Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Events Cause Mariners To Lose To Rangers

Georgia Tech's Struggles Related to Field Position

In 2009, Georgia Tech's starting offense started on average at the GT 32 yard line. Chandler Anderson averaged 42 yards per punt while opposing punters only averaged 39 yards per punt. In 2010, Georgia Tech's average starting field position is the GT 32 and our two punters have averaged 31 yards per punt on 11 punts as opposed to our opponents punting 37 yards per punt. Why is this all important? Because in 2009, the Georgia Tech offense relied heavily on good position to allow creative, unpredictable play-calling. Based on 2009 starting field position, every 1st team offensive drive and end result is presented in the following chart:

Yards100_medium


Star-divide

We didn't turn the ball over once when we only had 50 yards to cover as an offense. Less yards to cover meant less offensive plays to score and less opportunities to make costly mistakes. Good field position also meant we could go for it on 4th down more aggressively because we weren't in the shadow of our own goalpost further extending our lengthy, bone-crushing drives.

In 2009, we turned the ball over only 19.2% of our drives (lost fumbles, safety, interceptions, failed 4th downs) and scored touchdowns on 41.2% of our drives. In 2010, we've turned the ball over on 33.3% of our drives and only scored TD's on 33.3% of our drives thus far. I think this is definitely attributed to bad field position and some poor execution in the early goings of the season. Check out the chart for 2010:

Yards200_medium

Also of note, my former roommate/wingman, Yakub2 wanted to know about GT's turnovers today as well so I started researching our turnovers. In 2009, we fumbled 30 times and lost 12 of those fumbles. We also threw six picks and failed to convert meaningful fourth downs six times. That's a total of 24 turnovers in 14 games (1.71 turnovers/game). In 2010, we've fumbled 11 times and lost 5 of them. We've also failed to convert 5 meaningful fourth downs and thrown one pick so in 2010 we're averaging 2.75 turnovers a game. That's 1 More T/O Per Game!

The only positive note about the turnovers is that in 2010, opponents aren't converting their turnovers into as many points as they did in 2009. In 2009, opponents scored 5 touchdowns and attempted 7 field goals proceeding Georgia Tech turnovers (50.0% scoring attempt rate following T/O's). In 2010, they've only scored 2 touchdowns and attempted 2 field goals after GT turnovers (36.4% scoring attempt rate). The problem is more so related to our turnover rate.

What do you all think? What will it take to right this ship? Is the 28% increase in fumbles per game destroying this team's shot at repeating as ACC Champs?

Comment 7 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Great work!

Are you fumbling 28% more or are you not recovering them at the same rate. Recovery= random, fumbles= technique

This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.

Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by Bud Elliott on Sep 28, 2010 9:10 AM EDT reply actions  

Well then. I think that can be corrected. Small sample set, etc.

This team will improve in '10... on its 16-16 conference record over the last 4 years.... after losing 20 games in the last 4 years... after having the 7th worst major-conference defense... after not even winning its own division in the ACC in the last 4.

Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!

by Bud Elliott on Sep 28, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

updated charts

I added more data by making them “<X yards”. Basically, if the drive started between the GT 1 and Opposing 1, it’ll be under the “<100”. A drive starting on the GT 21 would be included in the “<80” and so forth. This added a more linear look to the graphs and provided more data points for each yard marker.

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Sep 28, 2010 10:50 AM EDT reply actions  

interesting

it’s interesting to see how (roughly) there is not much difference in our predicted outcomes when the offense has to move the ball 70 to 100 yds. Also I find it interesting how a ‘shorter’ field helps to compact the opposing defense, which seems to work in our favor – a higher scoring rate.

by twojackets on Sep 28, 2010 11:21 AM EDT via mobile reply actions  

I agree

Also, I think the <80 yards range is the most important because that’s where kickoff returns typically are. How do we respond after a score? Last year, we scored TD’s 50% of the time. This year, we score TD’s ~38% of the time…

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Sep 28, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

good v great

responding to a score with a score is such a powerful motivator. KS, NCSt (and for the first half) NC kept pace with our scoring – draining our Mojo. Last year the pendulum wlwould swing in our favor more.

by twojackets on Sep 28, 2010 4:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to FromTheRumbleSeat, a "bastion of capitalization and grammar skills."

SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE

Gameday Depot University Apparel


Regional Co-Managers

Hokiesplat_small BirdGT

Gravatar_small Winfield Featherston

Assistants to the Regional Managers

Ramblinracket_small Ramblin Jeff

Orwin_smith_small Jesse28

Dscn2741cropped_small orientalnc

Nate_small GTNate

Images_small Atlanta's original team

Small LilBroey700

Directors of Personnel

Small acedarney