Is it Roof, or the players?

If Tech ran a more pro type offense the defense may improve but then the offense would suck. No win situation.
 
JoeCakeEater said:
Our defense has sucked every year that we've run the spread option except for the first. Just a fact. I believe that if we ran a more conventional offense then our defense would get better looks in practice. Just because other teams exaggerate it to negative recruit us doesn't mean that there isn't at least some validity to it.
Click to expand...
We've also lacked talent on defense every year since 2008. How do you know which is to blame?

As far as practice goes, I just don't think I buy that. First off, our defense primarily practices against the scout team. Secondly, if that were true then wouldn't pro-style offenses struggle against spread teams? Wouldn't spread teams be unable to stop the power running game? Shouldn't every defense be bad against teams who run a different style than they do?
 
Better depth would yield a better scout team, and thus a marginally better defense. A few elite defensive players would probably have more of an impact, not the offensive system we run.
 
AE 87 said:
We are currently #109 in DefFEI. It's not just recruiting.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Are you trying to imply, if you have bad players, then that alone couldn't explain having a bad DefFEI? Of course it can.
 
fj, how can the worlds best recruiter help if he isn't allowed to have most of the best players even visit the campus?

floridajacket said:
Bill Connelly with the S&P+ rankings looked at correlation between recruiting rankings and next year's football success. He found the correlation was much stronger on the defensive side.

I took the Rivals rankings since 2002 and then compared the defensive S&P+ to the four-year running average. The four-year averages are skewed by the #19 class in 2007. The 2010 recruiting average included 2007 even though most of that class left one way or another by then.

What I take from the analysis is:

- The defensive ranking has been in a 50-70 range since the 2006 class graduates. This includes one Tenuta year. Our 2007 defense was #63.
- The general indication is that Wommack and 2010-11 Groh did worse than the recruiting rankings. 2012 was the best CPJ defense, but I would have to assume that's all credit to Kelley. Roof's defense has done about as well as our recruiting rankings.
- If you think the recruiting rankings are biased against GT, then perhaps Roof should do 10-20 spots better to match our recruiting rankings.
- OTOH, if our recruiting is actually averaging around 60, then CPJ has certainly outperformed recruiting. The question is whether the world's best recruiter could get, say, consistent top 40 classes. Our rankings 2002-06 BTW were 63, 53, 79, 65, 60.

l6VT1JT.png
Click to expand...
 
You all overrate the impact of the scout team. It only exists to show formations and provide a general overview of the opponent's offense. It's not run at full speed. I was at every practice during the last part of Gailey's tenure, and the first year of Johnson's. They both did scout team the same.
 
The players we sign on D often have several D-1 scholly offers from other programs including ACC/sec schools. It stands to reason that several would in fact start for other programs. Imo, Gamble and Freeman are being under-rated in this thread. The problem is we seldom sign the Pat Swilling, Ted Roof, Marco Coleman, Lucious Sanford types, and the drop off is too steep when we lose a starter. This has been the case loooong before Roof or Johnson.

It's not possible, but a fj type graph depicting the academic qualifications all current D-1 elite (or even All Conf) DTs and pass rush DEs, would be a depressing sight for us GT die hards.
 
GoldZ said:
fj, how can the worlds best recruiter help if he isn't allowed to have most of the best players even visit the campus?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that the best recruiter in the world would have the best class in the nation. But the hypothetical best recruiter in the nation would probably do better than #60. How much better is what's left to be seen.
 
GoldZ said:
The players we sign on D often have several D-1 scholly offers from other programs including ACC/sec schools. It stands to reason that several would in fact start for other programs. Imo, Gamble and Freeman are being under-rated in this thread. The problem is we seldom sign the Pat Swilling, Ted Roof, Marco Coleman, Lucious Sanford types, and the drop off is too steep when we lose a starter. This has been the case loooong before Roof or Johnson.

It's not possible, but a fj type graph depicting the academic qualifications all current D-1 elite (or even All Conf) DTs and pass rush DEs, would be a depressing sight for us GT die hards.
Click to expand...

We have 8 sacks on the entire season. That is 122nd nationally. For reference, Clemson has 31.

I do like to think that Gamble and Freeman are underrated, but if so, why is our defense so bad? Why can't we get to the QB? I think the answer is that question is the answer to this thread.
 
BeerNutts said:
How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Are you trying to imply, if you have bad players, then that alone couldn't explain having a bad DefFEI? Of course it can.
Click to expand...

I'm saying we are not, on average, #109 in recruiting. We are not recruiting worse than most G5 schools.
 
johncu said:
We have 8 sacks on the entire season. That is 122nd nationally. For reference, Clemson has 31.

