Zach Pyron is a tough dude!

Bogey

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,787
Are you able to compare the first half and second half stats? Just from watching the game in the stands, it seemed to me that the run game was horrible the entire game, but that the passing game was good during the first half, and dropped off greatly during the second half. Just casual observation, it looked like we ran the standard offense until after ND scored in the second half to go up 2 scores. (Maybe until they scored the FG, but I can't remember). It seemed during the game that the passing stats were very close to 100% in the first half, then when we tried to go pass-happy the percentage and effectiveness dropped significantly.
Yep. Strategies of offense and defense change during the game and is why game stats, which are useful, do not tell the whole story and can be misleading.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,926
Our red zone performance was way down as well. We were low on explosive plays, and we weren't grinding it out either. So, only 13 points.
Missing on two very makeable field goals will do that. One was from the 22 so technically just outside the red zone, but the point still stands.

Overall yardage was surprisingly close given the final score.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,947
Missing on two very makeable field goals will do that. One was from the 22 so technically just outside the red zone, but the point still stands.

Overall yardage was surprisingly close given the final score.
I consider that the O performed well enough to account for 20 points. ND’s did so for 24 points. I wasn’t overly impressed by their O. Their D was another story.
 

FlatsLander

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
926
I consider that the O performed well enough to account for 20 points. ND’s did so for 24 points. I wasn’t overly impressed by their O. Their D was another story.
That's how I see it. Maybe you give ND 3-7 more since they probably would have had another drive if we hadn't thrown the pick-6. This wasn't the complete beatdown the score implies.
 

MountainBuzzMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,761
Location
South Forsyth
That's how I see it. Maybe you give ND 3-7 more since they probably would have had another drive if we hadn't thrown the pick-6. This wasn't the complete beatdown the score implies.
I also would have liked to know what would have been different had those 2 fake punts been actual punts or stopped them.

Just to reinforce here. Special Teams and a moderate regression in tackling skills were the difference in this game. It was a winnable game. (Not to confuse the binary thinkers I am not saying we would have won it.)
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,146
You can’t just draw up plays in the dirt and tell guys to do this and do that. You have to practice it extensively or you’ll have a ton of penalties, busted plays and turnovers.
That's why I said it is probably a little late. And it probably is.

Oth, the plays themselves are just about the simplest known to mankind. Direct snap to QB, he reads the blocks - or lack of same - and either runs for the crease or throws. Helps if you have a BB disguised as a QB like Bryson Daily, of course. He's another Nesbitt.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,725
Are you able to compare the first half and second half stats? Just from watching the game in the stands, it seemed to me that the run game was horrible the entire game, but that the passing game was good during the first half, and dropped off greatly during the second half. Just casual observation, it looked like we ran the standard offense until after ND scored in the second half to go up 2 scores. (Maybe until they scored the FG, but I can't remember). It seemed during the game that the passing stats were very close to 100% in the first half, then when we tried to go pass-happy the percentage and effectiveness dropped significantly.
It’ll take a little extra work. I could do it manually, or I could do some work in R or Python (R is pretty nice for just exploring data). https://cfbfastr.sportsdataverse.org/articles/intro.html has play-by-play data.

Life got kinda busy, and I haven’t done my own number crunching as much lately.

I can pull the expected points based on the play number—there’s an existing graph for that. I can compare Duke (where we got 24 points) vs. ND (where we only got 13).

At Duke, we didn’t blow them out of the water—we just kept plugging away in little positive steps. At Notre Dame, we muddled along until Q3–the blocked FG was a -5 point swing, then it got worse in Q4 with two interceptions (-7.95 pick six and -3.44 expected points). This view makes a person think that the mistakes were the bigger issue. Of course, we made the mistakes because the other stuff wasn’t working.

We also starved Duke of possessions. Notre Dame wasn’t starved at all.

