Third and Wrong: Why Fans Should Maintain Perspective Regarding the Georgia Bulldogs' Third-Down Conversion Rate Under Todd Grantham
by T Kyle King on Oct 25, 2010 12:30 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintQuinton McDawg expressed what all of us were thinking when he wrote:
A bigger problem Saturday night was the way our third down defense allowed all those conversions. Generally, the defense performed well on first and second downs. That set up several third and longs, the goal of every defensive coordinator. We just couldn't take advantage of those third and longs. UK converted nine third downs. All but one were third and more than five yards to go. Three were third and really long (10, 12, and 15). We just can't keep that up. So, either our coverage skills have to improve or we have to get better pressure on third downs.
That’s a fair criticism (although it’s one of the few fair criticisms of Todd Grantham’s defense), but one point bears making: Kentucky converted nine of 15 third downs on Saturday night, yet the Wildcats converted four of five third downs on their second drive, which ended in a field goal.
Following a drive that was a win for the Bulldogs because it produced three points for the home team instead of seven, Kentucky converted five of ten third downs the rest of the way. Obviously, that’s a better conversion rate than we want the Red and Black to allow, but do you know how Georgia did on third down on Saturday night?
The Bulldogs converted five of ten third downs in Lexington, matching exactly the Wildcats’ performance after their first-quarter field goal drive.
After taking a 14-3 lead on the road against a conference opponent with a penchant for second-half comebacks, Georgia answered blow for blow with an explosive offense, even though Kentucky relied primarily on the pass and the Bulldogs concentrated mostly on the run.
It was far from perfect, but it was strategically sound, it was plenty good enough, and it is getting better.
A couple of years from now, we’re going to look back on that Colorado game the way Alabama fans look back on that Louisiana-Monroe game. Coach Grantham may be well on his way to staking out a position as Georgia’s finest non-bald defensive coordinator.
Go ‘Dawgs!
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kyle, I love it...but are you in danger of being labelled a...DAWGOPTIMIST?
If you're gonna do it, go ugly early.
Does he practice Dawgtometry?
Wait…or is that he is an Dawgthamologist? I get those two confused all the time.
Run Lindsay Run!
I'd have to go with Dawgthamologist...just has a better ring to it! lol
If you're gonna do it, go ugly early.
Isn't the defense supposed to create 3rd-and-longs?
Pardon me for accentuating the positive.
by NRBQ on Oct 25, 2010 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
31 Points???
I still can’t completely wrap my head around how Kentucky hung 31 points on us despite turning the ball over four times. I don’t think it was completely due to defensive shortcomings, however.
I’d love to see the time of possession statistics breakdown on this game. It seemed like all of Georgia’s scoring drives were lightning quick—which leaves our defense on the field longer, thus giving the wildcats more opportunities to score and tiring out our defense, thus making it easier for the Wildcats to score.
That’s about the only explanation I can come up with to explain it other than, “our defense just screwed the pooch”.
My God, he's a freshman!
by Afghan Dawg on Oct 25, 2010 1:10 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Georgia 11:51, Kentucky 18:09
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 25, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
HOLY CRAP!
What happened to the other 30 minutes of the game?!?!?! (I kid, I kid)
I get what you’re saying. And yes, technically they would have had the same number of opportunities. But if the time of possession is significantly weighted in Kentucky’s favor, then I could see our defense being significantly more worn down as the game progressed, thus making it easier for Kentucky to score on its possessions.
And like I said, that is the only was I can possibly justify seeing them hang 31 points on us, while giving up four turnovers—other than “Our Defense just screwed the pooch”. The thing is, maybe our defense really did just screw the pooch.
My God, he's a freshman!
Not really.
Kentucky was pretty fired up for that game after the win against SC. We allowed them to score the same number of points that SC did, but won; and we allowed them to score fewer points than Auburn did. We’re not perfect by any stretch, but Kentucky’s offense happens to be pretty good this year.
Whoops! Sorry...
