Usually You Let Somebody Go Because You Can...

[GoldenIsle]

replace him with someone better. For the most part our D gave up 17-24 points a game with our special teams giving up the other points. For example, against VT I believe the D gave up 2 scores, our O gave up a pick 6, and special teams gave up a score. Our 3rd down D ranked in the top 20 so I'm really looking forward to the next guy who is going to improve on this. The only game I can't figure out is Duke, they destroyed us. On the flip side, at the end of regulation TN had 28 points and I think our D had only given up 14. The other 2 Td's were courtesy of special teams and turnovers. I was really impressed with the App State D, I hope we can get there coach.

 

[79tech]

Don't forget the uva game. the defense was pretty pitiful

 

[coit]

replace him with someone better. For the most part our D gave up 17-24 points a game with our special teams giving up the other points. For example, against VT I believe the D gave up 2 scores, our O gave up a pick 6, and special teams gave up a score. Our 3rd down D ranked in the top 20 so I'm really looking forward to the next guy who is going to improve on this. The only game I can't figure out is Duke, they destroyed us. On the flip side, at the end of regulation TN had 28 points and I think our D had only given up 14. The other 2 Td's were courtesy of special teams and turnovers. I was really impressed with the App State D, I hope we can get there coach.

I've defended Roof for years, but I'm really scratching my head here trying to figure out how you claim the D only gave up 14 against UT?

The Vols 4 TD drives were 46, 70, 61 and 93 yards. I think the D is liable for all 4 of those. If they hold to a FG on the first, one, sure you can blame the offense for that. But not for them giving up a TD.

 

[Allen Koholic]

That UT game would have been worse if the Vols weren't allergic to catches in the first half.

 

[gtzulu]

GoldenIsle, total points given up is not a good metric for evaluating the defense. Our games have about half the possessions of most NCAA games due to the clock our offense runs. So for comparison purposes, you should roughly double the points our defense gave up.

The better metric to use is defensive efficiency--on what percentage of possessions did opponents score. That metric is normalized to number of possessions, so isn't affected as much by the offense.

 

[johncu]

The defense was clearly better at times this year, but it was also absolutely terrible at other times. The 2nd half and OT vs UT was awful, the last drive at Miami was inexcusable, the UVA game was really bad, and the Duke game was basically the nail in the coffin.

We actually had decent talent and a lot of experience on D this year. There was no reason for that to happen.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

replace him with someone better. For the most part our D gave up 17-24 points a game with our special teams giving up the other points. For example, against VT I believe the D gave up 2 scores, our O gave up a pick 6, and special teams gave up a score. Our 3rd down D ranked in the top 20 so I'm really looking forward to the next guy who is going to improve on this. The only game I can't figure out is Duke, they destroyed us. On the flip side, at the end of regulation TN had 28 points and I think our D had only given up 14. The other 2 Td's were courtesy of special teams and turnovers. I was really impressed with the App State D, I hope we can get there coach.

Welcome to StingTalk. First rule: Neither CPJ nor his offense nor overall scheme can nor will ever be held responsible for anything negative to our football program. No matter what the D does, it will always be to-blame for our losses. Our coach is an Offensive Genius and - damnit! - if we just block and do everything 100% correct, every play would score a TD. If those players don't, it's THEIR fault the play didn't work rather than the fault of whomever called that play.

The VPI pick-6? That's the fault of the D or Special Teams for getting us the ball that close to our own goal line. It's also proof that bad things happen when we pass the ball. Had we just run some TQ QB Keepers there, we would've won by 20.

If our offense scores 17 pts @ Miami, that should be MORE than enough. Our stupid defense cost us that one. 280 total yards of offense is ööööing awesome!! Plus, it was raining or something and that affects our very-delicate offense more than it affects other teams.

Duke? Well, did you see our offense the first half? 20 pts should be more than enough. Our offense was clearly tired and can be forgiven for taking the 2nd half off. Our D should have shut down Duke and forced OT.

