Why are we so bad at OT

[BainbridgeJacket]

Since CPJ has been here we've won 1 game in overtime. We've lost four...in a row. Our record if overtime didn't exist.
9-4
10-3-1
6-7
8-4-1
7-5-2
7-4-1

 

[John]

Well the last two years, I would like to believe it was due to "The Groh Experiment".

 

[AE 87]

Well, after reading the OP a few times I realized that he wasn't making a point about our offensive tackle (OT) play at all. I guess it's time to take a nap.

Anyway, I think the answer to the question comes down to depth. Under Groh, we famously didn't play depth so that we were done on defense by the 4th Qtr. I suspect that we had a similar problem yesterday.

 

[Boomergump]

Since CPJ has been here we've won 1 game in overtime. We've lost four...in a row. Our record if overtime didn't exist.
9-4
10-3-1
6-7
8-4-1
7-5-2
7-4-1

This is a tough one to answer. You would think, with a record like we have in the red zone and in first and goal situations, that we would be lights out in OT. The entire period is pretty much played in the red zone for goodness sake. I know I haven't been posting very long here, but at a former sight I spent a fair amount of talking about mental toughness. Let's face it, we have been a mentally weak team at crunch time the last 3 seasons or so. It is not just OT. We have consistently found ways to lose tight games, while never really pulling any out of the fire. The UNC game this year is really the only exception I can think of in quite a while. In fact, I would say our record over the last 3 seasons has been the absolute worst it could have been. We seem to either win going away, when things are going well, or fold when challenged at the end.

It is the close games that make or break every team's season. If you are a decent team, like TECH is, you are going to have your one sided wins and maybe a couple of one sided losses. It is how you do in the rest that really matter. For three or four seasons running we have been terrible when the going gets tough. Like it or not, it is our identity right now. I am going to list a bunch of games that really could have gone either way: 2010 - VT, UGA, Kansas, AF. 2011 - UVA, UTAH, UNC. 2012 - VT, Miami, FSU. 2013 - UNC, VT, UGA. These are the pivotal games, many of which we had late leads. All other contests were decided with margins either way and weren't really contested at the end. Our record in the games listed is 2-11 with both wins coming against UNC.

Bainbridge, you have hit the nail on the head. IMHO the number one issue we have with the program is mental, and it has to do with finishing games. If we had finished .500 over those games listed, which isn't a stretch at all given that most of them we led late, most everybody would have a totally different perspective about where our program is. Generally speaking, if you are talented enough to lead late, you are talented enough to finish. If your scheme is good enough to lead late, it is also good enough to finish. It takes a special kind of character to shoot straight when the bullets are flying. Blowing people out doesn't tell you anything about the character of a team. During periods of adversity is when you can tell the most and we just haven't had the "it" factor on our side.

 

[Squint]

I do believe our defense has been (and was against UGA) gassed when it comes to overtime. But I also wonder if there is an element of the other team's defense "learning to defend the option", or maybe more specifically, learning how to fend off the cut blocks or whatever. It seems we often jump out to a good lead and then begin to falter. I'm thinking of the Miami game last year. Anyway, during the UGA game at the end of regulation, I was thinking "NOT OVERTIME... try the 60 yard field goal or go for it on fourth down or something!!!" because I knew we wouldn't be able to stop UGA 25 yards from the goal.

 

[augustabuzz]

We are yet to achieve the required depth, but it is improving. Also, playing 8 physical games in a row will kill depth.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Did we make one defensive stop in any of those overtime losses?

I agree with Boomer's assessment to a point. The difference between winning and losing most of the time is razor thin and the difference is between the ears. It all boils down to whether you rise to the occasion and define the moment or let the moment define you. We have been the latter way, way too often.

However, I think we have high character guys, guys with a lot of confidence in themselves. Where we fall apart is the "team toughness." I think most guys believe in themselves, but they don't believe in the team when the game is on the line. A lot of that stems from repeated bad performances. It creeps into the mind and poisons it. It's the "here we go again" syndrome. We fans do it, I know the players do as well. I bet the coaches do, too.

It's the opposite of the Josh Nesbitt days when everybody looked at that guy and "knew" we were gonna get it done. Believing in Josh gave the rest of the team the courage to believe in themselves enough to relax at these crucial times and just play. We don't do that now and it is very frustrating. I was not only hoping, but convinced Vad would fill the exact same role as Josh in this regard. So far, it hasn't happened. If it doesn't happen soon, we need to give another guy a shot.

 

[Boomergump]

I do believe our defense has been (and was against UGA) gassed when it comes to overtime. But I also wonder if there is an element of the other team's defense "learning to defend the option", or maybe more specifically, learning how to fend off the cut blocks or whatever. It seems we often jump out to a good lead and then begin to falter. I'm thinking of the Miami game last year. Anyway, during the UGA game at the end of regulation, I was thinking "NOT OVERTIME... try the 60 yard field goal or go for it on fourth down or something!!!" because I knew we wouldn't be able to stop UGA 25 yards from the goal.

