Started By
Message
re: Damn hard to watch OSU this weekend
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:16 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:16 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Passer ratings of 181, 185, 217, 198, 255, and 141 is well above pedestrian.
Lol. Without even looking it up I'll say he had 130-170 passing yards in many if not most of those games (definitely under 200). That is pedestrian - certainly not so great that you don't allow a competition.
I'm not sure of the exact numbers but I know you are. You had to have seen them when you looked that up. Why leave out that info?
This post was edited on 10/26/20 at 11:19 pm
1
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:16 pm to djsdawg
quote:
To bench a high quality returning starter at QB. Thats not a move coaches make.
When did I say he should have benched Fromm?
I think I explicitly advocate for something very different than giving someone the job.
This post was edited on 10/26/20 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:20 pm to chillmonster
quote:
Lol. Without even looking it up I'll say he had 130-170 passing yards in many if not most of those games (definitely under 200). That is pedestrian - certainly not so great that you don't allow a competition.
I'm not sure of the exact numbers but I know you are. You had to have seen them when you looked that up. Why leave it that info?
Because that info isnt relevant. We are discussing how well a QB is passing, not how many yards that QB throws for. Quality, not quantity.
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:22 pm to chillmonster
quote:
When did I say he should have benched Fromm?
Smart did what Saban did with Tua. Both had similar production up until Saban finally lost all patience with Hurts in the last half of the last game. Thats how coaches usually operate.
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:23 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Because that info isnt relevant. We are discussing how well a QB is passing, not how many yards that QB throws for. Quality, not quantity.
Your saying passing yards aren't relevant when evaluating how well QB plays?
Posted on 10/26/20 at 11:43 pm to chillmonster
quote:
Your saying passing yards aren't relevant when evaluating how well QB plays?
Efficiency is the far more relevant than total yards when discussing how GOOD a player is playing.
Quantity doesnt prove a player is playing well. It appears you dont understand that.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 4:50 am to djsdawg
Yards are relevant. Stating otherwise is dishonest and you know it.
You omitted them because it is pedestrian to go 12/16 for 150 yards 1 td with zero rush yards. It's making a high rate of shorter, easier passes and not evidence of an unsupplantable starter.
Here's some perspective. You know what that stat line is? It's is a Freshman year Bo Nix line against the bad teams - minus the rushing.
You omitted them because it is pedestrian to go 12/16 for 150 yards 1 td with zero rush yards. It's making a high rate of shorter, easier passes and not evidence of an unsupplantable starter.
Here's some perspective. You know what that stat line is? It's is a Freshman year Bo Nix line against the bad teams - minus the rushing.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 5:38 am to chillmonster
Relevant in what way?
It is relevant when discussing QUANTITY.
It is irrelevant when discussing QUALITY. Passer rating is relevant when discussing QUALITY.
Using your logic, 400 yards and 3 tds on 35/60 pass attempts is better than 200 yards and 1 td on 15/20 pass attempts. Lets compare the passer ratings of these 2 guys:
400 yards = 130 passer rating
200 yards = 175 passer rating
175 is FAR better than 130 despite being 200 yards less.
Point is, Throwing the ball more often does NOT make a QB better at passing than another. It also doesnt mean passes are shorter and easier. You are continuing to jump to illogical conclusions.
All it means is that the offense passes more often. Thats it.
It is relevant when discussing QUANTITY.
It is irrelevant when discussing QUALITY. Passer rating is relevant when discussing QUALITY.
Using your logic, 400 yards and 3 tds on 35/60 pass attempts is better than 200 yards and 1 td on 15/20 pass attempts. Lets compare the passer ratings of these 2 guys:
400 yards = 130 passer rating
200 yards = 175 passer rating
175 is FAR better than 130 despite being 200 yards less.
Point is, Throwing the ball more often does NOT make a QB better at passing than another. It also doesnt mean passes are shorter and easier. You are continuing to jump to illogical conclusions.
All it means is that the offense passes more often. Thats it.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:06 am to djsdawg
3rd down passing efficiency is a huge stat. If you are getting 1st downs, you are holding the ball, wearing out the defense, and resting your defense. This has pretty much been Bamas philosophy and has been Smart’s. Get 1st downs when you need to. Wear them down. Don’t turn the ball over. That is what we are trying to do at UGA. There will not be too many games where you will be asked to sling it for 400:yards. In fact, if we do, then our defense let us down or the opposing team sold out on the run and gave up some big plays.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:24 am to Peter Buck
quote:
3rd down passing efficiency is a huge stat. If you are getting 1st downs, you are holding the ball, wearing out the defense, and resting your defense. This has pretty much been Bamas philosophy and has been Smart’s. Get 1st downs when you need to. Wear them down. Don’t turn the ball over. That is what we are trying to do at UGA. There will not be too many games where you will be asked to sling it for 400:yards. In fact, if we do, then our defense let us down or the opposing team sold out on the run and gave up some big plays.
