OK, let's talk about the Defense

gtphd said:
We gave up 453 yards of offense to Miami, so I wouldn’t call it a great game defensively. 5 turnovers is what kept their score down. Same with Wake (400 yards, 5 turnovers). BG was 400+ yards but no turnovers.

Take the win, move on, but let’s not get our hopes up that the defense has made a step change in performance.
Click to expand...
Just a minor improvement somewhere is enough sometimes to win, in the Miami game i believe that our tackling was much improved which helped keep the yardage and points down. I Do agree that it is scary that we seem to live or die on turnovers which obviously can’t be counted on for every game
 
Tackling was much better both by the DB and LB. The LB were also much more aggressive filling gaps and attacking the ball. DL was about the same as before. Looks to me that our DTs are 2-gappers, not 1-gappers. That's fine, if they can do it. Just hold 2 gaps and let the LB loose to make plays.
 
Our defense has to create turnovers in order to be successful. The defense has had 2 good games and they generated 5 TO's in both those games and TO's have told the story for the defense in recent years. We really can't play teams straight up. We need to be unpredictable. There are also players that need to play more and others that need to play less.

We cannot generate a pass rush unless we bring 1 or 2 on the blitz and not all the time when we do. We actually have more sacks on the year than UGA, but 8 of our 12 sacks were against WF. We are averaging less than 1 sack per game excluding WF which is really bad.

Despite the defense not being very good in recent years, GT has been a sure tackling D which is why the poor tackling seen early in the year was surprising. Getting back to good tackling well especially in the secondary like against Miami will be important.
 
gtphd said:
We gave up 453 yards of offense to Miami, so I wouldn’t call it a great game defensively. 5 turnovers is what kept their score down. Same with Wake (400 yards, 5 turnovers). BG was 400+ yards but no turnovers.

Take the win, move on, but let’s not get our hopes up that the defense has made a step change in performance.
Click to expand...
The last 2 turnovers didn't affect miami's offensive output.
One was the strip with 26 seconds left, the other was the fumble when they were lateralling the ball.

3 turnovers definitely affected miami's score and yards. Keep that up.
 
gtphd said:
We gave up 453 yards of offense to Miami, so I wouldn’t call it a great game defensively. 5 turnovers is what kept their score down. Same with Wake (400 yards, 5 turnovers). BG was 400+ yards but no turnovers.

Take the win, move on, but let’s not get our hopes up that the defense has made a step change in performance.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I think yards of offense is often a misleading metric. Stating the obvious, the only stat that really matters is the scoreboard. Our offensive production was putrid for most of the game. Leaving the defense on the field is going to result in a lot of offensive yards by the opponent. Duh-U had the ball for 35:26 vs 24:34 for our offense. That's a long time for the defense to be on the field and only give up 20 points.

Giving up a bunch of yards to Miami is less of a meaningful metric than the improved tackling and swarming to the ball we all saw.

It would be nice for the defense to shut down the offensive yards as well. This would translate into higher time of possession and more possessions and opportunities for our offense. I'm not saying it's not an important factor in measuring defensive performance, but points on the board is the one that counts and improved tackling is relevant to that.

There is no doubt the defensive showed tremendous improvement from Bowling Green to Miami. I just find it interesting that the D-coordinator changed during that time and that seems to be the only thing that could account for the change in performance.
 
BeerNutts said:
The last 2 turnovers didn't affect miami's offensive output.
One was the strip with 26 seconds left, the other was the fumble when they were lateralling the ball.

3 turnovers definitely affected miami's score and yards. Keep that up.
Click to expand...
Correct, the 3 INTs are what held them back and gave us life. But those are forced TOs, so we need to give the D props for those.
 
Buzzilla said:
FWIW, I think yards of offense is often a misleading metric. Stating the obvious, the only stat that really matters is the scoreboard. Our offensive production was putrid for most of the game. Leaving the defense on the field is going to result in a lot of offensive yards by the opponent. Duh-U had the ball for 35:26 vs 24:34 for our offense. That's a long time for the defense to be on the field and only give up 20 points.

Giving up a bunch of yards to Miami is less of a meaningful metric than the improved tackling and swarming to the ball we all saw.

It would be nice for the defense to shut down the offensive yards as well. This would translate into higher time of possession and more possessions and opportunities for our offense. I'm not saying it's not an important factor in measuring defensive performance, but points on the board is the one that counts and improved tackling is relevant to that.