Dawgs 27:55 , Kats 32:05
Funny, when I was watching it, I was thinking, “boy this game is going by fast!”
:)
…and yes, although the time of possession explains why the D might have given up more points in the 2nd half, nobody can get the D off the field but the D, y’know?
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 25, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
For what it's worth, . . .
. . . we also faced the SEC’s leading passer on Saturday night, so there’s that.
Yeah, we helped him get those statistics, but a guy doesn’t lead the league in passing yardage unless he’s done pretty well against a lot of pretty good defenses.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yeah, I don't think it was terrible.
And I like where we’re headed, I really do, and think Kentuckya’s a good football team…I was lobbying for them in your poll just a few days ago…just saying 31 points allowed isn’t a great day for the defense, ever – no matter who you’re playing.
But as Crake said somewhere earlier,
“they came up big when it mattered, and not at all when it didn’t, and I can live with that…”
that about sums up Saturday’s defensive performance in a nutshell, huh?
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 25, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions
What really impressed me when watching the animated drive chart . . .
. . . was how similar this Kentucky game was to Georgia’s loss to Alabama two years ago. In each case, the winning team built up a commanding lead in the first half and was more interested in running clock than in keeping points off the scoreboard in the second half. When the Bulldogs, like the Tide two years earlier, needed to drive the length of the field to score points and maintain their double-digit lead, they did. The defense didn’t get a lot of second-half stops, but they didn’t need to get a lot of them, either. The Crimson Tide gave up 30 second-half points to Georgia that night, but that was a testament to the visitors’ first-half success, not to any inherent weakness in Alabama’s 2008 defense. So it was with Georgia on Saturday night.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 25, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
You'll have to help me here...
in each case, the winning team built up a commanding lead in the first half and was more interested in running clock than in keeping points off the scoreboard in the second half.
I can understand how in very rare situations these two goals (running clock vs. keeping points off the scoreboard) might be at odds, but for the most part, isn’t it always counter-productive to let the other team score?
I get that sometimes you’d happily trade five or ten minutes of clock for a touchdown, but when is that a choice? I don’t understand the circumstances where you would not be able to accomplish any kind of clock management better by stopping their defense at every turn and then controlling the clock with your own offense.
Again, I can understand going into a prevent defense of sorts that guards against the big play and therefore somewhat gives the opponent more room to make first downs, and so strategically gives up the short field and slow scores and protects against the lightning strikes needed to come back from a large deficit…but I’m not entirely sure that
The Crimson Tide gave up 30 second-half points to Georgia that night, but that was a testament to the visitors’ first-half success, not to any inherent weakness in Alabama’s 2008 defense. So it was with Georgia on Saturday night.
isn’t a little bit hopeful…I mean, the object is to stop the other guy from coming back at all. This bit of strategery is a little lost on me, but I’m open to understanding what you mean.
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 26, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
My point is that Alabama gave up 30 second-half points to us . . .
. . . and they still kicked the crap out of us, and they still had a great defense.
Obviously, you’d always rather prevent the other team from scoring than let them score, but the goal of the game is to win the game. Georgia did what was necessary to do that.
Kentucky had five drives in the second half. The first ended in an interception. The second ended in a touchdown but took five minutes off of the clock, essentially exhausting what remained of the third quarter. The third (following a Georgia TD) ended in a touchdown but took three minutes, taking the game clock under eleven minutes. The fourth (following an eight-minute Georgia drive ending in a field goal) ended in a touchdown but took 77 seconds when the game clock was under three minutes when Kentucky took possession. The fifth ended when the Wildcats turned the ball over on downs.
The Bulldogs held an 18-point lead when the second half started and a 13-point lead when the second half ended. Georgia scored when necessary to maintain a double-digit lead and forced Kentucky to use up valuable time to narrow the gap without ever allowing the Wildcats to get within striking distance.
The outcome was never in doubt. Kentucky’s second-half points against Georgia were purely as cosmetic as Georgia’s second-half points against Alabama two years before. When your “comeback” requires you to recover multiple onside kicks and score multiple two-point conversions, it wasn’t close.
