Athlon Sports Prediction

[Jacket59]

If we were able to consistently win 7 or more games with the worst offense I've ever seen in my entire life, then I feel pretty confident we can win 7 this year.

That's called having a great defense. I hope we still have that, because with a bad offense and a bad defense, you're not gonna win 7 no matter how you slice it.

 

[GoldenTornado]

I don't get why the offense will necessarily be worse. It should be better than the 2007 offense by the end of the season.

All offenses that Paul Johnson has taken over have improved immediately except for GSU in 1985 which was his first year as an OC. Here's the improvement in scoring offense in his first two years during Paul Johnson's career as OC/HC:

GSU 1985: -0.4*
GSU 1986: + 10.5 (+10.1 in 2 seasons)
Hawaii 1987: +8.3
Hawaii 1988: +3.9 (+12.2 in 2 seasons)
Navy 1995: +3.2
Navy 1996: +12.4 (+15.6 in 2 seasons)
GSU 1997**: +9.4
GSU 1998: +11.1 (+20.5 in 2 seasons)
Navy 2002: +5.9 PPG, +50.1 YPG
Navy 2003: +6.3 PPG, +54.1 YPG (+12.2, +104.2 YPG in 2 seasons)

* GSU improved through the season and won national title while avging 37.6 PPG in last 7 games including four playoff games.

** I also compared to the offense of Stowers' 9-4 95 team and the numbers were about the same. Ellwood's 96 interim offense actually improved a half point per game.

It's true that these teams were all option teams when Johnson took over. But at least two of them, the two Navy teams, were really, really bad at it.

Now 2009 should be very interesting, especially if we do better than most expect in 2008. Paul Johnson's second and third year results have been pretty stellar:

GSU 1986: won second consecutive national title, undefeated in 1AA.

Hawaii 1988: 9-3, beat Iowa and Oregon, only 2nd 9-win season since moving to D1 in 1974.
Hawaii 1989: 9-3-1, beat 10-3 BYU 56-14, breakthrough win was first Hawaii victory over BYU after joining WAC in 1978.

Navy 1996: 9-3 and a bowl win, tied with 1978 for best record since Staubach in 1963.

GSU 1998: 14-1, lost national title game.
GSU 1999: 13-2, won national title.

Navy 2003: 8-5, won CiC trophy for first time in 22 years.
Navy 2004: 10-2, most wins in USNA history, first back to back CiC trophy for Navy since 1979.

 

[ncjacket]

That's called having a great defense. I hope we still have that, because with a bad offense and a bad defense, you're not gonna win 7 no matter how you slice it.

So was our defense great or did we play bad offenses? We ranked 21st in scoring defense last season. Rankings of the teams we played in scoring O - 29, 34, 53, 54, 58, 80, 86, 97,99,114, 116 and a D-1A. Makes you wonder a little doesn't it?

Our rankings in the conference for the last 4 years on scoring D were 5,7,6 and 5. So can you be great when you're not the best in your own league? Plus, were ACC defenses all that great or did the offenses suck? I think we were pretty good, but helped by the lack of any strong offensive teams in the ACC. In particular the ACC has had a very weak group of QBs overall for the last 5-6 years.

 

[GoldenTornado]

So was our defense great or did we play bad offenses? Our rankings in the conference for the last 4 years on scoring D were 5,7,6 and 5. So can you be great when you're not the best in your own league? Plus, were ACC defenses all that great or did the offenses suck? I think we were pretty good, but helped by the lack of any strong offensive teams in the ACC. In particular the ACC has had a very weak group of QBs overall for the last 5-6 years.

You make good points. One thing though is that rankings don't tell the whole story -- the degree of difference matters. GT was 4th in total D and 5th in scoring D, but only VT and Clemson were significantly better than GT. UVA, BC and GT were all about the same, in a group together at roughly 330 YPG and 20 PPG. Those three schools were effectively tied for third.

The awful quality of the ACC offenses is shown by the fact that GT was 3rd in the league in total offense and 5th in scoring offense -- though both were aided a lot by the Samford and Army games.

But there is some evidence that it's not just the bad ACC offenses, but also pretty good D's. GT's D's have done well OOC except for the last two bowl games. They did well against Georgia the last three years (even in 07, GT held UGA to by far their second lowest point total of their last 6 games) and did well against Auburn, ND, UConn and Syracuse.

Also I believe the ACC has led all conferences by a mile for first round defensive players drafted the last 3-4 years.

 

[mm42]

Athlon is generally one of the more accurate predictors:

http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2008-5yr.html

Although if you dig deeper they are pretty average in their ACC predictions.

 

[The Jacket]

Athlon is generally one of the more accurate predictors:

http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2008-5yr.html

Although if you dig deeper they are pretty average in their ACC predictions.

Agreed, and that's because they basically do the same thing every single year for the ACC. They pick FSU to finally make their big return to the top and pick Virginia Tech or Miami to take the Coastal - ending with a pivotal showdown in the ACCCG that will rock the literal bones out of every one standing within 30 meters of the game.

My biggest annoyance with them is their "swing game" copout. You can't say it's "too close to predict" because that's your goddamn job.

 

[ncjacket]

GT, I do agree that our defense was very good, but I think we tend to overplay how good. We had weaknesses that would have been exploited by teams with truly good offenses unless Tenuta had some variations that we never saw. I'm not saying our players aren't (weren't) very good or that we couldn't have played with West Coast teams or anything, just that those who think we have no chance because Tenuta left should look around college football a little more. There are lots of ways to play defense, all of which can work. We have the talent different schemes can work and may actually work better.

 

[Jacket59]

GT, I do agree that our defense was very good, but I think we tend to overplay how good. We had weaknesses that would have been exploited by teams with truly good offenses unless Tenuta had some variations that we never saw. I'm not saying our players aren't (weren't) very good or that we couldn't have played with West Coast teams or anything, just that those who think we have no chance because Tenuta left should look around college football a little more. There are lots of ways to play defense, all of which can work. We have the talent different schemes can work and may actually work better.

You've made some great points ncj, and I've enjoyed the discussion/debate. Especially the point about the weaknesses of the offenses we've faced. GoldenTornado had some great counter points as well. I don't know the answer to that aspect of this debate, and none of us may ever know about the weak offenses vs. great defenses.

I agree (and remain hopeful) that we have a chance to be better with the new defensive direction. The thing about Tenuta is this: There were a couple of teams each year that we would have a hard time with defensively for whatever reason, but not many defenses in the country were any better. Tenuta gave us a great chance at a defense around the top 20 every year. Wommack may maintain that or make us even better, but I'm just not as sure about it as I was with the known quantity we had.

 

[AlaGold]

If Tenuta were still here,the defense would have a difficult time matching last yrs DEF overall(not counting the pointless bowl game).
With a completely revamped back 7 , passing teams especially will be hard to handle.
At first also,the def will find that those pesky OFF fumbles are going to put them in some BAD situations.