So, in the midst of all this amazing QB debate garbage, I thought I'd write a piece that will likely sound pretty strange to those who have been followers of my blog, or know me personally. I'm here to tell you why Georgia fans should be happy that Joe Cox was our quarterback in 2009.
Still reading? I'm actually a bit surprised, but glad to have your eyes. Let's get to it.
Now, if you aren't a David Hale reader...first off, shame on you. Secondly, you should check out this blog about this year's QB Battle. In it, you will find stats from last year's spring practices as well. These numbers had many people calling for Aaron Murray to be the starter from day one last year, and some others saying at the very least, Gray should be sharing equal reps with Joe Cox. Statistically, Cox was pretty weak in the spring.
As it turned out during the season, Cox's yards-per-attempt (7.8) was much better than in spring (5.3), his completion percentage was 4.9% higher (59.9 v 55), but his TD:INT ratio was terrible - 8:5 vs 3:1. THAT my friend, is the big knock on Cox. That's why people say he was so awful. That is why he will not be remembered with great fondness by a large percentage of the fanbase. However, I think those who are quick to paint Cox in a bad light should take a couple of things into consideration.
First - What were the options for Bobo and Richt? They could go with their fifth-year senior, the strong leader who the team trusted and would rally behind. Or, they could go with a sophomore option-style quarterback who had never gotten his feet wet in a game, and whose numbers were better in spring, but would ultimately prove to be a falsehood in the fall. Or, they could go with the true freshman who had all the fans going bananas during spring practice, but who obviously needed more time to learn the playbook and the system.
Still, today, many fans wish they'd seen Murray get the nod. Nevermind the fact that the kid was hurt for much of the season, and wouldn't have been at 100%. Nevermind the fact that he wouldn't be likely to check in and out of plays at the line (often checking OUT of a bad play is the best call a QB makes). No, the statline is the lone deciding factor for many of these fans.
These fans are nuts.
Look at Buck Bellue's stat line in the 1980 Sugar Bowl and tell me that's a performance you'd ever want to see. It was only good enough for a National Championship.
But, forget about 30 years ago. Let's look back to less than 12 months ago.
GM 1 - Joe Cox wasn't at 100% ... we all know that. I submit to you that if not for a phantom personal-foul against Reshad Jones on a perfectly legal hit, we win that game. Do you think the freshman with tendonitis would have fared well in that hostile environment? What about Logan? Would taking his first real snap in Stillwater have been the way to go? No. The answer is obvious. You go with Joe, if at all possible. You're not going to convince me that having Logan OR Aaron in that game would have given us a "W". 0 - 1
GM 2 - South Carolina rolls into town, bringing a stingy, blitzing defense. Cox was serviceable in this game. He even overcame the late pick to lead the team down and get the winning field goal. If Gray or Murray is in the game, the best we do is still win it. 1 - 1
GM 3 - Arkansas - without Cox, we don't win this one. That game became a shoot-out in the second quarter, and neither Gray nor Murray would have held their own against Mallet in that game. Neither defense played particularly well, but once again, this one was a big road game, this time IN the SEC. Cox's field knowledge gave him the leg-up up. Without Joe, we lose that one. 1 - 2
GM 4 - ASU - Cox wasn't brilliant, but didn't need to be. ASU really didn't have a shot in that one. In fact, Cox's less than stellar performance was the entire reason ASU was in that game. I think Murray or Gray would have been fine. 2 - 2
GM 5 - LSU - it pains me to even remember this game. This is the one game where I think having a running-type qb in the game may have helped us out. Joe had a great 4th quarter, and our defense had kept us in the game...but Cox was bad on 3rd down for much of that game. Our running game had yet to appear, so on 3rd and 4, we were forced to call pass plays. I'd like to think that a run-pass QB option would have been effective. I just don't know. I doubt that either Gray or Murray would have had the 4th that Cox had, but they may have played the other 3 quarters better, making the comeback run in the 4th unnecessary. Then again, against John Chavis? I doubt it. 2 - 3
GM 6 - TN - No way, no how. The defense had absolutely no answer for the play action pass (seriously?), and Monte Kiffin had his defense on search and destroy. Sorry, neither Gray nor Murray wins it. 2 - 4
GM 7 - Vandy - Vandy was just plain overmatched. Our QB wouldn't likely have made much a difference. This is one of the games where I wanted to see somebody getting some reps. 3 - 4
GM 8 - Florida - Come on. - 3 - 5
GM 9 - Tennessee Tech - Come on. (of course, UGA didn't score after Cox left) 4 - 5
GM 10 - Auburn - We don't win this without Joe. The way Auburn jumped on us early, the way we couldn't get the running game going. Who's gonna get the guys on the comeback trail? Is it Murray, who at this point in the season was rehabbing injury, or is it Gray, who had proven in his few minutes against FL that he wasn't ready for prime time? Sorry folks, no Joe, no W. 4 - 6
GM 11 - UK - Many people blame the UK loss on Joe Cox, and I think he definitely deserves a good bit of it. Those 2nd half interceptions were unbelievable. I actually watched that game on Tivo, knowing that we were going to lose, and at halftime, I couldn't figure out how it was going to happen. Still, don't forget all three of UGA's TDs in the game came from the arm of Joe Cox. I say we still lose to KY. 4 - 7
GM 12 - Georgia Tech - This one's not too difficult to call. We still win. Joe was pretty nonexistent in this one. At least he didn't throw a pick. This was the gameplan we'd liked to have seen for UGA all year long...run, run, run, toss one to keep them honest, blow them out. 5 - 7
Bowl? Nope.
What else? Well, at 5 - 7, Damon Evans might have been persuaded to listen to the yahoos calling for Mark Richt's head. So, he could very well be gone right now. That'd be a tragedy.