game-ep-401635570.jpg.png


game-ep-401628982.jpg.png



I consider that the O performed well enough to account for 20 points. ND’s did so for 24 points. I wasn’t overly impressed by their O. Their D was another story.
@roadkill you might care about this too, but when I saw us lining up for field goals, I was thinking “we’re not going to win this game with those”. ND faking punts and faking field goals is what we should have been doing (IMO). As an underdog, I thought we should have taken more chances.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,048
That kind of matches how I felt during the game. Not going by actual plays or stats, jut how I felt: Things were pretty even through the first half. Stalling on the last drive and the bad snap on the FG attempt hurt. Stalling on the first series of the second half, then allowing ND to score another TD hurt. Going into the 4th quarter, it felt like GT totally gave up on running the ball because we had to score quickly to have a chance to come back. It seemed like that is what caused Pyron's completion percentage to drop, and that is most likely what caused the two interceptions. The two minute offense can score quickly, but most people don't run it all the time because it is also prone to cause turnovers.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,183
@roadkill you might care about this too, but when I saw us lining up for field goals, I was thinking “we’re not going to win this game with those”. ND faking punts and faking field goals is what we should have been doing (IMO). As an underdog, I thought we should have taken more chances.
Unfortunately CBK does not seem to ever have us playing that aggressively.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,243
This. I was about to reply with the question "What part of faking a field goal attempt and a punt attempt are wildly conservative and low risk?"
Against us, with our trash special teams, it is low risk. And I was actually referring to plays from scrimmage where they barely threw past 5 yards and ran the ball down our effing throats dragging guys 5 yards after contact that look like middle school boys. They have way more in their playbook than what we saw. They had their way with us. I saw it from my seat that was in the nosebleeds.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,243
Sure I can. It’s only a generalization based on what each team did in that set of variables. GA Tech changes its strategy, too, BTW. Just as certainly it would have played out differently, as you say. It’s a complex system, strongly impacted by feedback loops.
Yes, I agree completely that we change our strategy based on what is happening in real time. However, it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re getting blown off both lines of scrimmage.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,243
That kind of matches how I felt during the game. Not going by actual plays or stats, jut how I felt: Things were pretty even through the first half. Stalling on the last drive and the bad snap on the FG attempt hurt. Stalling on the first series of the second half, then allowing ND to score another TD hurt. Going into the 4th quarter, it felt like GT totally gave up on running the ball because we had to score quickly to have a chance to come back. It seemed like that is what caused Pyron's completion percentage to drop, and that is most likely what caused the two interceptions. The two minute offense can score quickly, but most people don't run it all the time because it is also prone to cause turnovers.
I agree with this. Another thing that hampers a passing attack is when your receivers cannot get open. It’s not like we had wide-open guys that Pyron could not find. He had to force the ball into the tightest of windows while being under serious duress every snap.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,947
Yes, I agree completely that we change our strategy based on what is happening in real time. However, it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re getting blown off both lines of scrimmage.
I can agree with that, but we did put up almost 350 yards offense. That includes killing 3-4 drives with stupid penalties and giving up a possession with a pick-6. Their DL shut down our run game but we were able to pass pretty well, so it wasn’t total domination. Pyron had a better QBR than Leonard.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,926
Against us, with our trash special teams, it is low risk. And I was actually referring to plays from scrimmage where they barely threw past 5 yards and ran the ball down our effing throats dragging guys 5 yards after contact that look like middle school boys. They have way more in their playbook than what we saw. They had their way with us. I saw it from my seat that was in the nosebleeds.
Fair point, as much as it pains me to admit.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,243
I can agree with that, but we did put up almost 350 yards offense. That includes killing 3-4 drives with stupid penalties and giving up a possession with a pick-6. Their DL shut down our run game but we were able to pass pretty well, so it wasn’t total domination. Pyron had a better QBR than Leonard.
Good point. But that begs the question were they giving us the underneath so that it would take us forever to march the field and eventually make a mistake. The old Bend but don’t break defense. People do it because it works against teams can’t seal the deal in the red zone.
 

Bogey

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,787
Good point. But that begs the question were they giving us the underneath so that it would take us forever to march the field and eventually make a mistake. The old Bend but don’t break defense. People do it because it works against teams can’t seal the deal in the red zone.
Could be some of that but still Pyron was hitting receivers in tight windows down field better than i have seen all season. He can flat air it out, especially when he has time.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,947
Could be some of that but still Pyron was hitting receivers in tight windows down field better than i have seen all season. He can flat air it out, especially when he has time.
Yes, he can. HK has a good arm but ZP has a better one, IMPO. ZP is mobile, but HK has a step of speed and more wiggle. Both know the offense very well and can lead the Jackets to victory.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,243
Could be some of that but still Pyron was hitting receivers in tight windows down field better than i have seen all season. He can flat air it out, especially when he has time.
This is so correct. I was super impressed with our first scoring drive. I actually had hope that we were going to win the game at that point. I was surrounded by a ton of ND fans at the game. I stood up like an idiot and did a Superman pose highlighting the GT on my chest. It was the last time I did that the whole game.
 

Lil G

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
733
It’ll take a little extra work. I could do it manually, or I could do some work in R or Python (R is pretty nice for just exploring data). https://cfbfastr.sportsdataverse.org/articles/intro.html has play-by-play data.

Life got kinda busy, and I haven’t done my own number crunching as much lately.

I can pull the expected points based on the play number—there’s an existing graph for that. I can compare Duke (where we got 24 points) vs. ND (where we only got 13).

At Duke, we didn’t blow them out of the water—we just kept plugging away in little positive steps. At Notre Dame, we muddled along until Q3–the blocked FG was a -5 point swing, then it got worse in Q4 with two interceptions (-7.95 pick six and -3.44 expected points). This view makes a person think that the mistakes were the bigger issue. Of course, we made the mistakes because the other stuff wasn’t working.

We also starved Duke of possessions. Notre Dame wasn’t starved at all.

View attachment 17061

View attachment 17062



@roadkill you might care about this too, but when I saw us lining up for field goals, I was thinking “we’re not going to win this game with those”. ND faking punts and faking field goals is what we should have been doing (IMO). As an underdog, I thought we should have taken more chances.
What did you make these graphs with
 
Top