Not Winning Bowls Sucks, But Here's Why That Should Stop Soon
by LilBroey700 on Nov 17, 2011 2:01 PM EST
Email
PrintEditor's Note: The following is a Front Page'd FanPost. Enjoy.
One of the many struggles in being a Tech sports fan is the lack of bowl victories for our team. We've made a bowl game every season since the 1997 season, which is a really good streak of 14 straight seasons (this season makes 15). The problem lies where you look at our record in those 14 straight bowl games, in which we are 5-9 without a win since 2004 (against Syracuse, with the other 4 coming against Tulsa, Stanford, Notre Dame, and West Virginia). It's such a let down to get to the end of the season, high on your team, ready to get raging drunk and watch your football team beat someone's face in one last time, and then see them get beat by a team they're favored to win over. It gives fans a reason to doubt, it gives obnoxious rival homers a reason to keep barking at you about how irrelevant your team is, etc.
And now our head coach is Paul Johnson. In his 3 seasons at Tech, he has done a number of things that multiple predecessors failed to do:
1) He beat georgie, 45-42. (A day I will tell my grandkids about one day....assuming I ever graduate from this place.)
2) He beat Florida State (hadn't happened since '75), and then went and beat them at their place the next year.
3) He beat Virginia in Charlottesville (hadn't happened since 1990).
4) He won an ACC Championship and got the team to a BCS Bowl. (Screw you, yes he did.)
However, one thing he's failed to do is win a bowl game, and so now the option automatically doesn't work whenever people have extra time to prepare, right? We got whipped by LSU in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl 38-3, we got beat by Iowa in the Orange Bowl 24-14, and we soiled the field in Shreveport against Air Force and lost 14-7.....what other explanation could there be? It's so obvious, the option clearly won't work when other teams have extra time to prepare, right?
Wrong. Not so fast. Optimism after the jump.
I want to start this by throwing out the Independence Bowl. That game was an absolute shitshow. (The season was an absolute shitshow.) I watched that game surrounded by my mother's country-bumpkin family, holding my tongue with everything I had for fear of letting words come out of my mouth that would have me forever excommunicated from the family. Nothing. Went. Well. We crapped the bed, and nothing else can be said.
But now that we're not thinking about that game any more, let's look at the other two bowls in which Johnson has coached our Yellow Jackets -- the '08 Chick-Fil-A Bowl, and the '10 Orange Bowl. I want to look at something not directly related to our team, and its impact on why we lost -- the opposing defenses.
As much as anyone wants to argue that the option doesn't work or does work given a week or 10 days or a month to prepare, one thing I've learned is that this offense does have an Achilles Heel, and it comes in the form of a great defense. One that can win almost all (if not all) one-on-one matchups, especially up front, and one that is disciplined regardless of the offense in front of them. The two defenses we faced in those two bowl games were two great defenses. Want proof? Check this out:
2008 LSU Starting Defense
DE Tyson Jackson - Kansas City Chiefs
DT Charles Alexander - Free Agent, Arena League (Injury concerns)
DT Ricky Jean Francois - San Francisco 49ers
DE Kirston Pittman - Undrafted, St. Louis Rams, released (injury concerns)
SLB Perry Riley - Washington Redskins
MLB Darry Beckwith - Undrafted, San Diego Chargers, Indianapolis Colts, Free Agent
WLB Kelvin Sheppard - Buffalo Bills
LCB Chris Hawkins - Undrafted, Tennessee Titans
SS Chad Jones - New York Giants
FS Curtis Taylor - San Francisco 49ers, currently a free agent
RCB Jai Eugene - undrafted
So maybe not the most impressive, but still, you're looking at a defense where over half were taken in the NFL draft, where only one guy has seen no time in the NFL (he's in the secondary), and where the front 7 included 4 guys who were drafted, 2 who would've been without injury problems, and one who's played for two teams at the next level.
2009 Iowa Starting Defense
DE Adrian Clayborn - Tampa Bay Buccaneers (#20 overall pick)
DT Karl Klug - Tennessee Titans
DT Christian Ballard - Minnesota Vikings
DE Broderick Binns - Senior at Iowa, #20 ranked DE prospect for 2012 draft
SLB AJ Edds - Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, Indianapolis Colts
MLB Pat Angerer - Indianapolis Colts
WLB Jeremiha Hunter - New Orleans Saints
LCB Shaun Prater - Senior at Iowa, #6 ranked CB prospect for 2012 draft
SS Tyler Sash - New York Giants
FS Joe Conklin - no NFL record could be found
RCB Amari Spievey - Detroit Lions
So now we're looking at a defense that had 8 guys drafted and will have two more drafted this year, for a total of 10 NFL prospects. By scoring 14 points, we outscored 5 other opponents of theirs....think about that. The only two games they lost, they were without their starting QB (and even then, one was an overtime loss to Ohio State in the Horseshoe).
