How many games would we have won if we still had Butker?

[Ish]

I thought you said his senior year was only good. So he was good, then awesome? I'd agree with that.

No. His Sr year is the only good year he had. I don't think making 65% of your field goals is good

 

[BEEFENSE]

Kick-offs into and THROUGH the end zone are imperative and of course, FG's decide many games. Gotta have a reliable kicker.

 

[cyptomcat]

The Bama flip (Bulovas) has not done great over there.

The job seems to be Bulovas for now, because the other guy missed 3 extra points and 1 short FG in 2 games.

Bulovas replaced him last game, and made all the extra points and the 39-yarder.

Most importantly, Bulovas has gotten 6 touch backs in 19 kickoffs, averaging 58 yards per kickoff.

 

[18in32]

Most importantly, Bulovas has gotten 6 touch backs in 19 kickoffs, averaging 58 yards per kickoff.

Is 6/19 on touchbacks good? This year we're 3/14 and people think our kickers are horrible.

Andy Demetra mentioned on the radio show that he was surprised more returners aren't taking advantage of the new touchback rule. I agree with him.

 

[beej67]

It's a damn good thing you're not a football coach with that kind of logic. If you're going with 4 why not double it to 2 per year to make sure we have a minimum of 8 on the team at any point?

If we're doing argument ad absurdum, why not zero? Why issue any schollies for it at all? Why even field a kicker?

Let me spell it out for you. For Georgia Tech, doubling our chances of getting a kicker who can kick out the back of the end zone would mean three more wins per year. The opportunity cost of that change in recruiting philosophy would be one less player at two positions. If you could give up one player on the depth chart at two other positions where we are already deep, and win three more games per year, why wouldn't you do this?

 

[BranMart]

If we're doing argument ad absurdum, why not zero? Why issue any schollies for it at all? Why even field a kicker?

Let me spell it out for you. For Georgia Tech, doubling our chances of getting a kicker who can kick out the back of the end zone would mean three more wins per year. The opportunity cost of that change in recruiting philosophy would be one less player at two positions. If you could give up one player on the depth chart at two other positions where we are already deep, and win three more games per year, why wouldn't you do this?

We have shit for depth now everywhere but B back. And that even just took a hit. Kicker schollies need to be year to year. We need a soccer team at GT and hold yearly tryouts for one to just BOOM.

 

[daBuzz]

If we're doing argument ad absurdum, why not zero? Why issue any schollies for it at all? Why even field a kicker?

Let me spell it out for you. For Georgia Tech, doubling our chances of getting a kicker who can kick out the back of the end zone would mean three more wins per year. The opportunity cost of that change in recruiting philosophy would be one less player at two positions. If you could give up one player on the depth chart at two other positions where we are already deep, and win three more games per year, why wouldn't you do this?

Let me spell it out for you. You're an idiot if you honestly believe kicking the ball out of the end zone results in three more wins per year.

 

[JJacket]

 

[johncu]

Let me spell it out for you. You're an idiot if you honestly believe kicking the ball out of the end zone results in three more wins per year.

We gave the ball to Miami at midfield twice on kickoffs, and good field position on the others. With how close that game was, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say we probably win with Butker putting it through the endzone.

After kickoffs, Tennessee started out on our side of the field once, and just short of the 50 another time. We also missed two FGs, including a ööööing 36 yarder to win it, so I think Butker easily wins us that game with kickoffs but DEFINITELY with a FG.

UVA ran a kick back for a TD, and ran two back past midfield. They couldn't move the ball on us until late when our offense sputtered and the dam broke. With Butker, we beat the shit out of UVA last year.


There's 3, just from last year.

 

[18in32]

We gave the ball to Miami at midfield twice on kickoffs, and good field position on the others. With how close that game was, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say we probably win with Butker putting it through the endzone.

After kickoffs, Tennessee started out on our side of the field once, and just short of the 50 another time. We also missed two FGs, including a ööööing 36 yarder to win it, so I think Butker easily wins us that game with kickoffs but DEFINITELY with a FG.

