Assistant Coaches Interviews: 8/15/19

[AUApostle 7,651]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Especially if the offense can't sustain drives. 
 

Here are how Clemson (since they are the current gold standard for literally everything) as well as the other SEC teams and teams on our schedule that finished ahead of us in total D ranked in total offense and TOP:

1. MSU- 70th, 38th
5. Clemson- 3rd, 95th
12. Washington- 54th, 23rd
13. uga- 18th, 35thth
16. bama- 6th, 52nd
23. UK- 103rd, 43rd
25. LSU- 68th, 31st
28. UF- 42nd, 65th
32. TAMU- 15th, 3rd

38. AU- 78th, 99th

When you combine those rankings, UK is the next worst at 146. Every other team is at 108 or lower. We're at 177. Even LSU, MSU and UK could manage to chew up clock and give their defense some rest. 

If our staff puts our offense in a position to succeed this year, then our defense will have an opportunity to flourish that they did not last year. 

 

 

Looks like tOP matters very little..Clemson and bama TOP rankings suuuuuuuuck.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, AUDevil said:

Looks like tOP matters very little..Clemson and bama TOP rankings suuuuuuuuck.

Not *nearly* as bad as ours in bama's case. And in both cases, those teams were moving the ball and scoring points, which further alter the dynamics of the game. And on that list of nine teams, Clemson was the only one whose TOP was remotely close to as bad as ours. So your takeaway is strange. It's not an exact correlation but those numbers suggest it's significant. 

 

[AUsince72 11,084]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

8 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Looks like tOP matters very little..Clemson and bama TOP rankings suuuuuuuuck.

Not *nearly* as bad as ours in bama's case. And in both cases, those teams were moving the ball and scoring points, which further alter the dynamics of the game. And on that list of nine teams, Clemson was the only one whose TOP was remotely close to as bad as ours. So your takeaway is strange. It's not an exact correlation but those numbers suggest it's significant. 

Regarding TOP for Clemson vs Auburn (in this case) since they're similar...

How many of Clemson's short TOP possessions ended in points rather than punts?  I'm asking about Clemson because I don't know. 

What I DO know is so many of Auburn's short TOP possessions ended in punts, turn-overs or changes of possession...not points.

[BigWhiskey91 632]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Not *nearly* as bad as ours in bama's case. And in both cases, those teams were moving the ball and scoring points, which further alter the dynamics of the game. And on that list of nine teams, Clemson was the only one whose TOP was remotely close to as bad as ours. So your takeaway is strange. It's not an exact correlation but those numbers suggest it's significant. 

 

Until we move to a ball control philosophy on offense, I can’t put stock in Time of Possession. That being said, I will not criticize our defense defense based on overall numbers such as the total defense ranking. I think both stats are misleading and open to interpretation.

When evaluating both units, I like looking at efficiency stats. Primary stat I look at is Points per play and yards per point. If my defense is giving up points, I want the opponent to have to cover more distance to achieve those points and take many plays to do so as well.

Malzahns offenses have a hidden flaw in this metric. His offenses are great at chewing up yardage but have always been inefficient when it comes to points per play and yards per point. This is likely due to red zone issues. The offense being designed primarily to create explosive plays is much less capable in the red zone due to field compression and lack of complexity in the passing game. These items are masked a bit with a dominant run game. 

Either way, if the offense is clicking this year, we should be able to force teams to be one dimensional to keep up with us. That’s the perfect position for our defense. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, AUsince72 said:

Regarding TOP for Clemson vs Auburn (in this case) since they're similar...

How many of Clemson's short TOP possessions ended in points rather than punts?  I'm asking about Clemson because I don't know. 

What I DO know is so many of Auburn's short TOP possessions ended in punts, turn-overs or changes of possession...not points.

Exactly. They also threw the ball 5 times more per game than we did. 

You can find exceptions to every rule. Clemson would qualify as such, and even then it's explainable.