Instead, we're coming off a down year, yes, but one that the team can build on. I've said in my blog before that Richt has now had two long-term UGA quarterbacks who've done things two ways, redshirted (Greene) and thrown into the fire (Stafford). Who here remembers which one was the more successful college quarterback? Who remembers which one was the more naturally gifted? Ok, now, look at a kid like Aaron Murray. He's Naturally Gifted, AND because of Joe Cox, he's had a year to learn the system before he ever has to take a meaningful snap in a game.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Zach Mettenburger has benefited from a true quarterback competition. He has grown by leaps and bounds. Had either Gray or Murray been annointed the starter in 2009, that would put Metts YEARS behind in his own mind. He'd be playing "catch-up". Instead, he's been pushing himself to be the starter.
ALSO because of Joe Cox, Mark Richt is back in the film room and will be a bigger part of QB development. Perhaps this is EXACTLY why Stafford and Cox didn't develop as well as we'd have liked. I don't know, but it would make sense. Richt had a pretty good history of developing QBs at FSU, and David Greene and Shockley both succeeded under his watch. As he stepped back though, it appears that the progress diminished. Looks like he doesn't want that happening any more.
Long story short, Joe Cox starting in 2009 was best for Georgia then, and it's best for Georgia's future. Whoever wins this quarterback battle in the fall will go into the season having prepared his best simply to win the job. He will have good knowledge of the offense, and will have faced scrutiny from the coach most qualified to offer it. And, he will continue to work to be the best, because he will have others pushing for his position. Without Joe Cox, we lose much of that.
Way to go, Joe.
Go Dawgs.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Sorry sir, that dive is gonna cost you six.
Well, the NCAA actually approved a heinous change to the taunting penalty rules that will result in lower scores in ballgames at the whim of an overweight zebra. If you didn't already read my initial reaction to the possibility of this change happening, do so here.
Here's the breakdown: If a player commits a "taunting" penalty IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, it will no longer be considered a dead-ball foul. Under the new rule if a player were to, let's say, point the ball at a defender at the five-yard-line before scoring a touchdown, the touchdown would be denied, and the ball would be spotted at the twenty.
Awful.
There are a number of scenarios I could run through in showing just WHY this is a terrible rule, but I think the NCAA already KNOWS it's a terrible rule. And that, my friends, is exactly why it shouldn't have been enacted in the first place. Dave Parry, the NCAA's national coordinator of college football officiating (Or, NCCFO as he's probably never called), had this to say about the rule:
"If it's close to diving into the end zone, most likely it would be ruled that the act ended while in the end zone. We'll be lenient. It's really if it's really bad, for example, if a guy flips the bird at the 10 or high-steps backwards into the end zone or starts a forward roll at the 3-yard line."
Well here's my question to Mr. Parry - is that language anywhere in the rule? Is there mention of flipping the bird or doing a forward roll at the 3-yard line? Somehow I doubt it. I'm sorry, perhaps I've just been a fan of football too long and I've watched it slide from a game that is played on the field to one that is played in the minds of referees who can offer up subjective judgment at any time. What you're telling us, basically, is that you're now going to entrust the actual outcomes of games to the officials who can refer to whatever bias they want. I'm fairly certain that "taunting" is not going to be reviewable.
So, as opposed to a receiver catching or not catching a ball for a score, which could be reviewed 1000 times to be sure the right call was made. If a kid has a breakaway 60-yard run for a game-winning score as time runs out, but the official decides that the step he took at the 15 was a little too "high," then the score is negated and his team loses.
That's awful.
I'm fed up with subjective penalties. There's absolutely no room for them. There's no room for subjective law. It's either legal, or illegal, no frikkin gray areas! I want to see the NCAA rules committee strictly outline everything that is ok, and everything that isn't.
Parry himself says that if the flip ends in the endzone, they'll consider it a dead-ball foul because they'll be lenient. But then, he says if you start you forward roll at the three, it'll be punishable. So what are we to take from that? Is it now ok to flip into the endzone provided that you aren't talented enough to do it from nine feet away? Oh, and let's think about three yards. Does Parry realize how fast some of these guys cover three yards? We're talking about tenths of a second here. So, if you're a few tenths of a second early, it's costing you 15 yards, and six points.
Awful.
Parry also predicted that the call will be made "very rarely." What does this mean? Is the committee going to tell referees, "Hey, there's this new rule that we're very serious about enforcing because we want to be sure these kids aren't hurting each others' feelings. Oh, but don't call it often. Seriously. Call it as rarely as you can."
That's PREPOSTEROUS! Sportsmanship is an area of emphasis. That means this penalty will be called as often as they can possibly call it. It wouldn't surprise me if they call it on a player for taking a knee and pointing to the sky, or if they call it when a kid points to the student's section as he's going in for a score. When the refs are told something is a point of emphasis, they go flag-crazy. If the point of this rule change isn't to call the penalty, but instead to do it only in "extreme cases," then the committee should outline exactly what those extreme cases are IN the rule. Do they do that? No.
Awful.
Rules of the game should be equal for all players in all situations. There is no room for bias, which can be RAMPANT given this new set of circumstances. You can't possibly expect me to believe that in a big game, if a referee has ANY bias, that he couldn't just call that penalty for the hell of it. He could. Why? There's no review. He gets away with it. Then, in the aftermath, he issues an "apology" and it's all ok. Nevermind the fact that the outcome of the game was changed, that an entire team's season and possibly championship hopes could be gone. It's a bad rule, and shouldn't exist. But, none of us have any power to change it. Instead, we can simply bark and holler and whine about it, and when our team suffers as a result of a bad call of this bad rule, we can say "See, I knew that was a terrible rule from the beginning."