I do like to think that Gamble and Freeman are underrated, but if so, why is our defense so bad? Why can't we get to the QB? I think the answer is that question is the answer to this thread.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched line play closely, but I would guess opposing OL's are taking the "double Freeman, don't worry about anybody else" approach from last year. Gamble, FWIW, is the reason why we have a bunch of a 3rd and longs. He's good at closing run gaps. But then our defense can't get to the QB on 2nd or 3rd and long.
 
I would suggest that most of this line is true. What the team really needs is a defensive lineman or two.
It would change everything on defense including the ability of quarterbacks to sit back with 4 to 5 seconds to complete a pass.
Last week the best rushes came on blitz packages with Brant Mitchell. In the instances he got to the QB the pass was incomplete.
 
johncu said:
We have 8 sacks on the entire season. That is 122nd nationally. For reference, Clemson has 31.

I do like to think that Gamble and Freeman are underrated, but if so, why is our defense so bad? Why can't we get to the QB? I think the answer is that question is the answer to this thread.
Click to expand...
The rest of my post after your bolded part is my answer.
 
GoldZ said:
The rest of my post after your bolded part is my answer.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you, but do you think BC has those types of players? If not, why has their defense been consistently good recently? If so, how are they getting those players in a place that may have as many natural disadvantages as we do? Same question goes for Utah, Northwestern, or even Vanderbilt. None of those teams recruit particularly well, but all have been consistently better on defense than we have been.

edit - Added emphasis on defense. This is not the Stanford Argument™. Our offense is better than all four of those teams and we are a significantly better program than at least 3 of 4. I'm talking purely about defense here.
 
Been thinking about the OP's question for several days. It's both.
 
Defense sucks because they have no identity. We aren't aggressive. Thank god the offense can't protect them between turnovers and three and outs. The problem is the head coach.
 
johncu said:
I don't disagree with you, but do you think BC has those types of players? If not, why has their defense been consistently good recently? If so, how are they getting those players in a place that may have as many natural disadvantages as we do? Same question goes for Utah, Northwestern, or even Vanderbilt. None of those teams recruit particularly well, but all have been consistently better on defense than we have been.

edit - Added emphasis on defense. This is not the Stanford Argument™. Our offense is better than all four of those teams and we are a significantly better program than at least 3 of 4. I'm talking purely about defense here.
Click to expand...

Northwestern is #36 in S&P+ Defense. Utah is #39. Vanderbilt is #49. BC is higher at #18 this year, but they were #3 last year. Also Northwestern was #5 last year. Michigan State has also been held up as a school that consistently outperforms their recruiting rankings. Well, they're #67 this year in defense.

Utah and Wisconsin also do somewhat better than GT does on average in recruiting. They're usually in the 30's while GT finished 50-70 in recruiting. What does #35 vs. #65 in recruiting mean? Who knows.

Recruiting rankings aren't destiny as far as defense. Obviously coaching matters, but then we have trouble affording the best DC's as well. IIRC, Michigan had hired BC's DC.

Another issue that's not talked about, but CPJ brought up, is how Groh had good defenses at UVA but had trouble at GT. CPJ said that at Georgia Southern, kids would have more time to spend on film and study on their own outside of regulated practice hours. Groh had a very complex defense and couldn't translate it on the field at GT.

It's not just CPJ's excuses. Remember GOL said "MIT five days a week and FSU on Saturday." OTOH, GT is in the middle of Atlanta and some kids will go here because, not in spite of, academics.
 
Ish said:
You all overrate the impact of the scout team. It only exists to show formations and provide a general overview of the opponent's offense. It's not run at full speed. I was at every practice during the last part of Gailey's tenure, and the first year of Johnson's. They both did scout team the same.
Click to expand...

FALSE. Jabari was on the scout team in 2014 and was a monster. Sadly he used all of his strength and talent on our offense in practice and didn't have anything left in the tank for 2015
 
floridajacket said:
Northwestern is #36 in S&P+ Defense. Utah is #39. Vanderbilt is #49. BC is higher at #18 this year, but they were #3 last year. Also Northwestern was #5 last year. Michigan State has also been held up as a school that consistently outperforms their recruiting rankings. Well, they're #67 this year in defense.
Click to expand...
1) S&P is MUCH kinder to us than FEI is this year. I looked at something like this a year or two ago, and the results were pretty significant. Looking at a composite of whatever efficiency rating you may choose, all of those teams do much better than us on a yearly basis (like 40-50 spots IIRC). Teams like Vandy, BC, and NW. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top