I've literally never heard people try to say that TOP doesn't matter until that MSU game last year. It remains very weird. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

6 minutes ago, BigWhiskey91 said:

Until we move to a ball control philosophy on offense, I can’t put stock in Time of Possession. That being said, I will not criticize our defense defense based on overall numbers such as the total defense ranking. I think both stats are misleading and open to interpretation.

When evaluating both units, I like looking at efficiency stats. Primary stat I look at is Points per play and yards per point. If my defense is giving up points, I want the opponent to have to cover more distance to achieve those points and take many plays to do so as well.

Malzahns offenses have a hidden flaw in this metric. His offenses are great at chewing up yardage but have always been inefficient when it comes to points per play and yards per point. This is likely due to red zone issues. The offense being designed primarily to create explosive plays is much less capable in the red zone due to field compression and lack of complexity in the passing game. These items are masked a bit with a dominant run game. 

Either way, if the offense is clicking this year, we should be able to force teams to be one dimensional to keep up with us. That’s the perfect position for our defense. 

I can tell who's kid you are LOL!

....I mean that in a GOOD way btw...

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, BigWhiskey91 said:

Either way, if the offense is clicking this year, we should be able to force teams to be one dimensional to keep up with us. That’s the perfect position for our defense. 

And that is why I included total offense and TOP, and what makes the Clemson "exception" an exception only to TOP. TOP matters less when you're scoring a ton. 

And yeah, even our scoring drives last year tended not to last long. That's fine if, as @AUsince72 said, they're happening a lot more than the 3-and-outs. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

I can tell who's kid you are LOL!

....I mean that in a GOOD way btw...

Yeah, he's annoyingly level-headed, polite and well-informed. Obviously my nemesis. 

[AUApostle 7,651]

31 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Not *nearly* as bad as ours in bama's case. And in both cases, those teams were moving the ball and scoring points, which further alter the dynamics of the game. And on that list of nine teams, Clemson was the only one whose TOP was remotely close to as bad as ours. So your takeaway is strange. It's not an exact correlation but those numbers suggest it's significant. 

 

I jumped into this thread at your post...so I don't really know what led to you posting what you posted...But just looking at your numbers there doesn't appear to be much correlation between total offense and TOP...the two best teams had average to below average TOPs.  So looks like we need to focus on scoring a crap ton of points and moving the ball - screw TOP.

[AUsince72 11,084]

15 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

I jumped into this thread at your post...so I don't really know what led to you posting what you posted...But just looking at your numbers there doesn't appear to be much correlation between total offense and TOP...the two best teams had average to below average TOPs.  So looks like we need to focus on scoring a crap ton of points and moving the ball - screw TOP.

I'd say the message here is of compromise. 

Compromise: The D will happily allow the O to have short TOP if the O will promise to score said "crap ton of points" in their short possessions. 

No Compromise: However, if the O continues to have short TOPs that conclude in punts or TOs then the D will probably, again, struggle as the season wears on them which ironically will be followed by a small handful of posters on this board who actually blame the defense for Auburn's seasonal shortcomings. 

[BigWhiskey91 632]

27 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And that is why I included total offense and TOP, and what makes the Clemson "exception" an exception only to TOP. TOP matters less when you're scoring a ton. 

And yeah, even our scoring drives last year tended not to last long. That's fine if, as @AUsince72 said, they're happening a lot more than the 3-and-outs. 

Exactly. Purdue is an ultimate example. I think only a few of our scoring drives in our bowl game eclipsed 3min in the first half.

[McLoofus 35,182]

16 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

I jumped into this thread at your post...so I don't really know what led to you posting what you posted...But just looking at your numbers there doesn't appear to be much correlation between total offense and TOP...the two best teams had average to below average TOPs.  So looks like we need to focus on scoring a crap ton of points and moving the ball - screw TOP.

