Georgia Tech Offensive Benchmarks for the 2011 Season
by BirdGT on Aug 8, 2011 8:00 AM EDT
in Georgia Tech Football
Email
PrintThe average CPJ-coached Georgia Tech football team distributes carries across a slew of historically talented backs. Per season, the average starting A-Back has received 55 carries, the average starting B-Back has received 225 carries, the Quarterback has received 234 carries, and starting wideouts receive 3 reverses per season. A breakdown of all the carries since 2008 is shown below:
The other major topic for CPJ's offense is scoring per play. The more plays it takes to get down the field and score a touchdown, the more likely a team is to throw a pick or lose a fumble. Our offense loves eating up the clock but as Winfield showed us, running down the minutes doesn't necessarily equate to victory. Since 2008, it has taken Tech about 20 rushing plays to get a rushing touchdown. The same games for pass plays. Every 20 passing attempts = a passing touchdown. Fans of Hawai'i and Texas Tech should cringe at that stat considering Tech has only passed the ball 12.5 times per game since 2008...
Now, here is the logic behind CPJ's passing:rushing inequality. Tech scores a passing TD every 20 pass plays but we also throw a pick every 20 passing plays. The average opposing drive since 2008 has netted 2.2 points. So all of the work put into every passing touchdown actually only netted us around 4.8 points. This is opposed to our ability to score a rushing TD every 20 plays yet only fumbling every 40 rush attempts. That means for every 14 points we've racked up running the football, we've only given the opponent 2.2 points off of turnovers. Winning by 12 points is much more significant in football than winning by 5.
The average Tech fan probably doesn't want to know how big a difference Tech's rushing attack performs in wins versus losses. It only takes Tech 17 rushing attempts to score a TD in victory. However, in losses Tech needs 36 rushing attempts. Considering we only run 54 times per game, this is fairly paltry. Fumbling is not quite as indicative of a victory. Tech fans don't gasp quite as hard when they see the ball pop out in a CPJ offense. In victory Tech fumbles every 46 rushing attempts as opposed to every 35 rushing attempts in a loss.
If you have any comments or questions, let me know. Any ideas for future posts would be wondrous. 24 days 'til kickoff and 124 days 'til Army-Navy weekend. I hope you're all ready.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Comprehensive and well written as always
I guess the only question that readily comes to mind is this. If one looks at the top rushing teams in the country is there any correlation between this and the weight of the offensive line?
I am not sure specifically what I am looking for but two conflicting conversations have occurred over the past three years in sports blogs. One school of thought says that CPJ needs fast and agile linemen and therefore they are not large compared to other teams. the other train of thought is simply that running team needs a lot of beef to push the defense off of the line of scrimmage.
Are there any statistical trends that can illuminate what the size of our line may or may not do to our running statistics?
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 8, 2011 2:45 PM EDT reply actions
Also add in...
…the “how big is too big?” question. Maybe there’s a statistical point in an upward plot of the size/weight of O-lineman past which we see evidence they might be less effective at blocking for a top rushing team. I’ve heard this as a defense of CPJ’s O-line philosophy among the GT fanbase. They’ll say if the guys are too big the linemen get too slow to block into the second and third level effectively if a B-back or QB breaks free. I can see it, but I’m curious what the numbers would bear out (are Oregon’s linemen large relative to GT? what about Nevada or the other top rushing teams? Would we theoretically be no worse off for trying to recruit bigger linemen? etc.)
Great post.
I think OL weight is a tough one
SC State had one of the biggest OL’s we faced last year and they were the worst offense we faced…
I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.
Some Info
The top rushing teams over the past five years (four of which are Paul Johnson teams) and the size of their linemen:
Year Team Avg Min Max
2010 GaTech 287.4 281 300
2009 Nevada 300.0 280 325
2008 Navy 270.8 255 283
2007 Navy 266.4 256 286
2006 Navy 268.8 249 300
In 2010, we had the second largest average linemen over the past five years, and the smallest lineman on that team is larger than the smallest lineman on the other four. The Georgia Tech team is much larger than the Navy teams, but had a lower yards/game than all but one other team on this list. My conclusion from all this is that size isn’t the most important factor in producing a successful running game.
That's helpful
So I guess the mildly interesting follow up would be to get the 2011 statistics of the starting line and see where they fit in.
The rest of the discussion on this page, as someone pointed out :-) is Deja Vu. We did have this conversation, it seems, in past years.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 9, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
It kind of depends on the type of offense though.
Navy’s O-lineman would have a lot of trouble blocking in a power running game. All of those teams run the triple option, don’t they?