I have a theory that this watering down of football is happening because the people who are running these NCAA committees are the guys who got their heads flushed in toilets by football players in high school. I can't be certain of it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Go Dawgs.
**** I've read Tony Barnhardt's ideas about the rule, and I agree and disagree with him in part. I do believe that if a rule is going to exist, it should be called consistently. However, I do not agree that this rule should exist at all. This rule and the "exessive celebration" rule are both ridiculous. It's football. This is a violent, barbarian sport. It is often compared (quite foolishly) to war. The men who play this game have to be tough physically AND mentally. If they aren't, they won't often succeed. The way I see it, you can't intentionally hurt someone physically, but if you can put a chink in their psychological armor, that's an advantage for you. When I was playing, that was part of the game - getting in the head of someone you had to play against. It was just part of the game. The other fella had to deal with it. Football is backsliding into civility, and I can't take it.
Here's the breakdown: If a player commits a "taunting" penalty IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, it will no longer be considered a dead-ball foul. Under the new rule if a player were to, let's say, point the ball at a defender at the five-yard-line before scoring a touchdown, the touchdown would be denied, and the ball would be spotted at the twenty.
Awful.
There are a number of scenarios I could run through in showing just WHY this is a terrible rule, but I think the NCAA already KNOWS it's a terrible rule. And that, my friends, is exactly why it shouldn't have been enacted in the first place. Dave Parry, the NCAA's national coordinator of college football officiating (Or, NCCFO as he's probably never called), had this to say about the rule:
"If it's close to diving into the end zone, most likely it would be ruled that the act ended while in the end zone. We'll be lenient. It's really if it's really bad, for example, if a guy flips the bird at the 10 or high-steps backwards into the end zone or starts a forward roll at the 3-yard line."
Well here's my question to Mr. Parry - is that language anywhere in the rule? Is there mention of flipping the bird or doing a forward roll at the 3-yard line? Somehow I doubt it. I'm sorry, perhaps I've just been a fan of football too long and I've watched it slide from a game that is played on the field to one that is played in the minds of referees who can offer up subjective judgment at any time. What you're telling us, basically, is that you're now going to entrust the actual outcomes of games to the officials who can refer to whatever bias they want. I'm fairly certain that "taunting" is not going to be reviewable.
So, as opposed to a receiver catching or not catching a ball for a score, which could be reviewed 1000 times to be sure the right call was made. If a kid has a breakaway 60-yard run for a game-winning score as time runs out, but the official decides that the step he took at the 15 was a little too "high," then the score is negated and his team loses.
That's awful.
I'm fed up with subjective penalties. There's absolutely no room for them. There's no room for subjective law. It's either legal, or illegal, no frikkin gray areas! I want to see the NCAA rules committee strictly outline everything that is ok, and everything that isn't.
Parry himself says that if the flip ends in the endzone, they'll consider it a dead-ball foul because they'll be lenient. But then, he says if you start you forward roll at the three, it'll be punishable. So what are we to take from that? Is it now ok to flip into the endzone provided that you aren't talented enough to do it from nine feet away? Oh, and let's think about three yards. Does Parry realize how fast some of these guys cover three yards? We're talking about tenths of a second here. So, if you're a few tenths of a second early, it's costing you 15 yards, and six points.
Awful.
Parry also predicted that the call will be made "very rarely." What does this mean? Is the committee going to tell referees, "Hey, there's this new rule that we're very serious about enforcing because we want to be sure these kids aren't hurting each others' feelings. Oh, but don't call it often. Seriously. Call it as rarely as you can."
That's PREPOSTEROUS! Sportsmanship is an area of emphasis. That means this penalty will be called as often as they can possibly call it. It wouldn't surprise me if they call it on a player for taking a knee and pointing to the sky, or if they call it when a kid points to the student's section as he's going in for a score. When the refs are told something is a point of emphasis, they go flag-crazy. If the point of this rule change isn't to call the penalty, but instead to do it only in "extreme cases," then the committee should outline exactly what those extreme cases are IN the rule. Do they do that? No.
Awful.
Rules of the game should be equal for all players in all situations. There is no room for bias, which can be RAMPANT given this new set of circumstances. You can't possibly expect me to believe that in a big game, if a referee has ANY bias, that he couldn't just call that penalty for the hell of it. He could. Why? There's no review. He gets away with it. Then, in the aftermath, he issues an "apology" and it's all ok. Nevermind the fact that the outcome of the game was changed, that an entire team's season and possibly championship hopes could be gone. It's a bad rule, and shouldn't exist. But, none of us have any power to change it. Instead, we can simply bark and holler and whine about it, and when our team suffers as a result of a bad call of this bad rule, we can say "See, I knew that was a terrible rule from the beginning."
I have a theory that this watering down of football is happening because the people who are running these NCAA committees are the guys who got their heads flushed in toilets by football players in high school. I can't be certain of it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Go Dawgs.
**** I've read Tony Barnhardt's ideas about the rule, and I agree and disagree with him in part. I do believe that if a rule is going to exist, it should be called consistently. However, I do not agree that this rule should exist at all. This rule and the "exessive celebration" rule are both ridiculous. It's football. This is a violent, barbarian sport. It is often compared (quite foolishly) to war. The men who play this game have to be tough physically AND mentally. If they aren't, they won't often succeed. The way I see it, you can't intentionally hurt someone physically, but if you can put a chink in their psychological armor, that's an advantage for you. When I was playing, that was part of the game - getting in the head of someone you had to play against. It was just part of the game. The other fella had to deal with it. Football is backsliding into civility, and I can't take it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The DT's the thing...
And so we've come... to the end... of... the road. Still I can't... let... go...
Tell me your head isn't filled with the glorious harmonies of Boys II Men, and I'll tell you that you're a big fat liar! I was almost snapping with the rhythm when I wrote that.
