2* or below talent out of HS.

(Edit: I only noted the starters that were less than 3*. There are others in the backups that are less than 3* as well)

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Someone tell me (I don’t care enough to look it up) how many of the two deep on both sides of the ball played under Collins.
I just wonder because anyone who played under Collins would have to completely relearn how to practice hard and play hard. That would be a steep learning curve for a lot of these players.

 

[roadkill]

Highlighted are the 4*'s that played. Those three black dots are the starters that aren't rated by 247, which generally means 2* or below talent out of HS.

(Edit: I only noted the starters that were less than 3*. There are others in the backups that are less than 3* as well)

View attachment 14831

Thanks for this deeper dive. This shows that nearly a third of our starting 22 were ranked 4 stars, which is actually higher than the team aggregate percentage. More of the higher-ranked players would be expected to be starters, so no surprises there. The underperformance on defense, with nearly half 4-star starters, is worrisome. As @Northeast Stinger stated above, I'm hoping it's something that can be fixed with proper practice approaches and coaching.

 

[Thwg777]

Somewhat off topic but for what it’s worth, I don’t see this game as the worst game in recent history. While point-spread wise it’s a horrible loss, we’re simply not good enough to draw that level of emotion… short of losing 223-0 to someone.

2012 loss to MTSU was it for me. We lost the ACC title game that year by 6 points.

And on the flip-side, defeating #3 Miami in 2005 (and effectively breaking them) felt much better than defeating a decent Pitt and UNC team last year (even though the spreads were all similar).

 

[Billygoat91]

Thanks for this deeper dive. This shows that nearly a third of our starting 22 were ranked 4 stars, which is actually higher than the team aggregate percentage. More of the higher-ranked players would be expected to be starters, so no surprises there. The underperformance on defense, with nearly half 4-star starters, is worrisome. As @Northeast Stinger stated above, I'm hoping it's something that can be fixed with proper practice approaches and coaching.

I think that recruiting stars with respect to transfer players is deceiving. A lot of the 4-star transfers that we have gotten, especially on defense, are players that underacheived or were injured elsewhere, typically at higher-profile programs and they could not get on the field.

 

[roadkill]

I think that recruiting stars with respect to transfer players is deceiving. A lot of the 4-star transfers that we have gotten, especially on defense, are players that underacheived or were injured elsewhere, typically at higher-profile programs and they could not get on the field.

You're not wrong about our DBs as a group. But only two of the five listed 4-star starters on D are transfers, and Sims transferred after a redshirt freshman year. To my knowledge, he did not have a history of injuries (I think).
Conversely, both Haynes King and Dom Blalock have performed well on offense, despite a history of injuries. Perhaps we've got better talent evaluators on offense, not to mention coaching.

 

[tmhunter52]

Miami is going to obliterate GT. That's the reality. Not walking into that one with any delusion.

Sadly, there is no objective reason to expect otherwise. Without an otherworldly transformation by our “defense”, the game will be ugly and over well before the half.

 

[takethepoints]

I think that recruiting stars with respect to transfer players is deceiving. A lot of the 4-star transfers that we have gotten, especially on defense, are players that underacheived or were injured elsewhere, typically at higher-profile programs and they could not get on the field.

Bingo.

It does seem like our second-half swoons (or in Saturday's case, second quarter) are at least partly the result of getting out-adjusted, and not having a plan for it. Our apparent inability to think a move or two ahead is indeed troubling. Or, it could simply be that we are a one-trick pony. That trick is very good until it is countered.

I would suggest that our swoons (well chosen word) are the result of our inability to run the ball effectively.

The root cause of our problems on D is that our D is on the field too long during the games. This in turn is due to a lack of a reliable running game. I hate (well … I don't, actually) to keep bringing this up but one reason I liked the spread option so much was that the D was so well rested during the games. When you pass to win, you had better score every time down because the D will be very heavily tested when you don't. Our TOP has been negative in three of our games and the only game where we had a decent margin was against Ole Miss (they scored very fast when they did). When the D is on the field 25 minutes more than the offense like it was against BGU you are asking for trouble. Every D adjustment you can make won't cure this problem.

We need to find a back who can deliver. The RB room was supposedly well stocked. Let's try to find somebody to carry the load.

 

[slugboy]

The root cause of our problems on D is that our D is on the field too long during the games. This in turn is due to a lack of a reliable running game.

Or, it’s a destructive, reinforcing cycle caused by not forcing the other team to punt.

It’s entirely possible that someone else hates GT offensive 3-and-outs more than I do. But as a defender, the best way to catch your breath is to tackle the other guys short of the sticks.

I grant that our running game is missing.

By the overall numbers, our running game is OK, but who knows how much work the SCST stats are doing there

Against BG, 38% of our running plays were stuffed for 0 yards or less. Half were for less than 4 yards.

We had three runs with 2 yards to gain or less, and only made the yardage once.

If you’re an EPA believer, it’s one of the worst rushing games in the country (either #111 or #116).

BG held us to a season low in rushing yards. We ran for more than twice as much against Ole Miss.

 

[danny daniel]

our secondary has been one of the most underperforming units throughout the collins/key era and that is even including at the start of the collins era where it seemed like many of our secondary was experienced seniors that we expected good performances out of.

to me that screams that there is something fundamentally wrong with our scheme or we have a terrible approach to coaching the positions in terms of technique.

the fact that they make up most of our higher rated recruits shows that our development for that position group has been missing

It is true that our DBs have not tackled well at all and we are not good at 50/50 balls either. Our DBs play against the sweep, especially in the red zone, is really bad as we get scored on outside too easily while being out of position, not getting off blocks, and more importantly not maintaining outside leverage. BG runners scored two TDs around our goaline D left end on simple plays without being touched.

