Would you say I am correct

[PBR549]

CTR did a remarkable job this season. I don't know that anyone could have done better with the personnel we had.I hope we can keep him so that we can keep consistency for a while in our defense.Ted does like to throw caution to the wind when he has the personnel to do so. Hopefully that day will come.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I think the bend don't break worked perfectly. It did exactly what it was designed to do: eat clock, keep them out of long plays, and prevent them from scoring fast or easy.

People may not like that style ( I don't particularly either) but it was what we needed to do. We put them away in the first half, they got a breath of life with the toss up hail marry and then we shut them down in the second.

All season long the players have been crediting the coaching and preparation for the take aways. They don't just make that stuff up. CTR and his staff did some heavy lifting this year to make things work with what we had. I am looking forward to him sticking around for a while and us winning by any and all schemes on the field.

Clean program, well coached and 11 wins baby!

 

[GTech63]

I thought in the second half when we started some different stunts and brought more pressure that was good stuff. next year we will have some very good cover DB's so that kind-of pressure will be even more effective. Our boys came to hit last night!! They came to play. And even though they gave up 600+ yds, if the fumble would have stood (which it should of) and the hail mary didn't happen, we would have just killed them. Our redzone schemes worked extremely well.

Our tackling has improved tremendously. We stopped them when they got the ball and made them work for almost every yard. Being ahead put pressure on their O to score. When our D line gets to level of our O line, World watch out, when the Jackets are turned loose.

 

[AE 87]

Imo, we may have lost some perspective. Whether it was from a hail mary or not, we allowed 20 pts in the first half on 7 drives, that nearly 3pts/drive which is very good O and not good D. While it may be better than what we've done over the last few years, it's not yet good.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Imo, we may have lost some perspective. Whether it was from a hail mary or not, we allowed 20 pts in the first half on 7 drives, that nearly 3pts/drive which is very good O and not good D. While it may be better than what we've done over the last few years, it's not yet good.

The middle ground is pretty solid here I think @AE 87.

There is comparing this defense to the stats that you want to see from a "good" defense.

Then there is comparing this defense to itself over the course of 14 games . . . clear signs of improvement, clear signs of player development, clear signs of improved depth, clear signs of effective game planning and coaching.

Then there is comparing this defense to OUR offense and the feel and mojo or "play" of this specific game as it went on. Clearly an effective D for this game which did contribute to another great Team win.

It is possible to have perspective from several directions on Tech's defense without either becoming a Nietzschean epistemological relativist or losing an objective "overall" perspective.

 

[AE 87]

The middle ground is pretty solid here I think @AE 87.

There is comparing this defense to the stats that you want to see from a "good" defense.

Then there is comparing this defense to itself over the course of 14 games . . . clear signs of improvement, clear signs of player development, clear signs of improved depth, clear signs of effective game planning and coaching.

Then there is comparing this defense to OUR offense and the feel and mojo or "play" of this specific game as it went on. Clearly an effective D for this game which did contribute to another great Team win.

It is possible to have perspective from several directions on Tech's defense without either becoming a Nietzschean epistemological relativist or losing an objective "overall" perspective.

I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to be just saying the same thing that I said but like you're correcting me.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to be just saying the same thing that I said but like you're correcting me.

The manner in which it seems I was correcting you was actually pretty specific and I should have bolded it in my reply to make it clear. I was riffing on your couching your very correct statement about the D performance in terms of "we may have lost some perspective." You are correct that I agree with you but was placing your statement as itself in the perspective of taking the OB defensive performance in a big picture context that I first mention as one of three legit ways to approach it. So you are comparing that D performance to what qualifies as a "good" one in the abstract and you are spot-on.

I only was arguing with your couching that correct view as one serving to fix this thread by restoring perspective "we may have lost." So my point is that the defensive performance in this game can be assessed in 3 ways, or from 3 perspectives, and those may be getting kind of mixed all together in this thread but they all do have validity when each is understood to be looking at the D from a specific (but useful) perspective.



(I probably could have made my original point and even this attempt here to clarify much less wordy and more readily understandable with more care in constructing these posts. However, I am kind of not on my "a-game" today).

 

[DC Bee]

Why does it seem like we're always waiting for the second half to start blitzing? Why can't we come out of the gate doing it? Does Roof think the same bunch of 4 is going to suddenly generate a pass rush?

Oh, I dunno. It seems to me smarter to play vanilla and then break out the lumber if necessary. I don't think you can do it the other way around. It's called "ratcheting up the pressure." And it worked more times than not this season.

 

[AE 87]

The manner in which it seems I was correcting you was actually pretty specific and I should have bolded it in my reply to make it clear. I was riffing on your couching your very correct statement about the D performance in terms of "we may have lost some perspective." You are correct that I agree with you but was placing your statement as itself in the perspective of taking the OB defensive performance in a big picture context that I first mention as one of three legit ways to approach it. So you are comparing that D performance to what qualifies as a "good" one in the abstract and you are spot-on.

I only was arguing with your couching that correct view as one serving to fix this thread by restoring perspective "we may have lost." So my point is that the defensive performance in this game can be assessed in 3 ways, or from 3 perspectives, and those may be getting kind of mixed all together in this thread but they all do have validity when each is understood to be looking at the D from a specific (but useful) perspective.