Here we are, folks - the final statistically tracked personnel grouping (outside of kickers). So far, we've found that only one group had a statistical relevance to championships under the Richt era...and that group was the defensive ends. Of course, the defensive ends are only 1/2 of the defensive line (2/3 moving forward). So, I think it only fitting to see if we find similar statistical relevance INSIDE the defensive line. That means, it's time to take a look at Georgia's line of defensive tackles.
Alright...so let's go mining for gold here. Well, right off the bat I see six DTs who made an impact on that 2002 Championship squad. Then, Sully left before 2003 and the number dropped to five, and the success dropped to an SEC Title-game loss. In 2004 we lost Veal to graduation and Gant to injury, and the team's success dipped further. But, in 2005, with the return of Gant and the arrival of Jeff Owens, the DTs were strong again, and we won another SEC title.
But, let's not get carried away with looking at the number of productive tackles, because we'll quickly find that to be irrelevant. Both the 2008 and 2009 campaigns boasted five productive defensive tackles, and no UGA fan would call either of those seasons a success. In fact, 2007 is widely accepted as the most successful year since our last title season, and we only had four producers at DT. So, the number of productive interior linemen is obviously not a factor. But, what about the quality that the group provides to the team?
Well, clearly I can see no relevance to the percentage of stops made by the DTs being a factor in UGA's success. While it's true that 2002, our best year, had the most production of any of the eight seasons tracked, the 2005 season was just two spots from the bottom. The third-highest season? 2009. So, maybe it's not simply stops, but impactful stops such as tackles for loss and sacks. Well, looking back to the first table, I see that in 2002, those were abundant. DTs had 29.5 TFL and 9 sacks in 2002. In 2005, 11.5 TFL and 7 Sacks. Hmmmm...that's a pretty big difference. And of course, in 2009, 19.5 TFL and 6 sacks. So, I have to render a verdict of NOT the thing to the position group of defensive tackle.
But, looking forward, here's something to think about. Grantham's 3-4 defense will generally employ only ONE of this position group. Most of the time, we're going to have a single defensive tackle (known as NOSE) in the game. Why is that important to remember? Think about what I said in the last blog. Of the top 3 returning producers at DE, a position which DID correlate with success, only one lines up at DE this year. The other two are at outside linebacker. That means that while last year we could only have two of those productive players on the field at once, we'll now have all three. AND, we'll be adding ANOTHER DE to the mix as well. Basically, in the 3-4, we're going to have four big, athletic, pass-rushing types in the game for much of the time. Even in Nickel situations, I'm willing to bet you'll see one of the OLBs put his hand in the dirt as opposed to sending in another DT.
"But DUKES! What in the world does all this mean? Are the defensive tackles not an important position group? I thought they were HUGELY important in stopping the run game and collapsing the passing pocket!"
Wow, ok first...don't throw so much at me at once. Secondly, of course the defensive tackles are an important position group. If your team is too soft in the middle, you're going to get beat up on the ground all day. You can have the best pass-rush in the world, but if opposing teams can run slap over your interior for 4 and 5 yards at a clip, you're screwed. Still, many times a defensive tackle's success isn't measured in the tackles he makes, but in the impact he has. Albert Haynsworth doesn't generally lead his team in tackles, but the fact that he most often requires a double-team frees up someone else to make stops.
What these tackling stats don't track is the impact that each stop makes. You see, a one-yard tackle for loss is the same as an 8-yard tackle for loss in the stat book. There's no accounting for what the impact was. UGA had one of the best Tackle-for-loss statistics in all of college football last season...but we weren't very good. If your DT stops a running back for a one-yard run, then a corner gives up a twenty-five yard pass on the next play, that doesn't bode well for success.
So, that gets me thinking...perhaps there is NO single position group that is truly going to be the THING that brings titles to UGA. I know, the statistical data for DEs was the nearest to a true correlation. But, I think there must be something bigger. If I HAD to pick a position group, I'd have no choice but to choose Defensive End at this point. Then again, moving forward with Grantham's 3-4, I'm willing to bet we'll see a shift in the distribution of effectiveness by position. THAT being said, we can't put too much stock into any position group at all.
Maybe this game is truly a TEAM game after all. My work is never done...back to the statbooks to do some more research. This series will return!
Go Dawgs.
Tell me your head isn't filled with the glorious harmonies of Boys II Men, and I'll tell you that you're a big fat liar! I was almost snapping with the rhythm when I wrote that.
Here we are, folks - the final statistically tracked personnel grouping (outside of kickers). So far, we've found that only one group had a statistical relevance to championships under the Richt era...and that group was the defensive ends. Of course, the defensive ends are only 1/2 of the defensive line (2/3 moving forward). So, I think it only fitting to see if we find similar statistical relevance INSIDE the defensive line. That means, it's time to take a look at Georgia's line of defensive tackles.
