Defensive Benchmarks for the 2011 Georgia Tech Football Team
by BirdGT on Aug 9, 2011 8:00 AM EDT
in Georgia Tech Football
Email
PrintI already talked about some basic offensive benchmarks for tracking the progression of the 2011 offensive season. Today, I want to talk about some interesting defensive benchmarks. The first one is the one that was probably the most erratic of the three CPJ-GT squads: sacks. In 2008, Tech had 34 sacks and that dropped to 25 in 2009 and then 17 in 2010. The balance of linebackers:defensive line has also shifted under Al Groh's 3-4. From 2008-2009, Dave Wommack's defensive lines accounted for 80% of the team's sacks. Al Groh's defensive line only accounted for 24% of the sacks. So it's difficult to really tackle the sack issue as opposed to carries because we have completely shifted our defensive philosophy.
In CFB, defensive scoring doesn't necessarily correlate to winning percentage as much as offensive scoring but I think we should still review our defense's average ability to prevent points. The average opposing drive from 2008-2011 netted 2.15 points. In losses, this number jumped to 3.50 points allowed per opposing drive. Our average victories on the other hand saw our defense hold opponents to roughly one touchdown per seven drives or 1.22 points per drive.
A very good indicator of victory was opposing offensive play calling. For example, in Tech victories opponents' accumulated 20% more passing touchdowns than rushing touchdowns but in Tech losses opponents accumulated 18% more rushing touchdowns. An even simpler example would be pure play-calling. Opposing offensive coordinators called about 30 rush plays and 32 pass plays against Tech's winning defensive efforts. However, the average Tech loss saw an opponent call a much less balanced 40 rushing plays versus 25 pass plays.
One would say that opponents are beating Tech at its own game but in reality opponents are just beating us soundly in our losses. Average opposing passers in Tech losses are racking up an average passer rating of around 145 while Tech victories are still seeing opponents pass for around 120. For perspective, a 145 college passer rating is an elite ACC QB and a 120 is 50 percentile ACC QB. In short, CPJ defenses have a lot of work to do across the board based on their 2008-2010 predecessors.
Do you have any thoughts or comments?
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The defense has two question marks.
If we get good play out of our nose tackle we take care of one question mark.
If a young but inexperienced secondary can minimize mistakes, we take care of the other question mark.
Linebackers will be very good.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 9, 2011 1:18 PM EDT reply actions
I wouldn't call our secondary too inexperienced.
Rashaad Reid started as a freshman due to injuries in 2008 or 2009, and Rod Sweeting played a lot last year from what I could remember.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I would.
It is not whether they have played before; it is how well will they play when it is there turn to step up and be leaders in a secondary that has lots of new people. Filling in for injured players on a unit that has played together is one thing. Starting over with an entirely new unit is another.
Don’t get me wrong. I am excited about the potential of this group. But they are untested.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 9, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I though Reid played well as a freshman though.
I’m pretty sure he started most of the games as a freshman? But yes I agree there are still some question marks though.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately
He hasn’t duplicated his freshman production during the subsequent two seasons.
Nose Gaurd
TJ BARNES
exit(rant)
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
Not sure what you're trying to say here
Barnes plays too high and still needs to work on his fitness.
that, in fact
was exactly what I was saying. He’s a big ol’ boy, he just needs to get his stuff together and then we’ll be solid as a rock at NT.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
General Comments
Sacks are important. We had four NFL defensive linemen in 2008, which helped enormously. The defensive line has been a weakness since 2009 (inclusive), when Derrick Morgan was the only worthwhile player. I think DL will still be a weak position group in 2011, but fortunately, we won’t be needing them to provide the pressure alone.
I don’t think the next two statistics are that telling. We lose when teams score more points and win when teams score less, and teams pass more when they’re losing and run more when they’re winning. The opponents’ passer ratings are good indications of how the secondary is performing. I’d like to see that number decrease this season.
We should see more turnovers this season…which I think is a very good indicator for defensive performance.
