Will the WR's be better in 2014?

[vamosjackets]

He's never coached a 3,000 yard passer. Seriously never.

That would be like me saying that Peyton Manning has never been a 1000 yard rusher. Seriously never. Come on man.

 

[ATL1]

Not trying to be argumentative (b/c there's getting to be too much of that here), but in what no one would argue was our most successful season under PJ, we had a team completion percentage of 46%. Its been stated ad nauseum, but that particular stat is irrelevant when judging our offensive success. You guys know that.

Is it? When Iowa pretty much controlled the running game and we were never able to adjust, that didn't concern you, particularly after the year before watching the same thing happen against LSU? Imagine what an effective passing game would be able to do to enhance the offense. How much more potent and competent GT would be if we had an answer for teams with physical run defenses? I like stats they are a great tool of measurement but I like my eyes more.

Is it fair to assume that a better completion percentage would positively affect the overall offensive performance.

That would be like me saying that Peyton Manning has never been a 1000 yard rusher. Seriously never. Come on man.

I can't see how that's a fair comparison.

 

[Techster]

Not trying to be argumentative (b/c there's getting to be too much of that here), but in what no one would argue was our most successful season under PJ, we had a team completion percentage of 46%. Its been stated ad nauseum, but that particular stat is irrelevant when judging our offensive success. You guys know that.

I've never bought into the whole low percentage doesn't matter if you have high efficiency. To me, that's CPJ's defense to a bad passing game. You can have your cake and eat it too. Plenty of teams/QBS are highly efficient in the pass game and have high completion percentages.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/8

The majority of those guys are highly efficient and completing over 60% of their passes...and they are passing it more than us which gives them more "attempts" (parden the pun) at making mistakes that lead to inefficiency.

We passed it about half as much as most teams, and we struggle to hit 50%. I understand our offense is based on hurting the defense with the deep pass, but we should be able to pass better when we HAVE TO. That's where we fail the most, IMO.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

I agree with both of you that our passing game needs to improve. It has needed to every year. But completion % is not a perfect indicator of the effectiveness of our passing game. When we are running our offense well, the only passes we should need to attempt are deep passes. Rocket tosses take the place of screens and dump-offs. So if we're always picking up rushing yards on early downs and putting ourselves in 3rd and short situations, we're not pressed to complete passes just to get first downs. 7-15 for 150+ is a great passing stat line when we are effectively running the ball. Now, obviously, 10-15 for 200+ would be incredible. But its not necessary.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

When Iowa pretty much controlled the running game and we were never able to adjust, that didn't concern you, particularly after the year before watching the same thing happen against LSU?

We were in it till the end vs Iowa even though they had one of the best defenses in the country that year. The LSU game was just strange. The box score looked like a very close game when you compare stat for stat, all except for score. Total yards, rushing yard, passing yards, all very similar. The big difference in the game was turnovers and 3rd and 4th down conversions. We had 3 turnovers to there none and we were 3-15 and 2-6 on 3rd and 4th down, respectively. Throw in a huge early drop by Bay Bay in the endzone and there ya go.

 

[AE 87]

I've never bought into the whole low percentage doesn't matter if you have high efficiency. To me, that's CPJ's defense to a bad passing game. You can have your cake and eat it too. Plenty of teams/QBS are highly efficient in the pass game and have high completion percentages.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/8

The majority of those guys are highly efficient and completing over 60% of their passes...and they are passing it more than us which gives them more "attempts" (parden the pun) at making mistakes that lead to inefficiency.

We passed it about half as much as most teams, and we struggle to hit 50%. I understand our offense is based on hurting the defense with the deep pass, but we should be able to pass better when we HAVE TO. That's where we fail the most, IMO.

I know you may be trolling here, but for those who might be fooled, let's be clear. Passer rating as an "efficiency" stat can be misleading since it includes touchdowns, completions and interceptions as well as yards and atttempts in its calculation. So, yes, when you include completion % in the calculation, you should see a correlation.

Also, people who advocate efficiency (yards/attempt) as the more pertinent measure do not deny that teams can be efficient passing with high percentages. However, it's not necessary. In our most successful years on offense, 2009 and 2011, we were #1 in the country in yards/pass and completed 46.1% and 49.4% respectively. In 2012, we were #2, completing 52.6%.

