Duke = UGA... what does it mean?

18in32

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
27,889
Our defensive performance against a perennial cellar-dweller was remarkably similar to our performance against a national champ contender...
  • UGA had 11 more 1st downs than we did. Duke had 15.
  • UGA outgained us by 145 yards. Duke outgained us by 141 yards.
  • UGA had 50 more rushing yards than us. Duke had 42 more rushing yards.
  • UGA scored on 6/8 "real" possessions. Duke scored on 8/9 "real" possessions.
  • UGA had the ball for 30:14. Duke had the ball for 32:04.
  • UGA held TQM to 3/14 passing. Duke held him to 2/9. (Both forced one pick.)
  • UGA outscored us 21-0 in the 2d half. Duke outscored us 23-0.
  • UGA's all-world backfield averaged 5.9 ypc. Duke's not-as-famous backfield averaged 6.3 ypc.
The point of this comparison is that we shouldn't accept the "easy" answer and blame the UGA loss on the Hill or recruiting failures or other imponderables.

"Talent" differential doesn't explain the Duke loss and it doesn't explain the UGA loss. We can and should expect our coaches to get more out of the players that GT can recruit.
 
18in32 said:
Our defensive performance against a perennial cellar-dweller was remarkably similar to our performance against a national champ contender...
  • UGA had 11 more 1st downs than we did. Duke had 15.
  • UGA outgained us by 145 yards. Duke outgained us by 141 yards.
  • UGA had 50 more rushing yards than us. Duke had 42 more rushing yards.
  • UGA scored on 6/8 "real" possessions. Duke scored on 8/9 "real" possessions.
  • UGA had the ball for 30:14. Duke had the ball for 32:04.
  • UGA held TQM to 3/14 passing. Duke held him to 2/9. (Both forced one pick.)
  • UGA outscored us 21-0 in the 2d half. Duke outscored us 23-0.
  • UGA's all-world backfield averaged 5.9 ypc. Duke's not-as-famous backfield averaged 6.3 ypc.
The point of this comparison is that we shouldn't accept the "easy" answer and blame the UGA loss on the Hill or recruiting failures or other imponderables.

"Talent" differential doesn't explain the Duke loss and it doesn't explain the UGA loss. We can and should expect our coaches to get more out of the players that GT can recruit.
Click to expand...
When the other team is bigger, stronger, and quicker it doesn't matter of their jerseys are red or blue. It also doesn't matter if they are a five or three star. Duke has done a lot of pushing us around the last few years. They do have larger lineman both sides of the ball who are just as athletic or even more athletic. There just aren't enough Shaq Masons out there.
 
Nobody forced TaQuan's pick. He threw it right to the UGAg player like they were playing catch in the back yard.
 
GTCrew4b said:
It means the defense quit on the coaching staff. Not sure why. They probably hate their blitzing scheme and playing 10 yards off the WR.
Click to expand...
Yikes, if true that brings back memories of some very bad end-of-regime teams and losses. I'm not sure about that. The D definitely gave up today on UGA's last clock-burning drive, but I'm not sure that explains the rest of the second half.
 
GTCrew4b said:
It means the defense quit on the coaching staff. Not sure why. They probably hate their blitzing scheme and playing 10 yards off the WR.
Click to expand...

I don't think they quit. I think they just weren't good enough.

U[sic]GA was running it with ease all day. The only reason the first half was close is because they were inexplicably throwing it about half the time. Once they started just pounding it up the middle 90% of the time the throws were wide open too.
 
andrew said:
I don't think they quit. I think they just weren't good enough.

U[sic]GA was running it with ease all day. The only reason the first half was close is because they were inexplicably throwing it about half the time. Once they started just pounding it up the middle 90% of the time the throws were wide open too.
Click to expand...
I made a comment in the game thread that we were clapping for stopping UGAg's ball carriers after 7-8 yard gains as if we had thrown them for a loss
 
Even had their 3rd & 4th RB's played, we'd have still lost. I've always thought that any time Tech beats UGA, it's an aberration. With their recruiting system, they should NEVER lose to us. What Tech offensive player would start for UGA?
 
The main reason we lost today is that the other team was better. It would have taken an amazing effort to beat that team. The main reason we lost to UVA and Duke is poor play and poor coaching. Neither team is superior to us in talent. UVA is terrible on offense. Duke had lost six in a row, including a loss to Army. Those two were inexcusable. Win them and I would be disappointed today,but we would be 8-3, headed to a good bowl, 6-2 in the ACC, and those two division opponents would both have gone 5-7 and likely missed a bowl game.
 