I think the defensive line will be a strength this season.
Jason Peters and Izaan Cross are both talented and very experienced DE’s. What people don’t understand is that NT isn’t the only position on the D-line. I’d expect T.J. Barnes’ play to improve anyways with better technique after a whole year of experience.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I have never been that concerned about the other defensive linemen. Nose tackle, however, is critical. And we have yet to prove that we have one.
by Atlanta's original team on Aug 9, 2011 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see DL as a strength
It’s not a weakness probably, as they’ll probably do their jobs, but no one on the line will be outstanding. Izaan Cross may develop into someone that teams have to plan for, but Peters and Walls are nothing to write home about.
# of Forced Turnovers
indicate a D’s energy level to me…how hungry are they for the ball and how hard are the working to find it. That’s what defense is all about, after all. I dunno if ours will improve, however, I’ve heard more about better technique and less about energy level out of the practice reports this year.
Paul Johnson: not giving a crap about what you have to say since 1987.
I really like our linebacker group this year though.
Attachou, Burnett, and Sylvester are a great starting group, we just need to find one more ILB. Maybe Kyle Jackson, or Quashawn Nealy.
Drummond and Nealy
Those two will battle for playing time inside. Don’t forget Brandon Watts on the outside…he’s played well in the past.
I forgot about Drummond.
He seems like he could be a good run suffer from ILB, being a former fullback. I don’t think Watt’s will start, just because Attoachu has so much potential with his athletisicm rushing from the OLB position. Sylvester is very solid and dependable opposite of Attoachu.
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 9, 2011 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't let the dawggies
run the ball down our throat on the first series.
PLEASE!
A little hard to explain that to my daughter 2 years ago….
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Aug 9, 2011 4:06 PM EDT reply actions
3rd and long
I’d like to see the defense actually get off the field when defending 3rd and long. It seemed like GT allowed way too many 3rd down conversions last year when the opposing offense was in a 3rd and long situation.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Aug 10, 2011 9:26 PM EDT reply actions
BLITZ!!!!!!
Send 11 guys after the quarterback if you have to!
by RamblinWreck7 on Aug 11, 2011 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Regarding Defensive 3rd down conversions allowed
Overall:
2008 – 38.1%
2009 – 41.04%
2010 – 38.95%
Wins/Losses:
2008 – 35.38/44.07%
2009 – 39.13/48.57%
2010 – 33.75/43.48%
Interestingly our 3rd down conversions allowed rate went up in 2009. Maybe a bend but don’t break defense, whereas in 2010 we simply broke more often than we bent?
4th Down rates are as follows…
Overall:
2008 – 40%
2009 – 42.86%
2010 – 47.62%
Wins/Losses:
2008 – 35.29/50%
2009 – 50/0%
2010 – 62.5/38.46%
Interesting numbers to say the least.
"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.
2 things I must note from Article...
In CFB, defensive scoring doesn’t necessarily correlate to winning percentage as much as offensive scoring
I don’t understand how that’s possible. To win, you must score more than the opponent. If you do it by scoring a bunch, and they score a little less, good; if you do it by scoring little, but they score even less, just as good.
Offense is just what sells tickets, and a good defense is just as important as a good offense IMO.
A very good indicator of victory was opposing offensive play calling. For example, in Tech victories opponents’ accumulated 20% more passing touchdowns than rushing touchdowns but in Tech losses opponents accumulated 18% more rushing touchdowns. An even simpler example would be pure play-calling. Opposing offensive coordinators called about 30 rush plays and 32 pass plays against Tech’s winning defensive efforts. However, the average Tech loss saw an opponent call a much less balanced 40 rushing plays versus 25 pass plays.
The obvious points here are, in Tech losses, the teams didn’t have to pass (to catch up), and they could just run it, and, the better teams didn’t have to pass, because the could push us around and run it on us.
I think that’s what you were saying, but I was just making it obvious.
I think the offense will be fine, but for GT to become elite, we need elite level defenses as well.
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