| YEAR | Player | TKL | TFL | SCK | QBH | PBU | INT | FMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Sullivan | 72 | 18.5 | 4 | 28 | |||
| Veal | 38 | 1.5 | 9 | 1 | ||||
| Swain | 37 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | |||
| Golston | 33 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 4 | 1 | |||
| Anderson | 24 | 1.5 | 3 | |||||
| Wynn | 19 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 2003 | Anderson | 53 | 7.5 | 2 | 8 | |||
| Veal | 43 | 2.5 | 3 | 1 | ||||
| Gant | 36 | 9 | ||||||
| Swain | 33 | 0.5 | 4 | |||||
| Golston | 14 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 2004 | Anderson | 31 | 7 | 0.5 | 10 | 1 | ||
| Golston | 23 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 16 | ||||
| Swain | 15 | 1 | 5 | |||||
| 2005 | Golston | 21 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 28 | |||
| Gant | 19 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 19 | 1 | |||
| Owens | 17 | 3 | 2.5 | 16 | 1 | |||
| Swain | 16 | 2 | 1.5 | 3 | ||||
| Anderson | 15 | 1.5 | 9 | |||||
| 2006 | Owens | 26 | 1.5 | 1 | 19 | 3 | 1 | |
| Gant | 18 | 3.5 | 3 | 12 | 1 | |||
| Weston | 13 | 14 | 2 | |||||
| Dixson | 10 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2007 | Atkins | 41 | 14.5 | 7.5 | 37 | 1 | ||
| Owens | 27 | 4 | 22 | |||||
| Weston | 19 | 6.5 | 2.5 | 10 | 1 | |||
| Irvin | 13 | 2 | 7 | |||||
| 2008 | Irvin | 34 | 8.5 | 3 | 26 | 3 | ||
| Atkins | 34 | 7.5 | 32 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Weston | 18 | 3.5 | 3 | |||||
| Tyson | 11 | 1 | 5 | |||||
| Wood | 11 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 9 | 1 | |||
| 2009 | Atkins | 36 | 10.5 | 3 | 33 | 1 | ||
| Owens | 32 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 2 | ||||
| Weston | 29 | 6.5 | 2.5 | 26 | ||||
| Wood | 14 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Tyson | 12 | 5 |
Alright...so let's go mining for gold here. Well, right off the bat I see six DTs who made an impact on that 2002 Championship squad. Then, Sully left before 2003 and the number dropped to five, and the success dropped to an SEC Title-game loss. In 2004 we lost Veal to graduation and Gant to injury, and the team's success dipped further. But, in 2005, with the return of Gant and the arrival of Jeff Owens, the DTs were strong again, and we won another SEC title.
But, let's not get carried away with looking at the number of productive tackles, because we'll quickly find that to be irrelevant. Both the 2008 and 2009 campaigns boasted five productive defensive tackles, and no UGA fan would call either of those seasons a success. In fact, 2007 is widely accepted as the most successful year since our last title season, and we only had four producers at DT. So, the number of productive interior linemen is obviously not a factor. But, what about the quality that the group provides to the team?
| YEAR | DTTKL | TMTKL | %age |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 223 | 1257 | 17.7 |
| 2003 | 179 | 1103 | 16.2 |
| 2004 | 69 | 668 | 10.3 |
| 2005 | 88 | 784 | 11.2 |
| 2006 | 67 | 668 | 10.0 |
| 2007 | 100 | 787 | 12.7 |
| 2008 | 108 | 766 | 14.1 |
| 2009 | 123 | 804 | 15.3 |
Well, clearly I can see no relevance to the percentage of stops made by the DTs being a factor in UGA's success. While it's true that 2002, our best year, had the most production of any of the eight seasons tracked, the 2005 season was just two spots from the bottom. The third-highest season? 2009. So, maybe it's not simply stops, but impactful stops such as tackles for loss and sacks. Well, looking back to the first table, I see that in 2002, those were abundant. DTs had 29.5 TFL and 9 sacks in 2002. In 2005, 11.5 TFL and 7 Sacks. Hmmmm...that's a pretty big difference. And of course, in 2009, 19.5 TFL and 6 sacks. So, I have to render a verdict of NOT the thing to the position group of defensive tackle.
But, looking forward, here's something to think about. Grantham's 3-4 defense will generally employ only ONE of this position group. Most of the time, we're going to have a single defensive tackle (known as NOSE) in the game. Why is that important to remember? Think about what I said in the last blog. Of the top 3 returning producers at DE, a position which DID correlate with success, only one lines up at DE this year. The other two are at outside linebacker. That means that while last year we could only have two of those productive players on the field at once, we'll now have all three. AND, we'll be adding ANOTHER DE to the mix as well. Basically, in the 3-4, we're going to have four big, athletic, pass-rushing types in the game for much of the time. Even in Nickel situations, I'm willing to bet you'll see one of the OLBs put his hand in the dirt as opposed to sending in another DT.
"But DUKES! What in the world does all this mean? Are the defensive tackles not an important position group? I thought they were HUGELY important in stopping the run game and collapsing the passing pocket!"
Wow, ok first...don't throw so much at me at once. Secondly, of course the defensive tackles are an important position group. If your team is too soft in the middle, you're going to get beat up on the ground all day. You can have the best pass-rush in the world, but if opposing teams can run slap over your interior for 4 and 5 yards at a clip, you're screwed. Still, many times a defensive tackle's success isn't measured in the tackles he makes, but in the impact he has. Albert Haynsworth doesn't generally lead his team in tackles, but the fact that he most often requires a double-team frees up someone else to make stops.
What these tackling stats don't track is the impact that each stop makes. You see, a one-yard tackle for loss is the same as an 8-yard tackle for loss in the stat book. There's no accounting for what the impact was. UGA had one of the best Tackle-for-loss statistics in all of college football last season...but we weren't very good. If your DT stops a running back for a one-yard run, then a corner gives up a twenty-five yard pass on the next play, that doesn't bode well for success.
So, that gets me thinking...perhaps there is NO single position group that is truly going to be the THING that brings titles to UGA. I know, the statistical data for DEs was the nearest to a true correlation. But, I think there must be something bigger. If I HAD to pick a position group, I'd have no choice but to choose Defensive End at this point. Then again, moving forward with Grantham's 3-4, I'm willing to bet we'll see a shift in the distribution of effectiveness by position. THAT being said, we can't put too much stock into any position group at all.
Maybe this game is truly a TEAM game after all. My work is never done...back to the statbooks to do some more research. This series will return!
Go Dawgs.
Monday, April 12, 2010
More info on NFL Draft Tickets...WIN BIG!
