Performance Review - Roof

[18in32]

Just to make sure I understand your position since it's spilled over into yet another thread; since talent doesn't explain everything, it means nothing.

What has spilled over into yet another thread is our general reliance on talent to explain failure. I certainly don't think talent means nothing, but it is inadequate as an explanation — which is how it is discussed here. If someone wants to say: "Gee, I wish Kirvonte Benson and the rest of our players were a little faster / stronger / more balanced / etc.," I would take no issue with it at all. But for someone to say, "If Kirvonte Benson and the rest of our players were a little stronger / faster / more balanced we would've won that game"? I think that's ridiculous.

 

[Deleted Stingtalker 69]

What has spilled over into yet another thread is our general reliance on talent to explain failure. I certainly don't think talent means nothing, but it is inadequate as an explanation — which is how it is discussed here. If someone wants to say: "Gee, I wish Kirvonte Benson and the rest of our players were a little faster / stronger / more balanced / etc.," I would take no issue with it at all. But for someone to say, "If Kirvonte Benson and the rest of our players were a little stronger / faster / more balanced we would've won that game"? I think that's ridiculous.

"An" explanation?!? Careful, you're sounding like mbob.

 

[18in32]

"An" explanation?!? Careful, you're sounding like mbob.

I don't know what that means, but with a little attentive reading you'll see dozens of posts from a variety of fonts arguing that we were just out-talented on Saturday, and that we have been for forty years, and that's why our long-term trend line is one of mediocrity. That's the perspective I argue against.

 

[Deleted Stingtalker 69]

I don't know what that means, but with a little attentive reading you'll see dozens of posts from a variety of fonts arguing that we were just out-talented on Saturday, and that we have been for forty years, and that's why our long-term trend line is one of mediocrity. That's the perspective I argue against.

Do you argue against it on the basis that you believe we are equally talented as Georgia or that it is not the sole explanation?

 

[savbandjacket]

My recollection is that Miami scored on that drive. But to describe two DB's batting a 4th and 10 pass which happens to land on the WR as he falls to the ground as evidence of a 'talent deficiency' proves to me that in ST-World, literally everything that goes wrong is the fault of talent.

Well, considering that secondary players did the exact same thing against VT to extend a drive, it leads me to believe something other than bad luck.

 

[Ish]

I'm tired of Roof and his bend but don't break defense. All it does is bleed time off the clock and keep the ball away from our USUALLY GOOD offense. The offense sucked this year, no denying that.

 

[Ish]

By defensive efficiency rating he had a top 50 defense this year.

oh great

 

[savbandjacket]

I'm tired of Roof and his bend but don't break defense. All it does is bleed time off the clock and keep the ball away from our USUALLY GOOD offense. The offense sucked this year, no denying that.

Even more frustrating than the standard bend but don’t break defense was the hot knife through butter defense he called in 2 minute situations.

 

[18in32]

Do you argue against it on the basis that you believe we are equally talented as Georgia or that it is not the sole explanation?

Neither — I argue against it on conceptual grounds. Talent is the word we use to describe the ineffable in success. It's like we have divided football success into a handful of categories: hardwork, playcalling, talent, luck, etc. 'Talent' is the one we use when we can't identify another explanation. (You would think 'luck' would be that one, but it's not. We use 'luck' in very limited scenarios, to describe the bounce of the ball off the upright, or the Immaculate Reception, or moments like that.)

I think the *limits* to the general notion that 'their players are inherently better than our players' (which is what 'talent' seems to boil down to) would better be captured by instead saying that many UGA players are more athletic than GT players at the same position. That's something I would agree with, but we are not '10-30 over the past 40 years' less athletic than they are — not by a long shot.

 

[PutterUpTop]

I'm for replacing him only if we aren't going to bring in another bargain bin DC. Stansbury has said we need to give CPJ more resources. If we are going to pay the assistant coaches a competitive wage and get the guy we really want, then make a change. If we can't or won't make that commitment we'll be right back where we started again.

 

[KrazieJacket]

Neither — I argue against it on conceptual grounds. Talent is the word we use to describe the ineffable in success. It's like we have divided football success into a handful of categories: hardwork, playcalling, talent, luck, etc. 'Talent' is the one we use when we can't identify another explanation. (You would think 'luck' would be that one, but it's not. We use 'luck' in very limited scenarios, to describe the bounce of the ball off the upright, or the Immaculate Reception, or moments like that.)