 

[yellowbritchies]

Welcome to StingTalk. First rule: Neither CPJ nor his offense nor overall scheme can nor will ever be held responsible for anything negative to our football program. No matter what the D does, it will always be to-blame for our losses. Our coach is an Offensive Genius and - damnit! - if we just block and do everything 100% correct, every play would score a TD. If those players don't, it's THEIR fault the play didn't work rather than the fault of whomever called that play.

The VPI pick-6? That's the fault of the D or Special Teams for getting us the ball that close to our own goal line. It's also proof that bad things happen when we pass the ball. Had we just run some TQ QB Keepers there, we would've won by 20.

If our offense scores 17 pts @ Miami, that should be MORE than enough. Our stupid defense cost us that one. 280 total yards of offense is ööööing awesome!! Plus, it was raining or something and that affects our very-delicate offense more than it affects other teams.

Duke? Well, did you see our offense the first half? 20 pts should be more than enough. Our offense was clearly tired and can be forgiven for taking the 2nd half off. Our D should have shut down Duke and forced OT.

Ha! good for you 92! The PJ defenders will always come to his defense ( no pun intended). In his 10 years of coaching this will be his 4th or 5th DC? I can assure you that johnson talked to T.W. and told him that somehow he had to move T.R. You are correct in saying that according to johnson, the losses have never been the fault of him or the TO!

 

[ramblinwise1]

That's some good sarcasm right there. Well done.

 

[gtzulu]

Welcome to StingTalk. First rule: Neither CPJ nor his offense nor overall scheme can nor will ever be held responsible for anything negative to our football program. No matter what the D does, it will always be to-blame for our losses. Our coach is an Offensive Genius and - damnit! - if we just block and do everything 100% correct, every play would score a TD. If those players don't, it's THEIR fault the play didn't work rather than the fault of whomever called that play.

The VPI pick-6? That's the fault of the D or Special Teams for getting us the ball that close to our own goal line. It's also proof that bad things happen when we pass the ball. Had we just run some TQ QB Keepers there, we would've won by 20.

If our offense scores 17 pts @ Miami, that should be MORE than enough. Our stupid defense cost us that one. 280 total yards of offense is ööööing awesome!! Plus, it was raining or something and that affects our very-delicate offense more than it affects other teams.

Duke? Well, did you see our offense the first half? 20 pts should be more than enough. Our offense was clearly tired and can be forgiven for taking the 2nd half off. Our D should have shut down Duke and forced OT.

Ignore this emotional response and look at the numbers without cherrypicking games. Offensive efficiency has been good, defensive efficiency has not.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Ignore this emotional response and look at the numbers without cherrypicking games. Offensive efficiency has been good, defensive efficiency has not.

"Offensive efficiency" sucked against Clemson, Puke (0 pts in 30 minutes ain't efficient!), mutts, Miami, etc etc.

It used to be Rushing yards and stats. Now "Offensive Efficency" is the new refuge for the Johnson defenders. 43 completed passes for an entire season sucks and isn't very efficient either.

 

[QuadF]

Maybe this year was better, but 3rd down defense has generally been a liability for roof

 

[Dhatura]

Maybe this year was better, but 3rd down defense has generally been a liability for roof

Correct. I feel the defense played much better at times this year than the previous years. Unfortunately, they also sprinkled in times where they looked worse than any defense I have ever seen Tech field.

 

[rghoae]

Our D was pretty bad.

That being said, the real question is why our D has been bad under 4 different DCs.

Is it recruiting? Is it scheme? Is it leadership? Does it have something to do with our offense?

Scheme/leadership sound unlikely because we have had 4 different leaders/schemes. The leaders include people who have in the past been made head coaches on the basis of their defense.

Is it recruiting? Then the problem may not be the DC themselves. Has the problem got something to do with our offense? Then we need to accept that our equalizing offense includes a poorer defense and balance it out. Or potentially try and identify why the offense leads to this and try and mitigate those issues.

My biggest problem is that through 4 DCs we haven't heard from the leadership why none of those defenses were successful.