Our scheme D seems to have our DEs focused and charging inside (not setting the edge) leaving the safeties and DBs to come off coverage and make tackles in space after the ball carriers are at full speed. Poor LB play in pursuit to the outside is a contributor to our poor perimeter D play. The lack of speed may be a factor chasing crossing routes and certainly the lack of pass rush is a real problem for the DBs.

These problems seem to be lack of pass rush, below par LB play, D scheme issue, fundamental details in coaching, player instincts/football IQ, and player speed, toughness, and overall skill. Effort does not seem to be the big concern IMO. It is not just an underperforming DB problem.

 

[takethepoints]

It’s entirely possible that someone else hates GT offensive 3-and-outs more than I do. But as a defender, the best way to catch your breath is to tackle the other guys short of the sticks.

I do! I do! (Hand waving frantically in the air.)

 

[cpf2001]

Bingo.

I would suggest that our swoons (well chosen word) are the result of our inability to run the ball effectively.

The root cause of our problems on D is that our D is on the field too long during the games. This in turn is due to a lack of a reliable running game. I hate (well … I don't, actually) to keep bringing this up but one reason I liked the spread option so much was that the D was so well rested during the games. When you pass to win, you had better score every time down because the D will be very heavily tested when you don't. Our TOP has been negative in three of our games and the only game where we had a decent margin was against Ole Miss (they scored very fast when they did). When the D is on the field 25 minutes more than the offense like it was against BGU you are asking for trouble. Every D adjustment you can make won't cure this problem.

We need to find a back who can deliver. The RB room was supposedly well stocked. Let's try to find somebody to carry the load.

The D is bad before they get tired. They aren’t getting a lot of stops and then wearing out, they’re on the field because they can’t buy a stop. Except for agains Ole Miss where the opposing offense was good enough to score fast.

If you only win TOP when you give up a score every possession that’s a defensive problem not just an offensive one.

 

[roadkill]

Bingo.

I would suggest that our swoons (well chosen word) are the result of our inability to run the ball effectively.

The root cause of our problems on D is that our D is on the field too long during the games. This in turn is due to a lack of a reliable running game. I hate (well … I don't, actually) to keep bringing this up but one reason I liked the spread option so much was that the D was so well rested during the games. When you pass to win, you had better score every time down because the D will be very heavily tested when you don't. Our TOP has been negative in three of our games and the only game where we had a decent margin was against Ole Miss (they scored very fast when they did). When the D is on the field 25 minutes more than the offense like it was against BGU you are asking for trouble. Every D adjustment you can make won't cure this problem.

We need to find a back who can deliver. The RB room was supposedly well stocked. Let's try to find somebody to carry the load.

A factor? Certainly. The root cause of our problems? No. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[FencePost]

I’m worried about the future. I really thought we had turned a corner and then yesterday happens. We probably lost a lot of the fans we had left, and likely a bunch of the ‘24 recruits as well. Will we ever be good again? I have faith in Key but I’m worried… asking for a friend.

Gonna have to wait a few years, my friend. How can a school that ranks so high academically, pay over half a million dollars a year to someone who can't engineer a football game, against schools who don't even have engineering programs? Glad the ranking folks at U.S. News don't realize the connection.

 

[bobongo]

Dude. Bowling Green is a bad MAC team this year. They got beat 38-7 against Ohio. Not Ohio State. Just plain old Ohio. The Bobcats.

This was a gimme game in every sense of the word. It’s not like we lost to somebody like Cincinnati or UCF or Boise State. It’s ****ing Bowling Green. Most of the teams in the MAC. would be furious if they gave up 38 unanswered points to ****ing Bowling Green. As a Power 5 school trying to make a bowl game, losing this game is unacceptable under all circumstances. There is no way you can rationalize this one to somehow be “okay” or “not that bad.” This is ****ing embarrassing. We’re 0-2 against the MAC the last 2 years. That’s a joke, full stop.

Yet we took them lightly and lost, "dude". That's my point. Yes, another MAC team we took lightly. And lost again. When will we learn? There's another team on the field besides BG. There's Tech.
What I'd like to know is what is the assumption that they're supposed to be a gimme for us based on? Our win over Wake? No MAC team should be considered a gimme by us, and the proof is in the pudding.
We are not quite good enough to consider anyone on our schedule a gimme besides SC State.
For the record, I can't imagine our coaching staff took them lightly. It took the players on the field to do that.
When the Jackets play hard and play as a team, we are decent to good. When they don't, we're lousy.
Had we come out ready to play a full game Saturday, I believe we would have won. But we didn't, so we lost. Full Stop.

 

[Eli]

I tend to agree. If it is #36, it’s not evenly distributed. That’s in the top 1/3rd of FBS. That’s “clearly going to a bowl game, if not a good one” talent. Also it’s either even and deep (which we aren’t as far as I can tell), or has a 3-5 difference makers on each side of the ball—a Percy Harvin or a Butker, if not someone on offense or defense.

I know Pitt is having a terrible season, but they usually have several players fans of the other team knew the names of or would complain were killing us in games. That’s top 50 talent. Right now, for us, I can name one on offense, possibly two, that the other teams would take a long look at.

Our skill guys may be 36th in the country but our d line and linebackers are 130th lol

 

[sgreer]

I don’t see how any GT player would take anyone lightly- if they were the coaches should be pulling them out for the next man up so it’s still on the coaching. IMO based on the 3rd quarter of every game our coaches are not finding a way to help the players succeed.