Hey y'all...
Just wanted to add a bit of info to what I said before. I've just been made aware of contests we're going to be running during the draft. Those in attendance will have the opportunity to win some great prizes!
Have a chance to win:
Tickets to the 2011 Pro Bowl (4/24)
Tickets to your favorite home team game (subject to availability) (4/24)
VIP passes to this year’s NFL Kick Off in New Orleans (4/24)
VIP passes to the 2011 NFL Draft (4/24)
Exclusive meet and greet sessions with your favorite Jets and Giants players (4/24)
Announce a draft pick live from the stage (4/24)
Autographed football memorabilia (4/24)
Free Jerseys, T-shirts, hats and more (4/23-4/24)
Get ready for an experience of a life time! If you are a sports fan, this is the event for you!
For the first time in history, the NFL Draft goes primetime with Round 1 slated for 7:30 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 22. Rounds 2 and 3 will be held on Friday, April 23 beginning at 6 p.m. Rounds 4-7 will be held on Saturday, April 24 beginning at 10 a.m.
Night 2 of the Draft will feature members of the Top 10 Most Valuable Picks as well as the 2010 NFL Hall of Fame Class. The order of the Top 10 MVP's will also be announced at the conclusion of Round 2.
Day 3 will feature player autograph signings as well as cheerleader and other celebrity appearances throughout the day. It will also be the last opportunity to see the Lombardi Trophy and a collection of Super Bowl rings on display. In addition, fans in attendance will be a part of the NFL Network and ESPN live TV audiences.
A collectable pin set will be given to fans attending the Draft, with a unique pin handed out each of the three days. Held in New York City since 1965, the NFL Draft will be televised nationally by NFL Network and ESPN. This is the fifth consecutive year that the Draft will be held at Radio City Music Hall.
Just wanted to add a bit of info to what I said before. I've just been made aware of contests we're going to be running during the draft. Those in attendance will have the opportunity to win some great prizes!
Have a chance to win:
Tickets to the 2011 Pro Bowl (4/24)
Tickets to your favorite home team game (subject to availability) (4/24)
VIP passes to this year’s NFL Kick Off in New Orleans (4/24)
VIP passes to the 2011 NFL Draft (4/24)
Exclusive meet and greet sessions with your favorite Jets and Giants players (4/24)
Announce a draft pick live from the stage (4/24)
Autographed football memorabilia (4/24)
Free Jerseys, T-shirts, hats and more (4/23-4/24)
Get ready for an experience of a life time! If you are a sports fan, this is the event for you!
For the first time in history, the NFL Draft goes primetime with Round 1 slated for 7:30 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 22. Rounds 2 and 3 will be held on Friday, April 23 beginning at 6 p.m. Rounds 4-7 will be held on Saturday, April 24 beginning at 10 a.m.
Night 2 of the Draft will feature members of the Top 10 Most Valuable Picks as well as the 2010 NFL Hall of Fame Class. The order of the Top 10 MVP's will also be announced at the conclusion of Round 2.
Day 3 will feature player autograph signings as well as cheerleader and other celebrity appearances throughout the day. It will also be the last opportunity to see the Lombardi Trophy and a collection of Super Bowl rings on display. In addition, fans in attendance will be a part of the NFL Network and ESPN live TV audiences.
A collectable pin set will be given to fans attending the Draft, with a unique pin handed out each of the three days. Held in New York City since 1965, the NFL Draft will be televised nationally by NFL Network and ESPN. This is the fifth consecutive year that the Draft will be held at Radio City Music Hall.
Free tickets for NFL Draft now available!
Hey everyone;
So, as I've mentioned before, I don't make any money off this blog. To make money, I work for a company called "1iota" whose goal is to provide free tickets for fans to numerous events throughout the year. We do television shows, concerts, and over the past few years, we've partnered with the NFL to get fans to various activities. Last year, we brought thousands out for the EA Sports Madden 2010 Launch, which featured a Flag Football Pro-Am with hall-of-famers Joe Montana, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Emmit Smith, Deion Sanders, and many others.
This year, we've again partnered with the NFL to score free tickets to the NFL Draft at Radio City Music Hall in NYC. So, if you're an NFL fan as well as a college football fan, and you'd like to check out the draft in a couple weeks, be sure to head on over to 1iota.com where you can sign up for an account (Free) and request tickets for the Draft (also free).
Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on G-Day, the final position grouping in my "The Thing..." series, and a blog on why the bulldawg nation should be thankful for Joe Cox - all coming this week!
Go Dawgs!
So, as I've mentioned before, I don't make any money off this blog. To make money, I work for a company called "1iota" whose goal is to provide free tickets for fans to numerous events throughout the year. We do television shows, concerts, and over the past few years, we've partnered with the NFL to get fans to various activities. Last year, we brought thousands out for the EA Sports Madden 2010 Launch, which featured a Flag Football Pro-Am with hall-of-famers Joe Montana, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Emmit Smith, Deion Sanders, and many others.
This year, we've again partnered with the NFL to score free tickets to the NFL Draft at Radio City Music Hall in NYC. So, if you're an NFL fan as well as a college football fan, and you'd like to check out the draft in a couple weeks, be sure to head on over to 1iota.com where you can sign up for an account (Free) and request tickets for the Draft (also free).
Also, stay tuned for my thoughts on G-Day, the final position grouping in my "The Thing..." series, and a blog on why the bulldawg nation should be thankful for Joe Cox - all coming this week!
Go Dawgs!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The DEs the thing...
