GT - UVA: By The Numbers
by Jesse28 on Oct 19, 2011 5:29 PM EDT
in Georgia Tech Football
Email
PrintThis week's installment of By The Numbers will be a quick one as I don't want to continue feeding the depression of the fan base. So let's just get to it shall we?
In last week's post I made mention that UVA's defense was actually better than every team left on the schedule minus uga, only allowing 4.6 ypp which was 16thnationally. Let's say that was the first indicator of how the weekend would go. If I remember correctly, Georgia Tech hasn't won at Virginia but twice in almost three decades, once in 1990 and again in 2009. For whatever cosmic reasons you may wish to place blame on, Georgia Tech has some serious issues playing UVAon the road. That's indicator two. The third and most obvious indicator that the team might not perform well against UVAwas their performance leading into the game. For three straight weeks things seemed to decline, be it the WR's dropping passes, the QB not making his reads, or the bland and quite predictable play-calling.
To put it simply, the result should have been expected.
Let's get the pain over withquickly. 272 yards rushing for 5.13 ypp is not far off the average for the year, but 24 yards passing for 3 ypp is 10 yppless than the current average. The previously mentioned UVA defense held Georgia Tech to a total of 296 yards (almost 100 less than our worst and 150 less than our season average thus far) for 4.85 ypp, right on par with what they have been averaging for the year.
Our defense gave up 5.79 ypp rushing and 7.11 ypp passing, both being more than our averages of 4.47 and 5.9 ypp respectively. Our overall ypp margin was -1.31 as well. I'm not overly concerned with the defense for this game because our offense gave them no help whatsoever with only a couple of sustained drives. The defense was just on the field too long. I know, what about the run defense you ask. Here's the thing with that. How do I get mad at the players for their 4-3 background and their physical measurements? I can't, I won't, and neither should you. Our defensive line is unfortunately not put together from 3-4 linemen, but instead guys who grew up understanding a 4-3, were recruited because they physically met the 4-3 requirements, and on some occasions are converted offensive linemen. So, I forgive them for being pushed off the line and or outplayed against a larger and, in my opinion, a better offensive line.
However, there are some issues that should be elevated quickly. The poor tackling has been a problem all year, but what was at first a few random occurrences has grown to be a system-wide issue. I won't even attempt at quantifying it because the point is that almost every player on the defense seems to think they don't have to wrap-up, that they don't have to go through the ball carrier, and that attempting to tackle someone from the waist up is a good idea. This issue resides in both the linebackers and secondary primarily and in many cases is what led to a majority of Virginia's large runs. This is an issue that is a by-product of plain laziness, is unacceptable, and needs to be rectified in a hurry.
Positive take-away? Hey, we're still 6-1 and we're still bowl eligible. Another might be now that we have this loss, maybe we can continue with a more realistic expectation for the remainder of the season. A final positive might be that almost all issues are fundamental and mechanical things that should be correctable with proper training and practice. That may not mean it will all be fixed by the end of this season, but this team is young and there aren't any sure-fire draft pick stars so it should be a heck of a returning team.
Oh, one more positive. We get Jacory"INT" Harris next week. TO HELL WITH MIAMI!
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think it would be smart for our D-line to go to a 1 gap scheme.
It is a whole lot similar to the 4-3 than the current 2-gap scheme we currently employ. In a one gap scheme the D-line is better suited at getting to the quarterback, instead of just stuffing running lanes like in a 2-gap scheme.
by RamblinWreck7 on Oct 19, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
A 1-gap scheme reduces the flexibility a defense can have in stunting, blitzing, and disguising coverages…and immediately schemes an extra defender into a “read and react” role. “4-3” or “Tampa Cover 2” type defenses are more effective when you have the personnel to effective control the LOS with 4 down lineman, keep both safeties over the top, and have athletic linebackers that are accountable in pass coverage. 4-3 defenses are usually beaten by superior size and athleticism, or by mis-direction type plays (counters, screens, etc.).
At Tech, our strength is our athleticism…but not size. A 3-4 defense is the best strategy for our personnel strengths at LB and secondary. A 3-4 can commit as many players to the LOS as a 4-3 can, and I think we’ve really needed to be more aggressive on run downs.
It doesn't reduce blitzing flexibility as much as you think.
Wade Philips blitzes a lot with the Texans, as he did with the other teams he coached. He employs the 1-gap scheme, which I prefer because it involves the D-line more in getting after the quarterback.
I don’t really understand how this advocates for us using the 2-gap scheme or the 1-gap scheme though. Our D-line just seems more suited to get penetration into the backfield, not stuffing running lanes to me.
by RamblinWreck7 on Oct 20, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Jacory shreaded us in 2009 also because it was our 3rd game in 11 days...
IIRC, Roddy Jones took a pitch to the house that was called back that might have changed the complexion of that game. But oh well…
We have only beaten the Hoos in Hooville 3 times evAR...