 

[AE 87]

No, my job is trolling apparently. Get it straight.

Didn't know I was anti-GT if I was posting facts. Danged if you do, danged if you don't around here.

Two things. First, you should learn to distinguish between facts and opinions, more on which later. Second, as I think you've also stated, an important distinction exists between a stat, the fact, and the interpretation. Honest people can have honest discussion about the correct interpretation of fact. Finally, making a claim about someone else's opinion, "Certain people say that X is true," is also a fact claim.

I've never bought into the whole low percentage doesn't matter if you have high efficiency. To me, that's CPJ's defense to a bad passing game.

Okay, this reflects opinion about our offense not fact. Also, it bot accuses CPJ of just making excuses and makes a claim that GT has a bad passing game, which is also an opinion when an agreed measure of the quality of the passing game has not been established. Making a personal attacking on GT's coach and running down the passing game on a GT fan forum when you will naturally elicit an emotional response from those who disagree. That's a troll.

Also, in my last post, I gave a measure (yards/attempt) in which our passing game has been ranked in the top five nationally and our corresponding offensive ranking has been in the top 25. In other words, CPJ"s statement is backed up by other pertinent facts while yours is not.

You can have your cake and eat it too. Plenty of teams/QBS are highly efficient in the pass game and have high completion percentages.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/8

The majority of those guys are highly efficient and completing over 60% of their passes...and they are passing it more than us which gives them more "attempts" (parden the pun) at making mistakes that lead to inefficiency.

I explained the problem with this post in my last post. You are using the fact, passer rating, incorrectly when you assert that this is the stat advocated by people saying efficiency is more important than completion %. Also, since I thought you participated in a thread where this distinction was made, it seemed to me that by failing to make it here, you were trolling. I guess that it could be that you just didn't understand.

We passed it about half as much as most teams, and we struggle to hit 50%. I understand our offense is based on hurting the defense with the deep pass, but we should be able to pass better when we HAVE TO. That's where we fail the most, IMO.

Here, at least, you say it's an opinion and not a fact. FWIW, even though I don't know how to quickly measure this "when we have to," it seems right to me.

On the one hand, it could mean on 3rd and long, but the good news is that we don't have to do that very often. We were 2nd in 3rd down conversions in 2009 and 2011 and 4th in 2014.

On the other hand, it could mean at end of half, end of game situations. Here, especially, I think you may have a point, but I can remember both good and bad drives in this regard, and I'm not sure how much is scheme.

In the end,

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Another thing to consider about completion % is we don't dink to the flats like most other teams. Well, we sort of do, but it's called a pitch instead of a pass. Imagine if all our completed pitches were counted as completed passes and all the yards accrued after the pitch were awarded to the qb as passing yards the way they are for dinks to the flats.

 

[Techster]

Another thing to consider about completion % is we don't dink to the flats like most other teams. Well, we sort of do, but it's called a pitch instead of a pass. Imagine if all our completed pitches were counted as completed passes and all the yards accrued after the pitch were awarded to the qb as passing yards the way they are for dinks to the flats.

Some of our pitches actually go forward and should count as passes...but they don't for some reason even though other teams use the shovel pass behind the LOS and it still counts as a pass.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Some of our pitches actually go forward and should count as passes...but they don't for some reason even though other teams use the shovel pass behind the LOS and it still counts as a pass.

I've noticed that, too. I guess the official scorer just assumes pitches are designed to travel backwards therefore they do.

Nerd alert: I've actually broken down some of our pitches in super slow motion to see if they actually travel forwards or backwards. It gets a little dicey geometrically. Is the direction of the pass relative to the field and its markings or is it relative to the pitch relationship between the qb and aback? The reason I ask is because some of our pitches actually make forward progress on the field even though the aback is still trailing the qb. It has to do with both bodies in motion in the same direction and frame of reference.

 

[Boomergump]

Years after he committed to us, I still can't get over how physically freakish Darren Waller is. I mean, 6'6"??? He could, and should, be playing like Mike Evans did the past couple years. I know he probably doesn't have that speed, but dang... he should catch every ball that's thrown high. And his stalk blocking should be ridiculous. I would be flat terrified if I was a S or OLB in pursuit. That said, I think Smelter and Summers will hold on to those starting roles most of the season. But we FINALLY have good depth here.