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Nevada's is different
I have not studied it but it reminds me a little of Oregon. The call it the “:Pistol Offense” and it is a kind of a shotgun hybrid. The quarterback is a little closer to the line. What I do not know is how often they actually run an option off of this as opposed to how often the play is called at the line of scrimmage. I am assuming it is more the latter.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 9, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Nevada runs the pistol
The other four are all Coach Johnson’s triple option. In college football, the success in the run game depends more on scheme than on size. The most successful scheme is not the pro style running game.
Yes they run the pistol.
But they run option plays I think out of it.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
Similar concept, but different formation. Nevada throws the ball more than Paul Johnson’s offenses, but that may be personnel related (Colin Kaepernick is a NFL-caliber passer). I was trying to identify the formation differences between Nevada and Tech/Navy.
I did a thing about this a while ago
and here’s the data. This was after the 09’ season (i.e, created in July 2010), and we were still first in the nation in rushing with these comparatively small guys. We were second in 09, and second in 08’ as well I believe when we went up against FL state who has the biggest D line in the ACC, and Georgie, who has an SEC-sized line. So all in all, I believe this is the case where size doesn’t matter for lack of a better term.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Size matters in pass protection though.
It really, really matters
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 8, 2011 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha probably.
It does matter in pass protection though.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I would like the quarterback carries to go down a bit
Seeing as how he is the most important guy and we can’t have him getting injured. Also, I would like for the A-backs carries to go up some because they are so fast and versatile. The only problem is that the only way to get them the ball is through the pitch, and that’s the most riskiest play because we fumble it so much. Hopefully Paul Johnson read my Georgia Tech offense fanposts about incorporating the shotgun formation to allow handoffs to the A-backs haha.
The article I wrote was basically just combining Georgia Tech's offense with Florida's offense.
I think Paul Johnson and Urban Meyer is a pretty good combination, wouldn’t you say?
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 8, 2011 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
remember the rumors / sightings of CPJ and Urban Meyer together when Meyer retired the first time?
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John Heisman FromTheRumbleSeat
by Winfield Featherston on Aug 8, 2011 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
...
Noooooo… I don’t remember haha. Why were they together.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 8, 2011 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
when urbz was up here visiting his daughter
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
I want to opponents' safeties to make more tackles downfield.
I want to see the defensive ends not making tackles in the backfield.
Seriously. Size in the O-line is very important. But, a 280 pound guy who can move is likely a better fit for our offense than a 320 pound plodder. CPJ knows what he needs up front and seems to be OK with it. We’re about three weeks from the first test of whether the line is adequate. Hopefully, it is.
Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?
Linesize is not binary
It’s like linemen are either “big” or “fast.” Speed and size are two variables that (generally) correlate inversely. There’s a tradeoff. Really great linemen defy the general rule: they are big for their speed or fast for their size.
It seems like Johnson’s offense needs speed, so I bet he only looks at linemen that meet his speed requirements. Then, he looks for which guys have the best speed/size combo. Maybe he requires a lot speed, so there is a small pool of linemen with size who meet the criteria. Plus, really elite athletes who have their eyes on the NFL will probably gravitate towards schemes that allow them to pass block because that’s what the NFL values.
All of this makes it hard for Johnson to get bigger linemen. He ain’t gonna change his philsophy, and the pool of guys he drawing from ain’t that big.
by first and thom on Aug 9, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I've never really agreed with the "stay small" strategy
for ANY line on any team. Linemen are there to make sure nothing gets past them, and you’re much more likely to not get by a brick wall than trip over a string on your way there.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
by GTNate on Aug 9, 2011 10:38 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
interesting
“linemen are there to make sure nothing gets past them” seems to be the reigning philosophy in a pass-oriented offense. If we look at what CPJ might say, we can guess it would be more like “linemen are there to clear your ballcarriers a path down the field.” And we see that he uses them more or less that way by gap-pinching, trapping D-linemen away from the playside, bursting into the second level to trap LB’s and cutting down advancing defenders by blocking at the legs (the point you seem to take issue with.) I think the argument is that if they were overly mammoth, their ability to get into that second level might be hindered as they could be cursed with slower movement.
I agree with that but...
if you’re going to “[trap] D-lineman away from the playside,” which imo is the most important aspect of the run game, I’d rather see Terrence Cody out there doing it than Sean Bedford. That’s all I’m saying.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
But Terrance Cody was a NT...
I guess he did play fullback though, and at 374 lbs. in college, that’s ridiculous. Those poor D-lineman and linebackers almost didn’t even have a chance.
But yeah I know what you mean. I’d rather have a big guy on the O-line who can take care of the D-line. Remember, you have to block the D-line before you can have a chance to block the linebackers.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
D-linemen still have knees, don't they?