Other weird stats:
1) We have only lost to Duke twice since the Ol’ Ball Coach walked the sidelines for them. Once was in B—- L——‘s 1-10 season.
2) Of the last 5 wins against georgie, 4 of them have been between the hedges.
3) We have losing records against only 3 ACC teams—FSU, VPI, and Virginia.
4) The longest losing streak against any opponent is FSU 1992-2003, 12 games.
5) The longest winning streak against any opponent is Clemson, 10 games 1953-1968, all at home.
6) This won’t be news to older fans, but we were winless in Chapel Hill from the time we started ACC play in 1980 until 1998 (8 losses and the infamous 1990 tie).
It may make me a prick
but I can’t convince myself that being in a 3-4 is enough reason to cut the D some slack. Twenty to one, we’d be getting torn up just as badly and would be applying just as little pressure on the QB if we were in a 4-3. …unless maybe we had Tenuta commanding the blitzkrieg.
The “bend but don’t break” mentality is a little overemphasized with our secondary. If I recall correctly, WCU had one “honest” touchdown against us and it was a series of short over-the-top passes starting around mid-field. One right after the other until they punched it in. MTSU did the same. Eventually, yes, we pull off an INT but that’s the laws of probability for you. If we fielded nothing but walk-ons in the secondary, we’d still end up with a couple pick-offs after a while.
The run D, however, is painful to watch, at times. The georgie game from 2009 was a prime example. I recall the article about a GT student or fan or some such calling out Cox saying something to the effect of “Richt won’t let you throw a pass!” to which the ginger wisely responded “We don’t need to.” He was dead right. They ran all over us with simple misdirects and cut-backs. One embarrasing rush after the other and nothing was done to adapt to it. According to CFBTN, our run defense is 104th (yes, out of 120 teams) and we give up an average of 177 rush yards per game, which is 81st nationally. We allow roughly 175 yards passing per game which is (suprising to me) ranked 14th. Be that as it may, I’m much like CPJ in the aspect that even when we perform well somewhere, that’s not good enough. He wants his players to be better and never settle for what gets by. I always want my beloved alma mater to be better. Opinion-wise, I believe much of our 14th ranked defensive pass yardage rests on the merit of our opponents having their derp-gloves on. Maryland dropped several passes that could’ve devastated us. I seem to recall UNC performing much the same.
I wasn’t able to catch the UVA game live, but I got enough score updates to not be overly bummed that I was missing it and amplifying my RAEG. I did, however go back and watch a good bit of the replay on espn3. Watching the first 3 series was painful.
I hate sounding so blasted negative, so feel free to punch holes in my observations and convince me that I’m more “glass is half empty” than I SHOULD be at this point.
At what year mark should we be expecting CAG’s defense to compete with a run game?
A) Our defense that’s getting “little pressure” is 5th in the ACC in sacks. The problem is that we’re 11th in TFL – I think this is mainly a personnel issue on the D-Line and will be rectified with recruiting…maybe.
B) Reason to be positive: There are 3 teams in the ACC that are worse at rushing defense than us: Clemson, Miami, and Maryland. Our next two games may be shootouts.
I don't really get the reasoning
behind why so many people view # of sacks as an indicator of defensive performance. If the timing of those sacks is given (i.e. on 3rd down) along with the quantity, then they’re much more impressive. A 2-yard TFL on 1st and 10 followed by a 22 yd pass completion could occur on every single posession and lead a team to have the most sacks in the nation yet still be one of the worst overall defensive units out there. Having said that, I’m not claiming we are one of the worst. I’ve just been looking at stats a lot and I keep hearing sacks brought up and then looking at overall performance in comparison.
What I like to look at stat-wise for a defense is yards allowed. I’m still debating if I should consider more on the lines of “yds/game” or “yds/drive”. Right now, I’m looking at per-game. These seem to be the most indicative, since football is a game of territory. Points allowed by a defense isn’t a very fair barometer, as our first botched special teams play of the season showed us vs WCU. Special teams or offense allowing an opponent to start drives from deep in your territory could allow another opposing teams to rack up 21+ points without even getting into triple digit yardage. Perhaps a bit over-reaching as an example, but it’s just that- an example.
Thoughts?
Stats
As with most things, stats are extremely relative. No single stat is a clear indicator of every aspect of a team. Some are better at indicating success or failure than others, but mostly it takes quite a few stats to show a team’s true identity or issue. Sacks, while they do show a defenses ability to get some pressure on passing downs, doesn’t in itself define the defenses total success. I would suggest that if one is looking at sacks, that they also look at the positional breakdown of said sacks to get a better understanding of exactly where that pressure is coming from. From there, I would get a ratio of sacks per pass attempt to see the frequency and compare that to other teams within the conference or against the national average. That makes the sack stat much more meaningful.