The correlation being discussed wasn't between total offense and TOP, but between total defense and total offense and/or TOP. 

Good defenses tend to succeed if they're alongside an offense that can move the ball and/or maintain possession. Almost no defense succeeds despite an offense like ours that could do neither. 

Another way to really emphasize those numbers is to add the total offense and TOP rankings and then subtract the total defense ranking. Without looking, I'd venture a guess that Auburn has, by far, the greatest disparity. Doesn't prove anything but it suggests that our defense overachieved relative to the other defenses and what kind of help they were getting from the other side of the ball. 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, BigWhiskey91 said:

Until we move to a ball control philosophy on offense, I can’t put stock in Time of Possession.

We run the HUNH, so yeah. I think it’s pointless to fret about something like that when it’s somethjng we clearly don’t care about. 

 

But in M’s defense, Mississippi State’s offense was basically just as bad as ours, yet their TOP was only 38th. Those coaches protected their defense, and in return, Mississippi State held the top defense in the land. 

 

As for our DL: We averaged more sacks per play last year than the year before while without a Dee Ford or Jeff Holland. Also had more sacks despite playing one less game. 

We were also 16th in the country in that regard. 

Friends don’t let friends say those DL’s are just ordinary, or argue their unrealized potential. 

[BigWhiskey91 632]

5 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

We run the HUNH, so yeah. I think it’s pointless to fret about something like that when it’s somethjng we clearly don’t care about. 

 

But in M’s defense, Mississippi State’s offense was basically just as bad as ours, yet their TOP was only 38th. Those coaches protected their defense, and in return, Mississippi State held the top defense in the land. 

 

As for our DL: We averaged more sacks per play last year than the year before while without a Dee Ford or Jeff Holland. Also had more sacks despite playing one less game. 

We were also 16th in the country in that regard. 

Friends don’t let friends say those DL’s are just ordinary, or argue their unrealized potential. 

Miss State dedicated themselves to minimize possessions in a game. That protects their defense in many ways. Mainly it does so by putting pressure on the opposing offense. By limiting possessions you make each snap more valuable which demands higher execution. Much like with a HUNH team, running more plays increases scoring potential which outsmart pressure on the opposing offense to keep up. The beauty is when you have a HUNH offense maximizing its potential and a defense maximizing its potential. You get games like 2016 Arkansas. 

Like others have said, while we focus on extremes to make points, the goal is finding the perfect compromise. For Gus that means finding ways to keep going fast while finding ways to remain effective when pace isn’t needed. It sounds like we are addressing the fast pace play by streamlining substitutions, what will help the most is finding ways to stay effective when we need to slow things down. I still think the 2017 Reg Season UGA was the best start to finish game management job I’ve seen from Gus and team. Great timed play calls and several wrinkles that play against tendencies. We need more of that this year and more often then just November!

[aujeff11 6,243]

20 minutes ago, BigWhiskey91 said:

I still think the 2017 Reg Season UGA was the best start to finish game management job I’ve seen from Gus and team.

The world was alright then for sure. Gus has been able to chew clock like his double bubble too, when he is on. See Cam v Kentucky. Mostly though his offense gets disfunctional when he takes his foot off the pedal and those games don’t end up being great games at all. 

20 minutes ago, BigWhiskey91 said:

The beauty is when you have a HUNH offense maximizing its potential and a defense maximizing its potential. You get games like 2016 Arkansas

2014 LSU too. Those are fun games..  

[AUsince72 11,084]

8 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Mostly though his offense gets disfunctional when he takes his foot off the pedal and those games don’t end up being great games at all. 

^^^^^This.

Much of what we discuss (or argue about) is rendered moot when Gus keeps the hammer down.  However, when he feels overwhelmed (IB last year) or overconfident (LSU 2017) he tends to let off the gas, the offense becomes downright incompetent and the D gets hung out to dry.

Maybe 2019 Gus will be Dale Earnhardt from the beginning to the end.