My biggest problem with Waller is that he hasn't been very good trying to win the contested ball. With his length and size he should win those battles, but he doesn't. He has no idea how to, or is unwilling to, use his body and play physically when the ball is in the air. He needs to watch Smelter and watch some BayBay vids and see how it is done. The catches he has made have mostly been when a defender was not in position to make a play. Darren is not fast but he is fast enough. In my book it is all about motivation and toughness for him.

 

[augustabuzz]

My biggest problem with Waller is that he hasn't been very good trying to win the contested ball. With his length and size he should win those battles, but he doesn't. He has no idea how to, or is unwilling to, use his body and play physically when the ball is in the air. He needs to watch Smelter and watch some BayBay vids and see how it is done. The catches he has made have mostly been when a defender was not in position to make a play. Darren is not fast but he is fast enough. In my book it is all about motivation and toughness for him.

I keep waiting for him to not shy away from the bully stealing his toy.

 

[John]

Guys, if you don't have the time to post a genuine rebuttal to someone who actually took the time to reply to you without just directly insulting you, please don't reply with trolling and snide remarks that doesn't address any of their points. Such remarks just incite personal attacks and derails the topic completely.

And for the rest that saw this thread derailing and put it back on track, you know who you are and I thank you.

Not surprisingly, I removed several posts from this thread. Again, there may have been some collateral damage if you quoted some of the useless posts that were removed. My apologies.

 

[John]

Nerd alert: I've actually broken down some of our pitches in super slow motion to see if they actually travel forwards or backwards. It gets a little dicey geometrically. Is the direction of the pass relative to the field and its markings or is it relative to the pitch relationship between the qb and aback? The reason I ask is because some of our pitches actually make forward progress on the field even though the aback is still trailing the qb. It has to do with both bodies in motion in the same direction and frame of reference.

No Clue Assumption Alert: I always assumed, based on missed WR screen passes that get determined to be a forward pass (dead ball) or backward pass (live ball), that it is relative to the field and the position of the QB and not the QB/AB (or QB/WR) relationship. I've definitely seen pitches that were pitched ahead of the QB but because of the arc of the pitch, the trailing AB had time to catch up to the ball and make the catch.

 

[AE 87]

@dressedcheeseside @John

The rule is ambiguous in the NFL and in the NCAA, in my opinion:

Article 1 DefinitionIt is a forward pass if:
(a) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s hand(s); or
(b) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

. A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything else beyond the spot where the ball is released. All other passes are backward passes ...
When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand or arm with the ball firmly in his control starts the forward pass.

The ambiguity arises from speaking of the forward pass both as relative to the ground and relative to the passer. If a QB running forward pitches the ball back to a trailing RB, the intentional motion of the hand would be backwards, but the absolute motion of the ball could still be forward.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The ambiguity arises from speaking of the forward pass both as relative to the ground and relative to the passer. If a QB running forward pitches the ball back to a trailing RB, the intentional motion of the hand would be backwards, but the absolute motion of the ball could still be forward.

That's why they almost always score our pitches as pitches and not as forward passes as long as the intended target of the pitch in behind the qb, relative to the qb's position when he released the ball. I did see one rare occasion in a game, not sure who was playing, but it was replayed in the booth to determine forward or backward pass and it was because it was fumbled and recovered by the defense. The D claimed forward pass and the O claimed backward pass, of course. The replay showed the ball traveling forward relative to the field. I can't remember how they ruled it, dog gone it.

 

[forensicbuzz]

There is no ambiguity to the rules. It is the direction relative to the field the ball travels when it leaves he QBs hand. If the ball moves forward relative to it's original position, it's a forward pass. If it moves laterally or backwards, it a pitch and a live ball.

Many of the pitches the past two years were actually forward passes and should be counted as such. I believe we'll see even more with JT. Unless the coaches collar him, he a fearless pitcher.

 

[foggy]

We all fell in love with Vad and we thought we finally have a guy that can throw the ball. We all saw how that played out. The receivers may be better but maybe the QB will be worse so the receivers may look bad.

 

[Eric]

We all fell in love with Vad and we thought we finally have a guy that can throw the ball. We all saw how that played out. The receivers may be better but maybe the QB will be worse so the receivers may look bad.

I actually think the opposite of that..JMO.

 

[Longestday]

I agree with Eric. Vad was not a great passer, but had a strong arm.