UVA ran a kick back for a TD, and ran two back past midfield. They couldn't move the ball on us until late when our offense sputtered and the dam broke. With Butker, we beat the öööö out of UVA last year.


There's 3, just from last year.

No, that's the same as the USF fallacy. Given how our defense has played at crucial times, why would you think it's "reasonable" that we could've stopped them if they had to drive 75 yds for a TD, when we couldn't stop them driving 55 yds for a TD?

A touchback is great and all, but there's 10 other guys on the field who are supposed to stop the returner getting a TD. And a whole 'nother squad of athletes who are supposed to stop them scoring if they ever snap the ball.

More the point, care to name the position on the team where we should have *less* depth so that we can have more at kicker? Just which position is less important than kicker?

 

[DressCheeseSideSeaboard]

 

[johncu]

No, that's the same as the USF fallacy. Given how our defense has played at crucial times, why would you think it's "reasonable" that we could've stopped them if they had to drive 75 yds for a TD, when we couldn't stop them driving 55 yds for a TD?

Here are USF's first 4 drives:

Interception
KR TD
KR TD
Turnover on Downs

So we stopped them on the drive before the touchdowns, and then on the drive after. I think it's pretty reasonable to think we might have stopped them on either the 2nd or 3rd drive. If we manage to stop them on both, we're up 17-0 in the 1st quarter and we're probably looking at a blowout.

More the point, care to name the position on the team where we should have *less* depth so that we can have more at kicker? Just which position is less important than kicker?

I'm not arguing that we need to throw scholarships at kickers, just that they are super important since we struggle at covering KOs. I remember watching a HS kicker in SC kick almost every single kickoff through the uprights his senior year. Clemson offered him a scholarship and he got beaten out by 3 different walkons and never played a single snap in college.

 

[BuckNasty]

No, that's the same as the USF fallacy. Given how our defense has played at crucial times, why would you think it's "reasonable" that we could've stopped them if they had to drive 75 yds for a TD, when we couldn't stop them driving 55 yds for a TD?

A touchback is great and all, but there's 10 other guys on the field who are supposed to stop the returner getting a TD. And a whole 'nother squad of athletes who are supposed to stop them scoring if they ever snap the ball.

More the point, care to name the position on the team where we should have *less* depth so that we can have more at kicker? Just which position is less important than kicker?

Tight end

 

[BranMart]

So we stopped them on the drive before the touchdowns, and then on the drive after. I think it's pretty reasonable to think we might have stopped them on either the 2nd or 3rd drive. If we manage to stop them on both, we're up 17-0 in the 1st quarter and we're probably looking at a blowout.

.

Or our defense could have been figured out quicker, and our D worn out more to make a 4/5 TD drive second half worse. We will never know.

We gonna beat Pitt this week?

 

[18in32]

So we stopped them on the drive before the touchdowns, and then on the drive after. I think it's pretty reasonable to think we might have stopped them on either the 2nd or 3rd drive. If we manage to stop them on both, we're up 17-0 in the 1st quarter and we're probably looking at a blowout.

Eh, who knows how teen psychology works? You're just cherry picking the data. The defense struggled in the USF game. The idea that we would probably have prevented a TD on defense when we couldn't prevent it on a KO return is speculation.

Statistically, it's way way less likely for GT to give up a score on a return than it is to give one up on defense.

I'm not arguing that we need to throw scholarships at kickers, just that they are super important since we struggle at covering KOs. I remember watching a HS kicker in SC kick almost every single kickoff through the uprights his senior year. Clemson offered him a scholarship and he got beaten out by 3 different walkons and never played a single snap in college.

Well, this conversation is about beej67's suggestion that we thrown scholarships at kickers, which you seemed to argue in favor of. IMHO, your anecdote about the Clemson kickers – where they found a kicker from amidst walk on's – is precisely why you don't throw a lot of scholarship at kickers. The difficult of projecting kickers, combined with the availability of walks on, says don't waste your scholarships on kickers.