So what does this all say? What I'm getting at is that not winning bowl games under Johnson has largely been a function of the opposing defenses. We've learned this -- get beat up front and we can't function. Both of those games, we had a mess made out of us up front and scored an aggregate 17 points (7 off of a pick-six in the Iowa game, if I recall).
I think that if we play coherently (unlike Shreveport) and have a match-up that doesn't put us at a major disadvantage (unlike the other two), we have a legitimate chance at winning bowl games under Paul Johnson. I'm looking forward to what we can do this year in the post-season, likely in the Sun Bowl.
</essay>
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In that case...
Based on defense I want us to play Cal in the Sun Bowl. That’s a historic matchup anyway.
Scratch that...
….looking at the possibilities, I change my vote. Gimme some Washington Husky! Defense is 102 of 120.
good post
but at some point we have to play a top tier defense if we want to win a championship. Which means we have to work on developing better D ourselves.
It will come, it will come.
We have to tell ourselves over and over. Schemes alone do not win football games. The players have to be good and play well. If Johnson continues on the arc that he is on more and more recruits will start looking at Tech.
by Atlanta's original team on Nov 17, 2011 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
As I said in another post
It wasn’t that long ago as I recall that we had the best bowl won-loss percentage, probably 2004 as you cited. Yeah all that extra time to prepare lets them “figure it out”. ;) Seriously though, it certainly doesn’t hurt and obviously reduces one of our advantages during the regular season of our opponents not having enough time to get ready for it. The option is a great equalizer but if we’re going to take the next step, we have to get better players esp on the O and D-lines. The bowl game vs. LSU was the first one I clearly remember thinking that we just couldn’t match up physically vs. our opponent, and they were like 7-5 that year. The jury is still out in my mind if CPJ is able to recruit good enough talent to do so. Hopefully he can.
by The Bamboo Shaft on Nov 17, 2011 5:27 PM EST reply actions
They gotta be motivated to play
unlike cold Boise or the Emerald Bowl in SF. I could see from 5 hours away that the players weren’t interested in anything beyond mailing it in.
You'd do it for Randolph Scott!
RANDOLPH SCOTT!
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Nov 17, 2011 5:28 PM EST reply actions
Interesting methodology, but it has a few problems.
First, what about Air Force? It’s fine to take a mulligan, but this particular mulligan totally changes the argument you make. How many USAF got drafted?
Second, bowl teams will have better defenses than non-bowl teams on average, so there’s a predictive value issue.
Third, how much worse would these defenses have to have been to make these games Tech wins?
Fourth, what about regular season losses?
Fifth, what about regular season losses for teams coming off a bye week, excluding the first game of the season (which is disproportionately populated with cupcakes that Tech can beat with talent)?
I’m all in favor of optimism, but it also helps to call a spade a spade.
Air Force game
…it was McKayhan’s TWO fumbled fair-catches. Each led to USAF points. And our guys really seemed unhappy just to be there. I think it’s kind of a fair mulligan to take when bowl games are the topic. We all want to know what it would take for GT to be able to go to a mid-level or higher bowl (especially the Peach-fil-A and better) and at least be competitive. I think the answer we’re always going to come back to is a combo of size and speed. Big men who are fast exist, but they end up highly rated and playing for schools who win Natty’s more frequently than Tech. We have to break through with what we have and THEN roll it into better recruiting dividends.
we never should have taken that bowl bid
if you’re 6-6, you shouldn’t go to a game
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John Heisman FromTheRumbleSeat
by Winfield Featherston on Nov 18, 2011 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but...
…we’re tied with georgie in 4th place for current streak of consecutive seasons going to a bowl (behind FSU [which almost lost it a couple years back], VPI, and Florida). With Florida’s loss to USC, we move into FIRST place of consecutive seasons of .500 or better conference play.
1) For the Air Force game, what Jason said. We had our starting QB out and generally played like garbage. The Special Teams play in that game was trumped by most high school JV teams. I feel like that’s a very poor indicator of anything besides beating ourselves.