(I probably could have made my original point and even this attempt here to clarify much less wordy and more readily understandable with more care in constructing these posts. However, I am kind of not on my "a-game" today).

I got you, and it seems to me that you are just being argumentative for its own sake. The OP set the parameters of this thread with the language, "worked pretty good" and "almost perfect." I responded by saying that imo we've lost perspective when we use that language for a performance that reflected a lot of breaks and not just bends, given the points/drive allowed. In other words, I was arguing that the appropriate perspective for discussing our D when using such language would be pretty good, almost perfect bend-don't-break D in general, a perspective you admit is legitimate.

Responding as if I'm not aware of other perspectives when I admitted one of them just muddies the water. I gave my opinion of what perspective I think we should have. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't make me say something I wasn't saying--that there's only one perspective--and then correct that.

 

[slugboy]

I can't really complain too much about the Hail Mary--one nit is that MSU had a player in place to catch the slapdown, but there was no one on our side close enough to just hit him before the ball reached him. Maybe it's something we'll coach. Also wish we'd brought more pressure.

Throughout the game, I don't think we got consistent pressure, but we got more than we did against UGA and FSU. There were several sacks and hurries. Tackling was generally good--better for us than for MSU.

You can see in a couple of plays why Mullen is so good on offense--he used motion in one play to shift the LBs and FS and create a gap to run for a TD. It looked bad for us, but you have to tip your hat.

I'm tempted to give my gut-feel grade for the game, but today I'll just say I'm happy for a win and leave it at that. Especially in a big bowl game.

 

[4NatlChmps]

Speaking of FSU game - we didn't get close. Needed more pressure to get the usual JW picks in first half ( a la Oregon). I love the better tackling and intensity and turnovers. Just don't sit LBs 8 yards off LOS doing nothing every pass play. Not covering flats and not blitzing.

 

[Yoda]

Really got me jacked as well. I came out of my chair as soon as Rook had Dak in his sights. It was either gonna be a big loss by Rook or a missile by Jamal. It worked out perfectly. I'll be honest, I pretty much had a redneck moment and did the Muschamp "BOOM M'FER" in my living room as soon as Jamal laid the wood. I couldn't control it. My wife's friends were terrified.

I always go "full redneck" during Tech games. My Dwag wife hates it.

 

[awbuzz]

Really got me jacked as well. I came out of my chair as soon as Rook had Dak in his sights. It was either gonna be a big loss by Rook or a missile by Jamal. It worked out perfectly. I'll be honest, I pretty much had a redneck moment and did the Muschamp "BOOM M'FER" in my living room as soon as Jamal laid the wood. I couldn't control it. My wife's friends were terrified.

... and I'm still chuckling!

 

[TomOReilly]

Oh, I dunno. It seems to me smarter to play vanilla and then break out the lumber if necessary. I don't think you can do it the other way around. It's called "ratcheting up the pressure." And it worked more times than not this season.

I would consider a possibility that playing vanilla may be a bit less fatiguing to the D. Thus, preserving enough gas in the second half to put the pressure on when the game may be at stake. Take our UGA game in 2013 - we were gassed by the time Gurley did his stuff in 2 OTs. We typically have an excellent 2nd half from a D standpoint and insufficient depth to maintain lumber smashing for 4 qtrs even though our conditioning in 2014 looked much better. Just an idea as to why we typically play 2 styles during a game with our latter being more effective.

 

[UgaBlows]

Interesting theory ^^^

 

[DC Bee]

I would consider a possibility that playing vanilla may be a bit less fatiguing to the D. Thus, preserving enough gas in the second half to put the pressure on when the game may be at stake. Take our UGA game in 2013 - we were gassed by the time Gurley did his stuff in 2 OTs. We typically have an excellent 2nd half from a D standpoint and insufficient depth to maintain lumber smashing for 4 qtrs even though our conditioning in 2014 looked much better. Just an idea as to why we typically play 2 styles during a game with our latter being more effective.

Choice d) all of the above. When the D makes the change and plays aggressively, the game is on the line and the is little time left, if any, for the offense to re-adjust.

 

[Minawreck]

The D was fine Dan Mullen and Dak Prescott have put up plenty of points on everyone.

In the first half the D was robbed of an additional turnover, probably would've pitched a first half shutout. Did a very good job containing and bringing Dak on QB runs and scrambles.

 

[CamBam]

I think Roof has a young group ready to integrate in a system were talent can be developed, until were a top defense in the next year or two its got to be a time driven defense.

 

[iceeater1969]

Orange bowl
Remember a late game pass that looked like it would break for much longer game - msu WR had ball - think #1 tipped leg , some other DB hit other leg and 4 came over back. All so fast it looked like the zombies in WWZ movie.

Observation -
bend break requires super pursuit - and we had it in spades .

 

[Tech First]

Orange bowl
Remember a late game pass that looked like it would break for much longer game - msu WR had ball - think #1 tipped leg , some other DB hit other leg and 4 came over back. All so fast it looked like the zombies in WWZ movie.

Observation -
bend break requires super pursuit - and we had it in spades .

Great point. Tech has been good at this since Pitt. at least.