 

[BranMart]

Tight end

Hey our Tight End made offensive player of the week last week.

 

[johncu]

Eh, who knows how teen psychology works? You're just cherry picking the data. The defense struggled in the USF game. The idea that we would probably have prevented a TD on defense when we couldn't prevent it on a KO return is speculation.

Statistically, it's way way less likely for GT to give up a score on a return than it is to give one up on defense.

Of course we're speculating. All we can do is try to increase our odds of winning, which having a good kicker most certainly does. I think it's easy to see how having a good kicker (a la Butker) gives us a very good chance of beating USF last week.

Well, this conversation is about beej67's suggestion that we thrown scholarships at kickers, which you seemed to argue in favor of. IMHO, your anecdote about the Clemson kickers – where they found a kicker from amidst walk on's – is precisely why you don't throw a lot of scholarship at kickers. The difficult of projecting kickers, combined with the availability of walks on, says don't waste your scholarships on kickers.

I can see both sides here. I think if you're not going to look for scholarship kickers, you need to scout your ass off for walkons, including looking at soccer players who have the leg strength and can be developed into kickers.

 

[WracerX]

So who do we not get if we gave out the 1 kicker a year scholly?

Brad Stewart was a last minute guy because a scholly opened up.

I am pretty sure Lynch was a late pickup too.

I think out ST problems are partly coaching and party a lack of depth.

 

[18in32]

I think if you're not going to look for scholarship kickers, you need to scout your ass off for walkons, including looking at soccer players who have the leg strength and can be developed into kickers.

But wae do look for scholarship kickers... just one at a time. And we already do have a lot of walk-on kickers, three at the moment. Anyone who thinks we should give out more scholarships should take a look at the two walk-ons we added this year.

Wesley Wells – "Named first-team all-state, first-team all-region and Region 7-3A Special Teams Player of the Year as a senior … Made the second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-longest field goals in Lumpkin County history … Four-year letterwinner served as a team captain as a senior … Began prep career as a quarterback before winning job as place-kicker through an open competition for the position … Coached by Shane Williamson … Also lettered in soccer and wrestling … Earned a total of nine varsity letters (four in football, three in soccer, two in wrestling) … Member of National Honor Society and Beta Club … Honor roll student."

Cliff Gandis – "Named South Carolina Specialist of the Year as a senior in 2017 by S.C. Football Coaches Association … Two-time all-region selection … Ranked as high as No. 3 nationally among place kickers by prokicker.com … Kicked a school-record 54-yard field goal as a senior (Sept. 29, 2017 vs. St. Joseph’s) … Played wide receiver in addition to handing place-kicking and punting duties … Was a part of Christ Church Episcopal state championship team in 2014 … Coached by Don Frost … Versatile athlete also played four seasons of soccer and three seasons of basketball as a prep … Was a two-time team captain in soccer and earned all-state and all-region recognition in 2016 … Excellent student and school leader was student-council president for three years and member of high honor roll, National Spanish Honor Society, Spanish club and math club throughout his high-school career … Also won Vanderbilt Book Award as a junior and was a National Merit finalist."

The SC Specialist of the Year, ranked as high as #3 nationally by prokicker.com, is a walk-on for us, as is the first-team all-state Georgia kicker who rewrote his HS record books.

The reality is that offering one scholarship and letting them battle it out with walk-on's usually works as well as anything else would work, because you get a lot of quality HS kickers willing to walk-on. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to be short a CB or a DL or a WR or whatever, to swap out an (apparently excellent) walk-on for a scholarship kicker. If the walk-on turns out to be no good, he just drops off the team. If the scholarship kicker turns out to be no good, you're playing a man short for another three years.

 

[johncu]

So who do we not get if we gave out the 1 kicker a year scholly?

Brad Stewart was a last minute guy because a scholly opened up.

I am pretty sure Lynch was a late pickup too.

I think out ST problems are partly coaching and party a lack of depth.

Lynch was a last minute pickup that everyone was talking shit about when we signed him. Myles Autry was supposed to be the playmaking A-back in that class, LOL.