2) We beat bowl teams in the regular season. This year we beat Clemson and North Carolina. Last year it was UNC, 2009 it was Clemson, UNC, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Clemson again, and 2008 it was Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and georgie.
3) Not sure, and not sure we’ll ever know. We only know how we looked against those particular teams. I can’t imagine we would’ve looked good against anyone putting up 3 points on LSU (I was on a cruise as a senior in high school and didn’t watch, I turned it on in the 2nd and we were down 35-3), but we’ll never really know against Iowa.
4) and 5) What about regular season wins? Off the top of my head, we seem to have won at least one major game where the opponent had extra time.
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
1) Bowl games are tricky. The less riding on the bowl game, the greater the odds one team shows up and the other doesn’t. Late season collapses, or getting skipped over (for a less-deserving degree factory school and its redneck fanbase because they rent hotel rooms) a better bowl and playing in a crappier one often zaps the focus and desire of winning a boal game. Air Force plays the same type of 8-10 possession per game ball-control offense we do, so when you give the opponent several turnovers and you are playing shorthanded then you are not helping your chances of success.
2) I would argue there’s also a coaching factor at play there too, but overall talent trumps talent. This is most especially true in the trenches, and I hope this is a focus for CPJ on the recruiting trail.
3) Tech beats defenses with better athletes/bad scheme. Tech beats defenses with worse athletes/good scheme. Tech struggles against defenses with better athletes/good scheme. Pro-style offenses struggle against defenses with better athletes/good scheme. The Spread Option struggles against defenses with better athletes/good scheme. EVERYBODY STRUGGLES AGAINST DEFENSES WITH BETTER ATHLETES AND GOOD SCHEMES. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF THE OPTION!
4) No difference.
5) Ask Clemson a few weeks ago. Rushing stats per game and YPC data really doesn’t change all that much, and to be honest the number of games that CPJ has coached at Tech under said conditions represents a SSS anyway.
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
Re 3: how do you know?
It seems to be a darn fine hypothesis that teams with more offensive flexibility can better exploit the weaknesses in opposing defenses. It’s one thing to play LSU and Iowa. It’s another thing to play them when they know in advance what they have to defend. There is no strategic surprise, and everything hinges on execution.
But teams with more multiple offense can achieve strategic surprise. When the Steelers beat the Pats, they lined up 5-wide all night and threw the ball. The Steelers! The Patriots were ready to defend the wrong thing all night.
The option puts all of your offensive eggs in one basket. Defenses work hard to make teams one-dimensional. Tech is effectively one-dimensional from the start. Is that not a pretty significant disadvantage?
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
You make it sound like we only come to the line with one play, and one play only. There are calls made on the line, and plays are changed a lot to take advantage of defensive personnel…just like any other offense.
Most teams don’t run multiple offenses in college…20 hours a week doesn’t allow that. They throw in some wrinkles and run some limited packages…but comparing what we should be doing to an NFL offense is kind of silly. “Hey it’s georgie week, let’s run a no-huddle shotgun spread this week”…seriously? There’s also the concept of offensive identity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like for us to get to the point where we can pass at will, and I think most Tech fans would like to see a shotgun package in obvious passing downs…more for pass protection than anything else.
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
by TBuzz on Nov 18, 2011 7:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The point isn't the Tech has no flexibility, but that it has a lot less flexibility.
Every offense has an identity. Alabama runs. Oregon plays the zone read. But those offenses have constraint plays that make a defense pay for over-defending a base offense. Alabama has play action. Oregon has a healthy downfield passing game.
Tech is hurting for contraint plays. Passing is questionable, so your adjustment when a team takes away the core option game is to go to a different option-based running scheme.
And it’s not ridiculous for other college teams to change offensive identities week-to-week or even half-to-half. LSU is pro-style with Lee and option/misdirection with Jefferson. UGA threw the ball all over the field against Auburn in the first half, and then threw only two passes in the second.
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 9:49 AM EST up reply actions
It seems to be a darn fine hypothesis that teams with more offensive flexibility can better exploit the weaknesses in opposing defenses. It’s one thing to play LSU and Iowa. It’s another thing to play them when they know in advance what they have to defend. There is no strategic surprise, and everything hinges on execution.
But teams with more multiple offense can achieve strategic surprise. …
The option puts all of your offensive eggs in one basket. …
You mean teams need flexible offenses like the ones Ghan Gailey had?