Personally, I’m a firm believer in ypp as evidenced in my heavy use of it in the By The Numbers articles. To me, yards per play are a much better indicator of total offense and defensive efficiency than per game because it normalizes to an extent the big plays that are random throughout the game. I like to combine those numbers with more specific numbers, like sacks, to get a more detailed view of individual components of each side of the ball. An example would be to combine a teams passing ypp number with the number of dropped passes to help identify what is causing the low ypp number. Another would be to look at defensive 3rd down conversion rates and average 3rd down distance to see if the defense just isn’t bringing the heart and hustle when the team needs them most.
Those are just my thoughts.
From The Rumble Seat -Drinkin' whiskey clear since 2008.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
I might not have been clear
I’m not trying to say that being in a 3-4 is an excuse for the defense as a whole, but simply that it does play a part in why we are having difficulties on the line. The 3-4 has done wonders for the linebackers and the secondary as evidenced by the pass defense you mention and it’s surely a welcome change from the Wommack experiment. But getting upset with the linemen would be akin to getting upset at Brantley for not being Tebow. They were’nt recruited as 3-4 linemen and they shouldn’t be blasted for not performing as such. Are there issues? Absolutely. They could work harder in the weight room to add more strength and size. They could get better at their techniques as well because I rarely see any of them trying to swim-move or spin around an offensive lineman.
Also, as I mentioned during the game thread, UVA was pulling two lineman on almost every single rush play and sealing the edge to perfection. This puts a lot of pressure on the linebackers and safeties to make the first tackle, but unfortunately that didn’t happen. See the tackling issues above for more on that. After that there’s the whole issue with the offense not being able to sustain drives. The two sides of the ball are not exclusive. If the defense can’t get a stop, then the offense can’t do anythign to put points on the board. Conversely, if the offense can’t keep drives going and put points on the board, then the defense can only last so long before things start to break down.
I’d say we should start to see more of CAG’s recruits come into play next year. That’s when we should see the improvement.
From The Rumble Seat -Drinkin' whiskey clear since 2008.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
Good Article, Jesse
I am as pessimistic about the Miami game as I was about Virginia and Maryland. So I guess I am batting .500 right now with my pessimistic approach. My reasons have nothing to do with the defense. In 2008 and 2009 we won games purely on the strength of our offense. This year seems to demonstrate, as last year did, that when our offense goes flat we are in big trouble.
Hope I am wrong and I will pulling like all get out for us to rise up and slaughter those tropical wind-bags!
by Atlanta's original team on Oct 20, 2011 8:49 AM EDT reply actions
Until
we can show we can stop the run, hang on because our D is going to blow the rest of the season.
Unless the offense gets going
If we can force teams to play from behind, teams won’t run as much. Whether or not that’ll actually happen is another story. I don’t think the run defense will get much better than it currently is, so watch out.
The run defense will get better,
But only if Al Groh decides to do something about it. Teams like the colts would add an extra safety such as Bob Sanders into the box to support the run defense. There’s no reason that Groh couldn’t drop Rashaad Reid into the box (I’m pretty sure he’s the strong safety) or Isaiah Johnson if necessary.
Or start sending Sweeting in
To blow things up. Let him come in on a CB blitz and have the safety rotate over to cover the WR. Sweeting has that natural aggression and hits like a truck. Also, I’d like to think things might have been somewhat better if Attaochu had been in the game.
From The Rumble Seat -Drinkin' whiskey clear since 2008.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
On Attaochu
He’ll definitely help the run game too. He’s the more aggressive of the linebackers and has made plays in both the run and passing games.
Do you know if Brandon Watts is healthy?
It’ll be great to get back Attachou.
by RamblinWreck7 on Oct 22, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Isaiah Johnson
plays better running forward (run defense) than in coverage, while Reid is the better cover guy (not by much though). As far as who comes up to load the box, you’d probably want Johnson coming up instead of Reid. It’s not a bad idea with how well the secondary is playing to play single high, but I don’t really trust our linebackers in coverage.
We fans tend to over-emphasize the difference between 3-4 and 4-3 schemes.
It’s really about gap control. A 4-3 looks an awful lot like a 3-4 when the weakside OLB puts his hand on the ground.
The switch to 2-gap defense makes a much bigger difference, as it emphasizes not only the need for special athletes on the line, but also requires the ability to diagnose the play correctly.
You want a different kind of player
If you’re playing a 1-gap, then you want quick-twitch, explosive guys than can get penetration. In a 2-gap, you want big guys that can hold a block and shed it when needed. I don’t think we have the players yet to really effectively play a 2-gap, but we made the switch and we’re sticking with it as long as Groh is here.
Hopefully Groh won't be stubborn,
And he’ll realize that we should play a 1-gap scheme on the D-line currently. I don’t like it when coaches force their system on the players, when they should adapt their system to fit the players strengths.
by RamblinWreck7 on Oct 22, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Areed
From The Rumble Seat -Drinkin' whiskey clear since 2008.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
That's what I've been saying,
The 1-gap scheme is more similar to the 4-3, so if our D-lineman are better suited for the 4-3, why don’t we play to their strengths.
by RamblinWreck7 on Oct 22, 2011 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on From The Rumble Seat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