I don't buy the gassed observation. Take a look at the time of possession in the game. If anybody should have been gassed it was them. Over the course of the streak in question, I am not as sure, but I don't think so. Depth is not where we would all like it, but we usually pound teams and wear them down more so than the opposite. I still think it is mental and not physical.

 

[AE 87]

They may have rotated players better than us.

 

[Boomergump]

They may have rotated players better than us.

I'll be watching the film soon. We will see. I don't remember seeing a lot of subs at any point but I wasn't really looking for it either. You guys very well could be right. Looking at the box score, however, it doesn't seem so. Of the 74 total tackles made on the field (including STs) their starting defenders made 62 of them. If you take out the returns (there were 6), it looks like starters carried the bulk of the work.

 

[33jacket]

I'll be watching the film soon. We will see. I don't remember seeing a lot of subs at any point but I wasn't really looking for it either. You guys very well could be right. Looking at the box score, however, it doesn't seem so. Of the 74 total tackles made on the field (including STs) their starting defenders made 62 of them. If you take out the returns (there were 6), it looks like starters carried the bulk of the work.

stats are for losers. You can rotate and the rotational players spell you for one down and don't make the tackle. UGA pulls 3 in and out on the line often. they play a 3-4, you being a coach should know in a 3-4 3 down rarely have stats worth a spit especially the covered 3tech. They may go through the whole year with 20-30 tackles a guy.

In one game rotating you can easily have zero tackles vs our offense on the line. Most of those tackles, and I haven't looked at it, are probably the 4 LB and S's; and you don't sub those nearly as much. In fact the starting DL was responsible for 9 tackles, and the backups 5....5 and less playing time. Again, they subbed plenty; and the tackle numbers on the line where it matters are going to be low because of the scheme they run.

We are talking line issues here. We had one DL other than our starting 4 participate in the game. Green. Thats it. ONE. We got worn out due to obvious depth issues.

Next year our DL will be young and really may struggle.

 

[Boomergump]

stats are for losers. You can rotate and the rotational players spell you for one down and don't make the tackle. UGA pulls 3 in and out on the line often. they play a 3-4, you being a coach should know in a 3-4 3 down rarely have stats worth a spit especially the covered 3tech. They may go through the whole year with 20-30 tackles a guy.

In one game rotating you can easily have zero tackles vs our offense on the line. Most of those tackles, and I haven't looked at it, are probably the 4 LB and S's; and you don't sub those nearly as much. In fact the starting DL was responsible for 9 tackles, and the backups 5....5 and less playing time. Again, they subbed plenty; and the tackle numbers on the line where it matters are going to be low because of the scheme they run.

We are talking line issues here. We had one DL other than our starting 4 participate in the game. Green. Thats it. ONE. We got worn out due to obvious depth issues.

Next year our DL will be young and really may struggle.

You may be totally right about that, but don't tell me stats are for losers and then use a stat to make your point. You have a valid argument, and like I said, I am going to watch the film and try to make up my mind.

 

[gtg936g]

This is just my opinion, and what I have observed during tight games. There is an IT factor in rising to the occasion when the game is on the line. This is 100% mental. Josh had it. I honestly think some guys just think too much when the game is on the line, and they try to over compensate, rather than just doing their job well. Look at the close games we won vs Clemson, FSU, UGA in 08-09. That is an example of a team that does not let the pressure of the game get to them. It starts with the QB on offense, but it is a team mentality. If you look at our offense we should be built to win in OT. Short field, and going for two points is what we are built for. Now, unlike a lot of people I think being mentally prepared is only 50% coach-able. I like Tevin, but I just do not think he could ever get there. I do not think Boyd has it in him either. Manziel, Mccarron, Cam Newton, etc have that ability to control themselves, and inspire their team when needed. I have played with a lot of people that were cool as a cucumber as long as we were up/down big, but would be out of control when we were tied. I think Vad has it in him, and it is only now starting to show.

Something else to ponder. I think the last drive of the first half got Vad a bit out of sync, and took him a while to settle down. As ugag scored and got closer he seemed to press more in the passing game.

 

[AnotherBee]

I'd go with depth issues. Looking at our OT losses, you've got a chunk (Miami, VT, & UGA) that are just more physical / deeper than we are. We had the OT loss to Utah which was a head scratcher, but that was fed by our 2nd half collapse. The OT win against Vandy was a long time ago. I would expect that with these deeper teams, our guys are so gassed at the end of 4 that we've got nothing left in the tank for more football.

 

[Mack]

I don't buy the gassed observation. Take a look at the time of possession in the game. If anybody should have been gassed it was them. Over the course of the streak in question, I am not as sure, but I don't think so. Depth is not where we would all like it, but we usually pound teams and wear them down more so than the opposite. I still think it is mental and not physical.

I go with mental.we should fix this since kids will wait to see when they will screw up or what break will go against them.