There is no doubt the defensive showed tremendous improvement from Bowling Green to Miami. I just find it interesting that the D-coordinator changed during that time and that seems to be the only thing that could account for the change in performance.
Click to expand...

The new clock rules are part of our TOP problem. Bend but don’t break this year probably results in an extra 2 min of possession over last year. So a 30/30 game becomes a 32/28 game this year (4 min difference in TOP) for the same number of yards.
 
gtphd said:
We gave up 453 yards of offense to Miami, so I wouldn’t call it a great game defensively. 5 turnovers is what kept their score down. Same with Wake (400 yards, 5 turnovers). BG was 400+ yards but no turnovers.

Take the win, move on, but let’s not get our hopes up that the defense has made a step change in performance.
Click to expand...
We held Miami under their average ypg, average rush ypg, average pass ypg, and average ppg coming into our game. Did much better against them defensively than Texas A&M did. Sure the turnovers helped but they weren't gifts. Like somebody else said, the 2 fumbles didn't affect their score any because one was the end of game, the other they were just trying to run clock. The first INT they threw was after we had just thrown an INT of our own on the first drive that we were actually moving the ball, so those basically wash. Also, that INT was on 3rd and 13 from our 21 so most likely would have been a FG there if not for the INT. The next INT was on the 2nd play of the drive for them at their 25 so can't just assume they would have gotten points on that drive. The last INT was also on a 3rd and 7 from our 25 so just an incompletion there is likely only another FG. They were all great plays by the defense too, not gimme's.
 
WracerX said:
The new clock rules are part of our TOP problem. Bend but don’t break this year probably results in an extra 2 min of possession over last year. So a 30/30 game becomes a 32/28 game this year (4 min difference in TOP) for the same number of yards.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is a huge factor.
 
THe DEF subbed A LOT more it seemed in this game so the guys seemed fresher at end.
We are not even a decent DEF team yet but making key plays is ,er KEY.
Odd play--J. KIng (I think) (190 lbs DB ) getting run down by a 215lb QB on his int. Notscoring on that play could have lost the game.Actually a bit scary but is indicative of our def.
 
AlaGold said:
THe DEF subbed A LOT more it seemed in this game so the guys seemed fresher at end.
We are not even a decent DEF team yet but making key plays is ,er KEY.
Odd play--J. KIng (I think) (190 lbs DB ) getting run down by a 215lb QB on his int. Notscoring on that play could have lost the game.Actually a bit scary but is indicative of our def.
Click to expand...
Watch it again the quarterback had an angle on him.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
Watch it again the quarterback had an angle on him.
Click to expand...
I agree, TVD had the angle and I think King thought he could outrun the angle.or he prob would have cut it back inside. TVD was close to not getting the shove on King and it would have been a TD.
 
AlaGold said:
THe DEF subbed A LOT more it seemed in this game so the guys seemed fresher at end.
We are not even a decent DEF team yet but making key plays is ,er KEY.
Odd play--J. KIng (I think) (190 lbs DB ) getting run down by a 215lb QB on his int. Notscoring on that play could have lost the game.Actually a bit scary but is indicative of our def.
Click to expand...
That dyke had a 20 yard head start and saw the interception the instant it happened.
 
GoGATech said:
I agree, TVD had the angle and I think King thought he could outrun the angle.or he prob would have cut it back inside. TVD was close to not getting the shove on King and it would have been a TD.
Click to expand...
King should have lowered his helmet and steamrolled that motherfckr
 
AlaGold said:
THe DEF subbed A LOT more it seemed in this game so the guys seemed fresher at end.
We are not even a decent DEF team yet but making key plays is ,er KEY.
Odd play--J. KIng (I think) (190 lbs DB ) getting run down by a 215lb QB on his int. Notscoring on that play could have lost the game.Actually a bit scary but is indicative of our def.
Click to expand...
Jaylon King broke his leg about a year ago. I'm guessing he's lost a step or 2 since then. Also, TVD was already running when King caught the ball so he had a bit of a head start.
 
So, King gets a great pic and returns it inside the 15 and we're pooping on him because he couldn't outrun a QB who had a 10-yard lead and an angle on him? Are we that good yet that we can nit-pick those things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top