Shoulder pads + Knees = Pain ; Pain + Knees = Fear.
I kid, I kid. But really….
Is cut blocking dangerous?
I wouldn’t think so because it’s legal. Chop blocking is terrible though. See Georgia vs. Nick Fairley. You wonder why Fairley kept hitting Aaron Muray late…
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
A chop block is usually just a cut block where the defender can't protect himself
Cut blocks are legal when they are directed towards the ball and as long as the defender isn’t engaged up high. Most chop blocks are mistakes in blocking schemes: inside defender blocks straight up but outside defender cuts.
But a cut block is absolutely dangerous. The notion is to throw yourself at the legs of the defender. The defender can defend himself, but both are dangerous.
by first and thom on Aug 10, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Football
is a tough sport for tough guys.
That's right.
Risk is part of the game, and I certainly didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I don’t think that cut blocks are dirty or anything like that. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the rules about cut blocking to be tightened up in books in the coming years (and there’s a good argument that refs have been throwing flags on legal cut blocks in an effort to tighten the rules on their own), but that’s neither here nor there. The question was posed whether cut blocks are dangerous. The answer is yes.
by first and thom on Aug 10, 2011 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed that they are dangerous
Many things in football are dangerous, so I wouldn’t make any rule changes for cut blocking. After all, this isn’t the NFL, right?
Nope, it's the NCAA...
ALL YOUR AMATUER ARE BELONG TO US!
"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.
by Jesse28 on Aug 10, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think you are right about the refs
It was my impression also that they were trying to tighten the enforcement on cut blocks that were close to chop blocks. It seemed this happened in part because of the fear of injuries and in part because of certain opposing coaches yelling in their ears.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 11, 2011 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
cut blocks versus chop blocks
A chop block is not a variation of the cut block as implied above. It is a separate block altogether.
A chop block is a combination block in which one player blocks above the waist and one player blocks below the waist. The chop block is illegal and carries a 15 yd penalty and the wrath of CPJ.
A cut block is a block that occurs below the waist. It is legal only under certain conditions.
Neither the cut block nor the illegal chop block should be confused with the crackback block.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Aug 10, 2011 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
why couldn't they start these words
with a letter other than C? It’s too confusing.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Hey Nate
I have even heard ESPN announcers have entire conversations in which they were referring to cut blocks but were using the term “term chop blocks.” So you are not the only one.
Maybe they could call cut blocks “shin blocks.”
Or they could call chop blocks “bi-level blocks.”
:-)
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 11, 2011 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
But the problem with cut blocks is that you might have one lineman diving at the legs of a defensive lineman while another offensive lineman is heading high toward a linebacker. All that second lineman has to do is graze the defensive lineman on his way by and in the refs eyes it all looks like chop blocking.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 11, 2011 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
That's true
but there are many other penalties that are called due to “accidents.” It’s not frequent enough to worry about it.
I actually did "worry" about it at one point last year
Sometimes refs seemed to get hypersensitive about making the call and were looking for anything they could throw a flag at. Even if they don’t throw that many flags it only take one on a key drive to make lineman more hesitant on their blocking assignments.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 11, 2011 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Relevance of ball carrier distribution
I’ve wondered about just how relevant is the distribution of carries among the ball carriers for an option offense. Since the defense determines the ultimate ball carrier on a properly executed option play, it seems like the statistics would be more indicative of how the defense is defending the offense than anything else. I know that not every running play is an option play, but I suspect that the option plays are a large enough percentage of the play calls such that the ball carrier distribution statistics are a bit deceiving.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Aug 10, 2011 9:44 PM EDT reply actions
Perhaps it's simpler than that
Perhaps the BB and QB get the ball more because they are the decisions that are made first. For an AB to get the ball, the defense has to cover both the BB and QB options, so it occurs less often.
I think you are both right
Several teams playing against the option last year made no secret of the fact that their defensive strategy was to make the quarterback keep the ball as much as possible and hit him over and over through the game to wear him down.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 11, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
AB carries
Off the top of my head I can think of only two running plays where the AB carries the ball by design. The first one is the rocket toss (After the snap the QB immediately tosses the ball to the AB). I don’t know what the name of the second play is, so I’ll describe it and someone else can supply the name. From the base allignment, the AB goes in motion as usual. The ball is snapped, the QB fakes the handoff to the BB and then gives the ball to the AB who follows the BB through the line. As far as I know all other carries are a function of the defense’s response to an option play. If anyone knows differently I’d love to hear about it.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Aug 11, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on From The Rumble Seat
Related FanShots on From The Rumble Seat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
