80Tiger 899 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I always said if we just had an average D in 2013 we would've won the national championship but it looks like we did have an average D. I think those averages are for O, not D. It is interesting that people blame 2014 on D, but the D actually improved... it's just that the O dropped off just as much as the D improved. Have to disagree with this. We scored 23, 38, 7, 44, and 31 in our losses last year. Yes the GA game was bad but hard to say the O dropped off and the D improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Referring to our current situation, it would be very instructive to split the defensive numbers into season halves. If you split the first half of 2014 from the second half, you will see a vastly improved defense and then a really, truly dreadful defense. If you split the first half of 2015 from the second half, you will see the opposite. You are correct about 2014. However, if you look at the schedule, the trend looks like it's more likely a function of the opponent than the ability/effort of the defense. We started giving up 20 ppg more after the LSU game. That includes the Samford game (7 pts) and excludes the bowl game that went to overtime and wasn't coached by Ellis Johnson. Teams like South Carolina and Texas A&M weren't 20 points better than teams like Arkansas and Kansas State. In fact, UGA was the best offense we faced all season and they were only 14 ppg better than LSU, who we held to 7. It was a function of Ellis Johnson throwing in the towel midseason. 2015 shows no real trend except that the last 2 games have been significantly better (it's worth noting that the 2 game improvement coincided with the return of Carl Lawson). If the defense performs well against Alabama and whoever we face in the bowl, then I would be more confident in calling it a trend. And feel free to wait, but it's fairly obvious to me that this defense is much better than it was week 1. Yes, Carl Lawson has a lot to do with that, as transcendent players do tend to make defenses better. But they were already showing steady- if less dramatic- improvement. In fact, the only game we've given up 30 or more points in regulation in all season was at LSU. Going strictly by PPG doesn't paint the entire picture, though, as the Jax State game was obviously a low point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hewlejd 6 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Referring to our current situation, it would be very instructive to split the defensive numbers into season halves. If you split the first half of 2014 from the second half, you will see a vastly improved defense and then a really, truly dreadful defense. If you split the first half of 2015 from the second half, you will see the opposite. You are correct about 2014. However, if you look at the schedule, the trend looks like it's more likely a function of the opponent than the ability/effort of the defense. We started giving up 20 ppg more after the LSU game. That includes the Samford game (7 pts) and excludes the bowl game that went to overtime and wasn't coached by Ellis Johnson. Teams like South Carolina and Texas A&M weren't 20 points better than teams like Arkansas and Kansas State. In fact, UGA was the best offense we faced all season and they were only 14 ppg better than LSU, who we held to 7. It was a function of Ellis Johnson throwing in the towel midseason. 2015 shows no real trend except that the last 2 games have been significantly better (it's worth noting that the 2 game improvement coincided with the return of Carl Lawson). If the defense performs well against Alabama and whoever we face in the bowl, then I would be more confident in calling it a trend. And feel free to wait, but it's fairly obvious to me that this defense is much better than it was week 1. Yes, Carl Lawson has a lot to do with that, as transcendent players do tend to make defenses better. But they were already showing steady- if less dramatic- improvement. In fact, the only game we've given up 30 or more points in regulation in all season was at LSU. Going strictly by PPG doesn't paint the entire picture, though, as the Jax State game was obviously a low point. You definitely have a defensible position. This is what I love, though. When the yards allowed don't fit the scenario, you decide that the improvement should be measured in PPG (except, conveniently, Jax St.). I'm not saying that's not a fair metric, I just think it's interesting how we often choose the stat that supports our belief rather than try to form our belief to fit all the stats. I try very hard to do the latter, but I'm just as guilty as anyone else. Also, the more we start reading into the numbers, the harder it is to have a productive argument. For instance I could just as easily suggest that the only reason we didn't give up more than 20 to LSU in 2014 is because they had a freshman QB making his first SEC road start. We could go all day. I could also say that the 14 points that KSU scored on us last year is indicative of what they would have done against an average SEC opponent, so the 35 PPG that aTm averaged against an SEC schedule is, in fact, 20 points better (21 to be exact). I wouldn't actually pursue that argument because it's pure speculation, but that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. As for the "trend" for 2015. I hope you are right. I even largely believe that you are. However, there is a big difference between belief and reality (see Jeremy Johnson), so I will wait until the numbers are in to declare it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^I originally thought your graph was PPG, in which I'm much more interested and on which I mistakenly based all my ramblings. So I'm not being convenient, just ignorant. And I pointed out Jax St as an admission that, as you say, one stat doesn't tell a story (although PPG will invariably be a better indicator of who won a football game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hewlejd 6 