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Nov 18, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Yes - but also like almost every other coach at any level of football.
Few teams run schemes as one-dimensional as Tech. The fact that Gailey is found amongst the overwhelming majority of coaches does not discredit the notion of offensive flexibility.
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 9:53 AM EST up reply actions
No.
But having Patrick Nix call plays and Reggie Ball run a flexible any offense tends to limit your success.
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
Would we be having this discussion if GT’s play action passing was more effective? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. No answer is required.)
Going back to the bowl game performance, a friend of mine postulated that part of the reason for GT’s poor performance, and this also applies to teams with bye weeks before the GT game in the regular season, is that the GT offense is more precision and timing dependent than other offenses. So it’s not that the other team gets extra time to prepare so much as it is that the GT offense gets out of synch timingwise and thus doesn’t have the precision needed. I don’t know how much water this theory holds, but it’s a nice break from the prevailing idea that any team can stop the option given sufficient time to prepare.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Nov 18, 2011 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Not seeing it.
Defenses get no better but the offense gets worse? A bye week is a disadvantage? Practice time doesn’t help the team run a timing offense well, but playing a game does?
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's a possibility...
I look no further than last year’s Green Bay Packers team who came into the playoffs as the 6 seed on an absolute TEAR running a very timing-dependent passing game. The Falcons were noticeably not sharp, and defensively had no answer for Aaron Rodgers. If they get a 1st round bye, I’ll be curious to see how they react to it.
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
I wrote an article awhile back about the timing sensitive nature of Tech's offense.
Against teams that have extra time to prepare for Tech, Tech has a winning percentage, though just barely.
Now this is the part that is hard to quantify but I believe the evidence is there to support the following hypothesis: If Tech has too much time off or too little time off they almost always lose. When this team is tired there timing is off. When this team has not played in awhile their timing is off. It does not have to be off a lot to make a difference.
I have written about this and commented on this phenomenon many times. I love this offense but this is the one thing that concerns me every year about it. I keep looking for someone to reassure me that this offense isn’t more susceptible to timing issues than other offenses but no one has yet.
by Atlanta's original team on Nov 18, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
You make an interesting and excellent point.
While I love the option esp when it’s executed correctly and working well, watching our passing game is a complete nightmare. It reminds me so much of those Oklahoma and Nebraska teams in the 80’s attempting to pass when they got way behind and were trying to come back. Fiasco is way too mild an understatement. While I don’t expect us to suddenly line up in shotgun and run the Air Raid, it would be nice to have some semblance of an effective passing game to keep the defense honest. As I recall, Nebraska eventually diversified their offense and became a much more effective passing team… leading to 3 national championships. Of course there were many other factors too but that was an important one.
by The Bamboo Shaft on Nov 18, 2011 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
While you make an excellent point
I don’t think it’s the option’s fault. The personnel do not dictate passing the ball more. While I would like to see more effective passing to get more balance, more passing won’t help the offense this season. In 2009 when the best two players on offense were Dwyer and Thomas, the offense was much more effective. We don’t have a dominant player in the passing game this season.
In any system, you call plays to suit your personnel. What we really need is a guy at quarterback that can throw and run with equal aplomb (it helps to have players that can catch the ball too). The two guys we have there now don’t have those qualities. Until then, good defenses will be able to push our offense to become one dimensional and force us into mistakes.
In summary, the option doesn’t force the team to be one-dimensional from the start. The personnel do that, and until we can get another reliable playmaker in the passing game, this offense will look very one-dimensional.
This
Vad Lee will be a beast at QB. He could be a beast at WR if he got his reps in, but he’s too good a passer. He’ll have the size and athletic ability to run the triple option much like Josh Nesbitt did.
One more year of weights and film for Finch, Jackson, Uzzi, and our much improved OL recruits.
My main concern is getting a stud athlete at the B-Back position. David Sims is athletic, but he’s not explosive or shifty in tight spaces like Jon Dwyer was. Perhaps Charles Perkins will show us some more in 2012…
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
Couple things
I think Uzzi is a senior (damn shame), and I definitely think Perkins has potential to be a devastating ball carrier. He’s been really fumble prone in practice and has struggled with blocking apparently, but put the ball in his hands and I think he’s very much a Dwyer-esque B-Back.
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
Uzzi is a Junior
One of two on the offensive line, and there are no seniors.
fair point, although there's a chicken and egg problem.