Also, since we've now gotten rid of 4 DCs who thinks that even an upcoming DC is gonna take a risk with us? We have basically become DC killers. It would have been much smarter to get Roof an assistant we paid a lot of money to so they could get promoted to the position and not take full responsibility for failure.

On the positive side the expectations are gonna be real low.

 

[GoldZ]

Maybe this year was better, but 3rd down defense has generally been a liability for roof

Replace roof with GT and you'll have a more accurate post.

 

[zippyGT]

My biggest problem is that through 4 DCs we haven't heard from the leadership why none of those defenses were successful.

GT defenses haven't been successful for decades because of poor defensive lines.

2017 #107 in team sacks / game
2016 #110 in team sacks / game
2015 #115 in team sacks / game
2014 #101 in team sacks / game

The politically incorrect argument is that linemen, as an average, tend to have lower academics than skill players, and therefore are more difficult to recruit at GT. CPJ has a scheme that adjusts for this and makes an o-line more productive with less talent. That's more difficult to do on defense, where you need raw strength and speed. GT hasn't been able to bring in needed skill at D-line and none of the DCs have been able to develop schemes that compensate sufficiently.

 

[GoldZ]

GT defenses haven't been successful for decades because of poor defensive lines.

2017 #107 in team sacks / game
2016 #110 in team sacks / game
2015 #115 in team sacks / game
2014 #101 in team sacks / game

The politically incorrect argument is that linemen, as an average, tend to have lower academics than skill players, and therefore are more difficult to recruit at GT. CPJ has a scheme that adjusts for this and makes an o-line more productive with less talent. That's more difficult to do on defense, where you need raw strength and speed. GT hasn't been able to bring in needed skill at D-line and none of the DCs have been able to develop schemes that compensate sufficiently.

Excellent post gtphd! You could have however gone back a lot more than 4 seasons. ugag has thrived on this in South Georgia where we can't (weakest academic area in an overall weak State). There does seem though to be a more exaggerated academic issue with interior D-linemen vs O-line.

 

[gtzulu]

GT defenses haven't been successful for decades because of poor defensive lines.

2017 #107 in team sacks / game
2016 #110 in team sacks / game
2015 #115 in team sacks / game
2014 #101 in team sacks / game

The politically incorrect argument is that linemen, as an average, tend to have lower academics than skill players, and therefore are more difficult to recruit at GT. CPJ has a scheme that adjusts for this and makes an o-line more productive with less talent. That's more difficult to do on defense, where you need raw strength and speed. GT hasn't been able to bring in needed skill at D-line and none of the DCs have been able to develop schemes that compensate sufficiently.

Those numbers are misleading because you're not normalizing sacks for possessions or number of offensive plays. Same problem as with looking at total yards or total points. We probably still suck after normalization, though.

I also think DL is our biggest deficiency. We've so far failed to recruit great DL in this class. Chimezda is maybe good but the others seem middling.

Pelton should be let go by the new DC. Not getting it done in recruiting or coaching. Didn't close on Welschof.

 

[QuadF]

GT defenses haven't been successful for decades because of poor defensive lines.

2017 #107 in team sacks / game
2016 #110 in team sacks / game
2015 #115 in team sacks / game
2014 #101 in team sacks / game

The politically incorrect argument is that linemen, as an average, tend to have lower academics than skill players, and therefore are more difficult to recruit at GT. CPJ has a scheme that adjusts for this and makes an o-line more productive with less talent. That's more difficult to do on defense, where you need raw strength and speed. GT hasn't been able to bring in needed skill at D-line and none of the DCs have been able to develop schemes that compensate sufficiently.

Data for the last few years doesn't support the argument that we've has DL issues for decades. Not saying you're wrong, but if you're trying to make a larger point about dcs under cpj or gt in general, the data provided is insufficient.

 

[GoldZ]

Data for the last few years doesn't support the argument that we've has DL issues for decades. Not saying you're wrong, but if you're trying to make a larger point about dcs under cpj or gt in general, the data provided is insufficient.

If you have been alive long enuf and have vision and brains and have watched GT football for a looong time, you would know it has in FACT been an issue for yearsss.