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^I originally thought your graph was PPG, in which I'm much more interested and on which I mistakenly based all my ramblings. So I'm not being convenient, just ignorant. And I pointed out Jax St as an admission that, as you say, one stat doesn't tell a story (although PPG will invariably be a better indicator of who won a football game). Got you, that makes sense. Again, I think you bring up good points. Just a little friendly debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionheartkc 6,150 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I always said if we just had an average D in 2013 we would've won the national championship but it looks like we did have an average D. I think those averages are for O, not D. It is interesting that people blame 2014 on D, but the D actually improved... it's just that the O dropped off just as much as the D improved. Have to disagree with this. We scored 23, 38, 7, 44, and 31 in our losses last year. Yes the GA game was bad but hard to say the O dropped off and the D improved. Disagree all you want. The chart shows that we gained fewer yards and gave up fewer yards in 2014, and the change in both was close to identical. Sure, one stat doesn't tell the whole story of a season, but the offense WAS less effective moving down the field and the defense WAS more effective stopping other teams from moving down the field. The difference in strength of schedule was nominal, too, since 2013 was 3 and 2014 was 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionheartkc 6,150 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^I originally thought your graph was PPG, in which I'm much more interested and on which I mistakenly based all my ramblings. So I'm not being convenient, just ignorant. And I pointed out Jax St as an admission that, as you say, one stat doesn't tell a story (although PPG will invariably be a better indicator of who won a football game). While PPG is a better indicator of who won, YPG is the better indicator of how well and offense or defense functions overall. There are other factors that can effect PPG. Special teams and defense can both score points and dramatically effect the ability to score points. Only offense, however, can create yards and only defense can stop yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^I originally thought your graph was PPG, in which I'm much more interested and on which I mistakenly based all my ramblings. So I'm not being convenient, just ignorant. And I pointed out Jax St as an admission that, as you say, one stat doesn't tell a story (although PPG will invariably be a better indicator of who won a football game). Got you, that makes sense. Again, I think you bring up good points. Just a little friendly debate. Absolutely. And in all this I've forgotten to compliment you on the graphs. My original intent was not to suggest they were flawed, but to look into the 2014 defense a little deeper. Be it due to effort/ability or competition, I think we do agree that the early season stats make the overall performance appear deceiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 ^I originally thought your graph was PPG, in which I'm much more interested and on which I mistakenly based all my ramblings. So I'm not being convenient, just ignorant. And I pointed out Jax St as an admission that, as you say, one stat doesn't tell a story (although PPG will invariably be a better indicator of who won a football game). While PPG is a better indicator of who won, YPG is the better indicator of how well and offense or defense functions overall. There are other factors that can effect PPG. Special teams and defense can both score points and dramatically effect the ability to score points. Only offense, however, can create yards and only defense can stop yards. True, but I might do some research on red zone defense vs total defense when I get time. I'm guessing that the former is pretty good relative to the latter in our case. But you're right, YPG is more germane to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Well, thanks, hewlejd -- good stuff, and a great conversation piece! When I look at the defensive yards allowed against UGA this year, it just really boils my blood that we didn't win that game. Really sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUld fAUx@ 2,584 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I like plots because they help me organize and absorb multiple pieces of related information simultaneously, which makes it easier to see basic trends and formulate/draw conclusions. I also think they are interesting because while they contain factual, non-subjective information, people can still draw highly subjective and differing conclusions from them. Anyway, I thought I would post one I made recently to see how your thoughts compare with mine. So please, discuss. EDIT: There was an error in the defensive yds/gm for '15. Should be accurate now. T'would appear, 3yrs of offense during the Chizik (HC) years were attributed to (OC) Malzahn. Three years of Malzahn (HC, and so far) offense were attributed to (HC) Malzahn. Intentional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoALtiger 3,849 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 No pie chart? Really? Not a conversation piece w/out a pie chart, everyone knows that. :)/> Here you go... Well done!! Now we got a conversation. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubie17 65 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I like plots because they help me organize and absorb multiple pieces of related information simultaneously, which makes it easier to see basic trends and formulate/draw conclusions. I also think they are interesting because while they contain factual, non-subjective information, people can still draw highly subjective and differing conclusions from them. Anyway, I thought I would post one I made recently to see how your thoughts compare with mine. So please, discuss. EDIT: There was an error in the defensive yds/gm for '15. Should be accurate now. it appears to me that we have a two year window of above average offensive production when a new coach takes over---let's hope Malzahn turns that trend around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUbritt 611 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I like plots because they help me organize and absorb multiple pieces of related information simultaneously, which makes it easier to see basic trends and formulate/draw conclusions. I also think they are interesting because while they contain factual, non-subjective information, people can still draw highly subjective and differing conclusions from them. Anyway, I thought I would post one I made recently to see how your thoughts compare with mine. So please, discuss. EDIT: There was an error in the defensive yds/gm for '15. Should be accurate now. it appears to me that we have a two year window of above average offensive production when a new coach takes over---let's hope Malzahn turns that trend around Chizik handcuffed Gus in 2011, or so the story goes. Gus has handcuffed Gus in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard78 73 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 If I understand a stat I read, we scored 58 TDs last year and have 28 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeTiger24 98 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Those Tuberville defenses man....those were the days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle-1 3,821 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hewlejd 6 Posted November 21, 2015 Author Share Posted November 21, 2015 I like plots because they help me organize and absorb multiple pieces of related information simultaneously, which makes it easier to see basic trends and formulate/draw conclusions. I also think they are interesting because while they contain factual, non-subjective information, people can still draw highly subjective and differing conclusions from them. Anyway, I thought I would post one I made recently to see how your thoughts compare with mine. So please, discuss. EDIT: There was an error in the defensive yds/gm for '15. Should be accurate now. T'would appear, 3yrs of offense during the Chizik (HC) years were attributed to (OC) Malzahn. Three years of Malzahn (HC, and so far) offense were attributed to (HC) Malzahn. Intentional? I thought about listing Lashlee as OC, but since there's so much debate about who's actually calling plays and since its Malzahn's offense either way, I went with Malzahn. Also, since there has been so much discussion lately about the sustainable effectiveness of "Malzahn's offense," It also made it easier to draw conclusions to that end. Whomever you want to attribute the numbers to is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoALtiger 3,849 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I like plots because they help me organize and absorb multiple pieces of related information simultaneously, which makes it easier to see basic trends and formulate/draw conclusions. I also think they are interesting because while they contain factual, non-subjective information, people can still draw highly subjective and differing conclusions from them. Anyway, I thought I would post one I made recently to see how your thoughts compare with mine. So please, discuss. EDIT: There was an error in the defensive yds/gm for '15. Should be accurate now. T'would appear, 3yrs of offense during the Chizik (HC) years were attributed to (OC) Malzahn. Three years of Malzahn (HC, and so far) offense were attributed to (HC) Malzahn. Intentional? I thought about listing Lashlee as OC, but since there's so much debate about who's actually calling plays and since its Malzahn's offense either way, I went with Malzahn. Also, since there has been so much discussion lately about the sustainable effectiveness of "Malzahn's offense," It also made it easier to draw conclusions to that end. Whomever you want to attribute the numbers to is up to you. Lashlee gets credit when the O is successful but it's on Gus when it fails. At least that's how it's been this year seems like. Odd how that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionheartkc 6,150 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lala 327 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Our 0 line this yr is very established and highly ranked from a recruiting standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Our 0 line this yr is very established and highly ranked from a recruiting standpoint. Highly ranked, yes. Established, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lala 327 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Our 0 line this yr is very established and highly ranked from a recruiting standpoint. Highly ranked, yes. Established, not at all. Established by they are not a young bunch that has never had success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Our 0 line this yr is very established and highly ranked from a recruiting standpoint. Highly ranked, yes. Established, not at all. Established by they are not a young bunch that has never had success They began the season very inexperienced. Austin Golson had never even played center before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lala 327 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Compelling that the three tallest blue lines during the Malzahn offensive era coincide with a dual threat QB leading the offense. Just sayin. They also coincide with established offensive lines. Our 0 line this yr is very established and highly ranked from a recruiting standpoint. Highly ranked, yes. Established, not at all. Established by they are not a young bunch that has never had success They began the season very inexperienced. Austin Golson had never even played center before. But he was an sec starter prior so not inexperienced. Inexperienced is guys who have never played. Our o line should have been a sting suite. Hell, our back/up center has even started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.