So, we've come down to it. Coming into the 2009 season, many fans were barking about the lack of an outside pass-rush in 2008. They said that if we had defensive ends who could collapse the pocket and threaten the quarterback, we'd have a better, more effective defense. When we think back on the years of Brian Van Gorder, names of powerful defensive ends seem to pop right into our minds. David Pollack. Quentin Moses. Charles Johnson. But as we move into the Martinez years, the "impact" defensive ends don't seem to come as easily. Marcus Howard...he was a good one. Any other names? And yes, I realize that Moses and Johnson had their best years under the first two years of Martinez...but they were BVG recruits...As was Marcus Howard, technically. Still, the logic makes sense. If we have a strong presence at defensive end, it's going to be hard to get beat to the outside on runs, we're going to get more QB pressure, we're going to have more success as a defense. And that means championships, right? Let's take a look at the data...
So, let's see....in both 2002 and 2005, UGA had 4 "productive" defensive ends and in all other years with the exception of 2008, we had 3. In 2008, we had decent production out of 5 defensive ends, but no real dominance. Now, in MY humble opinion, it makes sense that having 4 productive defensive ends would be a bit of a magic number. That's two starters, and two solid backups. Remember, this data tracks only DEs who made at least 10 tackles over the course of the season. There are other DEs who spent time "spelling" the starters, but simply didn't make a huge impact. Also remember that part of the defensive end's productivity is dictated by the playcalling of the offense. DEs aren't going to make many tackles when we're facing pass-heavy offenses (unless they're racking up sacks). Conversely, if we're facing triple-option offenses, they'll likely need to make MANY tackles for our D to be successful.
Earlier in this series, I made the assumption that over the years, the teams UGA has faced have shifted more towards spread and pass-happy offenses. Is that assumption reflected in the tackling stats of defensive ends? Perhaps.
Again, we know that the statistical method of tracking tackles changed after 2003. So, that explains the sharp drop in pure number of tackles in 2004. But, I see something that is a bit more telling. Look at 2002 and 2005...in those years, the Defensive Ends had the highest percentage of stops compared to all other years. Not surprisingly, the best performance by defensive ends came in 2002, UGA's best season under Richt. The second best was in 2005, Richt's other SEC title. But look at the 2003 season...it's the third best season, a divisional title, and also the third best performance by defensive ends. Very interesting. Then, take a look at the seasons where UGA has struggled. In 2004 and 2006, the Ends didn't make it to 14%. In 2008 and 2009, our DEs were less than 13%. The statistics clearly show why UGA fans have been clamoring for better ends. Even the 11-2 2007 season had lackluster performance by this group. Marcus Howard was fairly electric, but he didn't have much support. And of course, despite our 11-2 record, there was no division title, no SEC title, no chance at a national title.
Now, I understand that you're not going to find a David Pollack in the recruiting pool every year, or even every 4. In fact, some coaches would say if you find ONE player of that caliber in you're CAREER, you're fortunate. I'll admit, watching him play was inspirational. But that gets me thinking...Justin Houston was playing junior-high and freshman ball when Pollack was becoming a legend. Did he take notes? Houston's sophomore season was comparable to Pollack's junior year in behind-the-line action. His raw-tackle number is much lower...but again, tackles are calculated differently now. And yes, I know it was Pollack's sophomore season that was his most incredible... but I'm looking for similarities, not a duplication. Justin Houston is definitely a player to watch, as he should be giving opposing quarterbacks some serious headaches in the near future. Cornelius Washington, similarly, made some splashes as a Freshman last season. Also, though the raw numbers by the GROUP went down from 2008 to 2009, both Houston and Dobbs improved greatly on their totals from the year before.
At the very least we see a definite correlation between how well our defensive ends play, and the championships we win at UGA. It would seem that 14.5 is the magic number as far as percentage of total tackles by DEs. Also, in both title seasons, the DEs had 22 sacks. Of course, in 2009, the DEs had 16 compared to the 13 in the SECE divisional title year of 2003. So, winning isn't necessarily in the sack column. Those 16 sacks were the highest total by a DE group since 2005. That tells me again, that the future may look very nice for these players.
But, let's not forget one little detail about the future of UGA's defense - only one of the three productive DEs will be playing DE this season, Demarcus Dobbs, the senior. Washington and Houston are now playing outside linebacker. So, the face of the defense is changing. Where will our new defensive ends come from? Well, we'll certainly be recruiting them...but for now, they'll come from the other defensive line group: The big boys - the meat eaters - the guys who are the "rock" of the defense; the Defensive Tackles. How they play will be extremely important to the success of the defense in this season, and in coming seasons.
Has it been a big part of our success in the past? There's only one way to find out if possibly the Defensive Tackle is the thing...
Stick with me.
Go Dawgs!