I can't say I agree with this in modern football. 10 or even 5 years ago, yes, but the best teams right now are creating explosive plays in bunches, passing for 400+ yards in big games, and paying very little regard to resting their defense. That includes Clemson, OSU, LSU 2019, and even Saban's Alabama.
Can UGA win most of its games playing defense and conservative, ball control offense? Absolutely. I just don't think UGA can win the Playoff playing that way, and that's the goal.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:12 am to Crowknowsbest
If you get 1st downs, you are taking away the amount of explosive plays the other team can make, whilst wearing down their defense and resting your’s. It is a tried and true formula.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 11:29 am to Peter Buck
quote:
If you get 1st downs, you are taking away the amount of explosive plays the other team can make, whilst wearing down their defense and resting your’s. It is a tried and true formula.
Absolutely true. But if you can't get explosive plays and the other team does it routinely you're going to have to be perfect offensively - consistently scoring touchdowns on 12 play drives or your going to be trade 0-3 points with touchdowns and eventually fall behind.
We know what that looks like.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody thinks that having the ability to sustain drives is a bad thing, only that these days not being explosive is a recipe for not winning championships.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 11:38 am to Peter Buck
quote:
If you get 1st downs, you are taking away the amount of explosive plays the other team can make, whilst wearing down their defense and resting your’s. It is a tried and true formula
Obviously first downs are better than the alternative, but it’s ultimately very hard to score a lot of points when you’re moving the ball one first down at a time. You are going to have penalties and negative plays, that stall drives. Explosiveness buys you margin of error in that you can score in less plays (less opportunities for mistakes to happen), and you have a better chance to convert when you get stuck in 2nd and 15.
We can’t rely on scoring 40+ five yards at a time. That isn’t realistic, and we need to be able to score that much.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 12:29 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Obviously first downs are better than the alternative, but it’s ultimately very hard to score a lot of points when you’re moving the ball one first down at a time. You are going to have penalties and negative plays, that stall drives. Explosiveness buys you margin of error in that you can score in less plays (less opportunities for mistakes to happen), and you have a better chance to convert when you get stuck in 2nd and 15.
You don't think getting 1st woulda helped against Bama in the 3rd qtr? We passed 5 times on 1st down with 2 incompletions and a sack...which obviously resulted in some bad 2nd and long situations. We ended up punting twice and throwing an interception on our 3rd qtr drives.
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 10/27/20 at 12:44 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
You don't think getting 1st woulda helped against Bama in the 3rd qtr?
quote:
Obviously first downs are better than the alternative,
Posted on 10/27/20 at 12:48 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
you’re moving the ball one first down at a time. You are going to have penalties and negative plays,
So this didn't happen when we tried the opposite approach?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:03 pm to Crowknowsbest
Our explosive plays used to come on the ground. Every game, somebody would get loose out of the box and haul arse for a TD or an otherwise huge run. We haven't had those in a while.
Those little 1 yd 2 yd 3 yd 4 yd rushes are fine, as long as you are busting a few 40 yarders out a couple times a game. Otherwise you are basically getting stuffed with an average passing game. Without an elite defense, it's an 8 win team.
I agree the offense needs to get much better in multiple ways.
Those little 1 yd 2 yd 3 yd 4 yd rushes are fine, as long as you are busting a few 40 yarders out a couple times a game. Otherwise you are basically getting stuffed with an average passing game. Without an elite defense, it's an 8 win team.
I agree the offense needs to get much better in multiple ways.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:09 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
So this didn't happen when we tried the opposite approach?
Of course it happened. UGA isn’t very good offensively.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 2:29 pm to Crowknowsbest
Nothing wrong with the offense in
the 1st half.
Bigger point being is that even with our limitations at QB,we still had a shot at beating Bama without getting in a shootout...which we obviously tried to do in our 1st three possessions of the 2nd half.
the 1st half.
Bigger point being is that even with our limitations at QB,we still had a shot at beating Bama without getting in a shootout...which we obviously tried to do in our 1st three possessions of the 2nd half.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 4:00 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Of course it happened. UGA isn’t very good offensively.
UGA is fine on offense.
There just comes a point during the game when Bama will rip off 20-28 points in 4 posessions no matter how elite the defense. You just have to build a sufficient lead, keep up, or make a similar run yourself.
The coaches knew that and they tried to do what was necessary. Problem is we didn't have the horses.
Against almost every team in CFB this isn't an issue.
Page 5 of 7
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News