77GTFan said:
UVA is terrible on offense. Duke had lost six in a row, including a loss to Army. Those two were inexcusable. Win them and I would be disappointed today,but we would be 8-3, headed to a good bowl, 6-2 in the ACC, and those two division opponents would both have gone 5-7 and likely missed a bowl game.
Click to expand...
We are 5-6. If we had beaten Duke and UVA we would be 7-4, not 8-3.
 
18in32 said:
Our defensive performance against a perennial cellar-dweller was remarkably similar to our performance against a national champ contender...
  • UGA had 11 more 1st downs than we did. Duke had 15.
  • UGA outgained us by 145 yards. Duke outgained us by 141 yards.
  • UGA had 50 more rushing yards than us. Duke had 42 more rushing yards.
  • UGA scored on 6/8 "real" possessions. Duke scored on 8/9 "real" possessions.
  • UGA had the ball for 30:14. Duke had the ball for 32:04.
  • UGA held TQM to 3/14 passing. Duke held him to 2/9. (Both forced one pick.)
  • UGA outscored us 21-0 in the 2d half. Duke outscored us 23-0.
  • UGA's all-world backfield averaged 5.9 ypc. Duke's not-as-famous backfield averaged 6.3 ypc.
The point of this comparison is that we shouldn't accept the "easy" answer and blame the UGA loss on the Hill or recruiting failures or other imponderables.

"Talent" differential doesn't explain the Duke loss and it doesn't explain the UGA loss. We can and should expect our coaches to get more out of the players that GT can recruit.
Click to expand...

The team has played a lot better at home all year. That's also true for UGA vs. Duke.

Considering the opponent strengths, the Duke performance was far worse than the UGA performance. Georgia was #20 in offense in S&P+. Duke was #101. UGA wasn't a "good" performance in any facet, but Duke was an absolutely atrocious coaching performance.
 
floridajacket said:
The team has played a lot better at home all year. That's also true for UGA vs. Duke.

Considering the opponent strengths, the Duke performance was far worse than the UGA performance. Georgia was #20 in offense in S&P+. Duke was #101. UGA wasn't a "good" performance in any facet, but Duke was an absolutely atrocious coaching performance.
Click to expand...
If you didn’t have the stats, did your eyes discern any difference in the strength of the opponent when we played Duke vs UGA? Or in the quality of our play? Mine did not.

It is fair to say we *must* have played worse against Duke since Duke is a statistically worse team than UGA but beat us similarly.

Or we need to trash a lot of CFB analytics.

As William Goldman said, “In Hollyood nobody knows anything. Except Nick Saban.”
 
18in32 said:
If you didn’t have the stats, did your eyes discern any difference in the strength of the opponent when we played Duke vs UGA? Or in the quality of our play? Mine did not.

It is fair to say we *must* have played worse against Duke since Duke is a statistically worse team than UGA but beat us similarly.

Or we need to trash a lot of CFB analytics.

As William Goldman said, “In Hollyood nobody knows anything. Except Nick Saban.”
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going with this. Of course UGA is far more talented than Duke.

I would say both CFB analytics and common sense says that the execution must have been better against UGA to achieve the same (bad) defensive performance.
 
miles44 said:
Even had their 3rd & 4th RB's played, we'd have still lost. I've always thought that any time Tech beats UGA, it's an aberration. With their recruiting system, they should NEVER lose to us. What Tech offensive player would start for UGA?
Click to expand...
Braun, Cooper.
 
floridajacket said:
Not sure where you're going with this. Of course UGA is far more talented than Duke.

I would say both CFB analytics and common sense says that the execution must have been better against UGA to achieve the same (bad) defensive performance.
Click to expand...
Where I'm trying to do is to demonstrate how vacuous the concept of 'talent' is on this board. We need to stop relying on it as an explanation. It is infinitely malleable. It is evidence of mental midgetry. It's basically throwing up your hands and saying 'oh well.' And, of course, it's wrong.

And I'd say common sense — the ol' eye test — is that we played almost identically badly against Duke as we did against UGA. Man, we looked like crap. And the other team, regardless of the jersey color, looked identically strong.

So... what is talent again? If people would use a different word instead of 'talent' to express what they mean, maybe I'd understand differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top