| Year | Player | TKL | TFL | SCK | QBH | PBU | INT | FMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | Pollack | 101 | 23.5 | 14 | 33 | 7 | 2 | |
| Thompson | 58 | 8 | 6 | 15 | 1 | |||
| Geathers | 33 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 1 | |||
| Holloway | 19 | 1 | ||||||
| 2003 | Pollack | 92 | 14 | 7.5 | 28 | 8 | 2 | |
| Moses | 33 | 5 | 2.5 | 8 | ||||
| Geathers | 32 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 1 | ||
| 2004 | Pollack | 52 | 17.5 | 12.5 | 41 | 2 | 2 | |
| Moses | 23 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 16 | ||||
| Thompson | 16 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 10 | ||||
| 2005 | Moses | 44 | 20.5 | 11.5 | 38 | 2 | 2 | |
| Howard | 24 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 6 | ||||
| Johnson | 23 | 8.5 | 4 | 28 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Thompson | 23 | 10 | 5 | 24 | ||||
| 2006 | Johnson | 44 | 19 | 9.5 | 30 | 10 | 1 | |
| Moses | 33 | 12 | 4.5 | 32 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Howard | 11 | 4 | 1 | |||||
| 2007 | Howard | 41 | 12 | 10.5 | 42 | 3 | 2 | |
| Battle | 24 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Lomax | 16 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 16 | 1 | |||
| 2008 | Wynn | 24 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 1 | ||
| Lomax | 20 | 3 | 0.5 | 10 | 1 | |||
| Houston | 19 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 17 | 2 | |||
| Dobbs | 19 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Battle | 14 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 10 | 1 | |||
| 2009 | Houston | 39 | 15 | 7.5 | 18 | 1 | ||
| Dobbs | 30 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 18 | 4 | |||
| Washington | 13 | 5 | 4 | 15 |
So, let's see....in both 2002 and 2005, UGA had 4 "productive" defensive ends and in all other years with the exception of 2008, we had 3. In 2008, we had decent production out of 5 defensive ends, but no real dominance. Now, in MY humble opinion, it makes sense that having 4 productive defensive ends would be a bit of a magic number. That's two starters, and two solid backups. Remember, this data tracks only DEs who made at least 10 tackles over the course of the season. There are other DEs who spent time "spelling" the starters, but simply didn't make a huge impact. Also remember that part of the defensive end's productivity is dictated by the playcalling of the offense. DEs aren't going to make many tackles when we're facing pass-heavy offenses (unless they're racking up sacks). Conversely, if we're facing triple-option offenses, they'll likely need to make MANY tackles for our D to be successful.
Earlier in this series, I made the assumption that over the years, the teams UGA has faced have shifted more towards spread and pass-happy offenses. Is that assumption reflected in the tackling stats of defensive ends? Perhaps.
| Year | TMTKL | DETKL | %age |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 1257 | 211 | 16.8 |
| 2003 | 1103 | 157 | 14.2 |
| 2004 | 668 | 91 | 13.6 |
| 2005 | 784 | 114 | 14.5 |
| 2006 | 668 | 88 | 13.2 |
| 2007 | 787 | 81 | 10.3 |
| 2008 | 766 | 96 | 12.5 | 2009 | 804 | 82 | 10.2 |
Again, we know that the statistical method of tracking tackles changed after 2003. So, that explains the sharp drop in pure number of tackles in 2004. But, I see something that is a bit more telling. Look at 2002 and 2005...in those years, the Defensive Ends had the highest percentage of stops compared to all other years. Not surprisingly, the best performance by defensive ends came in 2002, UGA's best season under Richt. The second best was in 2005, Richt's other SEC title. But look at the 2003 season...it's the third best season, a divisional title, and also the third best performance by defensive ends. Very interesting. Then, take a look at the seasons where UGA has struggled. In 2004 and 2006, the Ends didn't make it to 14%. In 2008 and 2009, our DEs were less than 13%. The statistics clearly show why UGA fans have been clamoring for better ends. Even the 11-2 2007 season had lackluster performance by this group. Marcus Howard was fairly electric, but he didn't have much support. And of course, despite our 11-2 record, there was no division title, no SEC title, no chance at a national title.
Now, I understand that you're not going to find a David Pollack in the recruiting pool every year, or even every 4. In fact, some coaches would say if you find ONE player of that caliber in you're CAREER, you're fortunate. I'll admit, watching him play was inspirational. But that gets me thinking...Justin Houston was playing junior-high and freshman ball when Pollack was becoming a legend. Did he take notes? Houston's sophomore season was comparable to Pollack's junior year in behind-the-line action. His raw-tackle number is much lower...but again, tackles are calculated differently now. And yes, I know it was Pollack's sophomore season that was his most incredible... but I'm looking for similarities, not a duplication. Justin Houston is definitely a player to watch, as he should be giving opposing quarterbacks some serious headaches in the near future. Cornelius Washington, similarly, made some splashes as a Freshman last season. Also, though the raw numbers by the GROUP went down from 2008 to 2009, both Houston and Dobbs improved greatly on their totals from the year before.
At the very least we see a definite correlation between how well our defensive ends play, and the championships we win at UGA. It would seem that 14.5 is the magic number as far as percentage of total tackles by DEs. Also, in both title seasons, the DEs had 22 sacks. Of course, in 2009, the DEs had 16 compared to the 13 in the SECE divisional title year of 2003. So, winning isn't necessarily in the sack column. Those 16 sacks were the highest total by a DE group since 2005. That tells me again, that the future may look very nice for these players.
But, let's not forget one little detail about the future of UGA's defense - only one of the three productive DEs will be playing DE this season, Demarcus Dobbs, the senior. Washington and Houston are now playing outside linebacker. So, the face of the defense is changing. Where will our new defensive ends come from? Well, we'll certainly be recruiting them...but for now, they'll come from the other defensive line group: The big boys - the meat eaters - the guys who are the "rock" of the defense; the Defensive Tackles. How they play will be extremely important to the success of the defense in this season, and in coming seasons.
Has it been a big part of our success in the past? There's only one way to find out if possibly the Defensive Tackle is the thing...
Stick with me.
Go Dawgs!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Who wants to go to the NFL Draft?
Hey Dawgfans...if you've been itching for a reason to travel to NYC, here's one:
The NFL Draft at Radio City Music Hall. UGA has a number of players heading to the NFL this season, and a few of them figure to be drafted on days 2 and 3. Well, it just so happens that yours truly has a line on how to get tickets to the draft....FOR FREE.
Can't tell you too much...this is just a teaser. BUT, I'll have more soon!
Go Dawgs!
The NFL Draft at Radio City Music Hall. UGA has a number of players heading to the NFL this season, and a few of them figure to be drafted on days 2 and 3. Well, it just so happens that yours truly has a line on how to get tickets to the draft....FOR FREE.
Can't tell you too much...this is just a teaser. BUT, I'll have more soon!
Go Dawgs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