First, what’s up with the egg analogies?
Second, it’s fair to question whether the kind of players that make a passing game tick are the kind of players that want to play in an option team. It’d be great for Tech to get them (it would improve both passing and running), but it’s hard to get a top-flight WR to be the guy who takes the chance to spend most of his time blocking.
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I’m not convinced that you need a top-flight WR to be effective though. If he can catch the balls thrown right to him when he’s wide open, and then maybe 50% of the jump balls, he’ll be a star in this offense. Keep in mind that the backs are an integral part of the passing offense too. If Orwin Smith doesn’t drop that ball in the first quarter of the VT game, it could have had a completely different complexion.
Now to my point: I think a top-flight QB is more important than a top-flight WR. The receivers have been open regularly. The quarterback just needs to get it to them. There are plenty of dual-threat QB’s out there that would flourish in this offense. The question is, do they want to play QB here and try to transition in the NFL or play another position in college and hope to get into the NFL? It may help the Joshua Nesbitt is now on the active roster for the Bills.
People forget that Josh Nesbitt probably wasn't a potential NFL quarterback anyway...
His throwing mechanics were horrible even as he was recruited here from Greene Co. HS. In fact, CCG might have done CPJ the biggest favor by recruiting a “dual-threat” QB in his last (and finest) recruiting season. That 2007 debut against VT on Thursday night wasn’t Josh’s finest hour.
To hear that CPJ’s system ruined his chances to play QB int he NFL…its comical.
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
A lot of the problems this season
have come down to execution. I can think of at least half a dozen times where Washington has hit the receivers right on the money but they don’t catch the football. I can think of two times in the VT game that would have resulted in crucial first downs.
It really doesn’t matter what kind of offense you run. If you have athletic playmakers and can move the football, resulting in points, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s throwing or running the football. Look at Tebow last night. He doesn’t get style points by any means, but he puts points on the board. But I guess that is too one dimensional for a GA fan.
speaking of execution --
special teams destroyed our chance of winning 1 of our games this season (miami)
"It doesn't really matter what offense you run."
I think it does. It’s great to have playmakers (and you need them to win big games), but there’s no guarantee that the other team won’t have better playmakers. Scheme matters – as does flexibility. A passing team has to be able to produce offense when the other guys blitz all day long, or when they drop 8 into coverage. A running team has to be able to produce offense when teams load up the box to stop it.
The option is great until it isn’t. Running the ball every down is the ultimate offense on paper, but only if it works. If a team gets great DL play, how does Tech beat ‘em? What can it do if the option doesn’t work? What schematic choice does Tech have?
by first and thom on Nov 18, 2011 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Counters, screens, quick passes…kind of like any other offense that plays against a quick dominant front 7…
"Reach down in there...TURN THAT DAMN THING UP!" - Coach Paul Johnson
by TBuzz on Nov 18, 2011 7:58 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That's a question
for every team, not just Tech. There have been games where the passing game has stepped up when needed and times when it hasn’t. If you look at every team, only teams with great offensive players can consistently impose their will on any defense. Tech does not have that this season, especially at quarterback.
Its not give opposing defenses time for our offense...
its give opposing offenses time for our defense.. our defense is our Achilles heal
This is my Family Tradition
by The_GT_LineageX11 on Nov 18, 2011 11:16 AM EST reply actions
our Wide Recievers and Backs catching passes
would solve every offensive problem if you ask me… but i guess thats just too much to ask of them.
This is my Family Tradition
by The_GT_LineageX11 on Nov 18, 2011 11:20 AM EST reply actions
Am I wrong....
Or hasn’t Tech also had issues with teams coming off bye weeks as well? You defend the option with discipline and sticking to your assignments, and having extra time to practice and develop that discipline only helps. It’s so different from what other teams face and scheme for on a regular basis that, even if the coaches know how to defend it, the players don’t. The extra time allows them to get familiar with it, and I think the results from your bad bowl losses and games against teams coming off bye weeks reflect that. It’s not just that the option loses to those teams, it gets completely shut down.
It isn't obvious
that teams coming off a bye have an advantage. Over Coach Johnson’s years here, we’ve seen that it isn’t really that big of a difference in win percentage, and the ones that we’ve lost have been to good teams.
Rematch? Not the same stakes unfortunately.
You'd do it for Randolph Scott!
RANDOLPH SCOTT!
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Nov 18, 2011 2:36 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