I think the *limits* to the general notion that 'their players are inherently better than our players' (which is what 'talent' seems to boil down to) would better be captured by instead saying that many UGA players are more athletic than GT players at the same position. That's something I would agree with, but we are not '10-30 over the past 40 years' less athletic than they are — not by a long shot.

Geez dude. You have basically said you are arguing just to argue because you don't think talent is an issue. We could simplify everything and just say GT sucks or we can offer opinions on how to fix things. When you are talking to yourself inside your mind do you ever get tired of listening? Just curious.

 

[Deleted Stingtalker 69]

Neither — I argue against it on conceptual grounds. Talent is the word we use to describe the ineffable in success. It's like we have divided football success into a handful of categories: hardwork, playcalling, talent, luck, etc. 'Talent' is the one we use when we can't identify another explanation. (You would think 'luck' would be that one, but it's not. We use 'luck' in very limited scenarios, to describe the bounce of the ball off the upright, or the Immaculate Reception, or moments like that.)

I think the *limits* to the general notion that 'their players are inherently better than our players' (which is what 'talent' seems to boil down to) would better be captured by instead saying that many UGA players are more athletic than GT players at the same position. That's something I would agree with, but we are not '10-30 over the past 40 years' less athletic than they are — not by a long shot.

Based on what measure? Are we 15-25 less athletic? Generally speaking, talent is a more accurate term than athleticism because it accounts for skill.

 

[aeromech]

This guy isn't coaching anywhere right now, maybe we can get him:

In 2014, ********* directed an Ole Miss squad that led the nation in scoring defense (16.0 ppg) and fewest touchdowns allowed (24). With talent and high-flying energy at every level of the defense, the Rebels also led the SEC in interceptions (22), turnovers forced (32), tackles for loss (7.6/game) and opponent third-down conversion (33.0 percent).

Do you think that sounds like the resume of a competent DC, or somebody we should fire?

 

[18in32]

Geez dude. You have basically said you are arguing just to argue because you don't think talent is an issue. We could simplify everything and just say GT sucks or we can offer opinions on how to fix things.

Not at all — in fact, that's exactly my point. Relying on 'talent' as an explanation is both false and falsely denies us the opportunity for improvement. I'm all for more recruiting analysts and Giff Smith and lower academic standards and more majors and hotter co-eds and anything else you can think of to give us better athletes. But it should be obvious that 'better athletes' aren't why teams had some difficulty moving the ball against us for 28 min but then not for 2 min. Every game. So please... offer an opinion for how to fix things.

 

[18in32]

Based on what measure? Are we 15-25 less athletic? Generally speaking, talent is a more accurate term than athleticism because it accounts for skill.

We are precisely 17-23 less athletic. No wait, I didn't carry the one: we are precisely 18-22 less athletic.

There's only two things: something you measure and something you intuit. The more factors you want subsumed under 'talent', the closer it moves to the latter.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

This guy isn't coaching anywhere right now, maybe we can get him:



Do you think that sounds like the resume of a competent DC, or somebody we should fire?

His first two defenses in 2009 and ’10 broke Auburn marks for yards allowed in a season with 4,863 and 5,157, respectively. This year’s team, which has the Dec. 31 Chick-fil-A Bowl matchup against Virginia, has surrendered 4,869 yards, and is ranked 78th in the nation in total defense.

Is this someone we should hire or fire?

 

[18in32]

This guy isn't coaching anywhere right now, maybe we can get him:



Do you think that sounds like the resume of a competent DC, or somebody we should fire?

I remember how bold and daring — how completely intolerant of mediocrity — CPJ seemed when Wommack was fired after 2009. And then Groh seemed like a brilliant hire — a defensive genius, NFL head coach, etc.

We don't seem so intolerant of mediocrity these days, do we?

 

[18in32]

Is this someone we should hire or fire?

Up tempo offense side effect?

 

[Ish]

This guy isn't coaching anywhere right now, maybe we can get him:



Do you think that sounds like the resume of a competent DC, or somebody we should fire?

to be fair Roof would have a top 10 defense if Johnson paid recruits to come here like Ole Miss did

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

Up tempo offense side effect?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/gene_chizik_ted_roof_are_on_th.html

Probably but a few find and replaces and you have an article on Johnson and Roof and GT.