Go 'Dawgs!
This
Gone are the days when UK will be a Hutson Mason game by the fourth quarter.
by first and thom on Oct 26, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I hesitate to beat this horse, dead as he is...and yet...must...beat...horse...
I’m not arguing any of your points (GA dominated, AL dominated, Georgia’s ability to score, etc) save that I disagree that any points scored are cosmetic, or that the defense is somehow less responsible for points scored on it if the offense is dominating. The only exception I can think of might be if you take out your starters to keep them healthy.
While it may not change the outcome of the game, this seems beside the point, at least as far as we’ve gotten here. I just think when your opponent scores points on you, those points count fair and square, whether it’s a blowout or a squeaker, and your defense has to (can’t believe I’m using this annoying term) “own” them – every one of them.
I think there’s even an argument that when your opponent is having to do high-risk stuff like hail marys and onside kicks, it should be easier to prevent scores, as those plays have a lower probability of working, and are only done b/c of clock desperation, else they would be done in the first quarter, right?
’preciate your analysis as usual, Professor King…
I have to give any offense credit for any points it scores in any situation, onside kicks, two-point conversions, late-in-the-game hail marys, etc. Those events are all within the context of the game, and although the
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 26, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoops. Where's the edit button for the end of that?
I yam posting-challenged, apparently.
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 26, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not saying they don't count; clearly, they do.
I’m just saying they occur in a context.
I’m not the least bit pleased that the Wildcats scored so many points in the second half. I’m just not that worried about surrendering what amount to garbage time points to the most prolific passer in the conference at night on the road after the game essentially was in the bag.
Also, I would argue that unconventional stuff like onside kicks and two-point conversions are harder to defend because they occur so infrequently. It’s why it’s harder to prepare for an offensive scheme you see once a year than for an offensive scheme you see every other week.
At this point, we’re probably just arguing semantics, so I’ll let it go, but my basic point was that, while the defense still has flaws, it’s made great progress, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that last Saturday’s game was nowhere near as close as the final score indicated.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm with you - 31 was maybe a touchdown too much for this to have been a successful day for the D
I thought it was a decent game by the D, but if you give up a TD for every turnover you cause…well, let’s just say I like CTG already, but this effort was a mixed bag.
thus giving the wildcats more opportunities to score and tiring out our defense, thus making it easier for the Wildcats to score.
A-Dawg – I am not entirely sure about the first part of this – “giving the wildcats more opportunities”
The number of opportunities for the Wildcats to have the ball doesn’t change the success percentage on 3rd downs, just possibly the number of 3rd downs….HOWEVER – failure to make a stop on a 3rd down generally leads to another 3rd down, which again puts the responsibility for the number of 3rd downs by the opponent squarely on the D.
And I’d say that no matter how fast the offense scores, generally speaking, the D is responsible for how long the D is on the field and how tired they get by being on the field…particularly if you consider that their success in causing turnovers got them off the field “prematurely”.
Is my logic right, there?
by Actual Box of Cornflakes on Oct 25, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Kyle, it just hit me!
A request for all of Dawg Nation Sports! McSlugger has been our go-to guy…Vineyarddawg did a great homage to him this past Saturday. He’s needed for this Saturday! I request a period for him to comment first on the open game thread…if he’s unable to post first, one of the hallowed DS leaders must post first in his respect. This trend must not be broken!
If you're gonna do it, go ugly early.
FTG?
Why would you say that? It’s only Todd Grantham’s first year. I say STG. Support Todd Grantham.
My God, he's a freshman!
by Afghan Dawg on Oct 25, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
same bat time, same bat channel
I mentioned in the first half of the game that CTG calls were almost flawless in terms of packages. I think that was still mostly true in the second half. What am I saying? I am saying the defensive schemes are great. Kyle has pointed out that minus the one drive, the 3rd down conversion rate was not as bad as it may have felt. The real problem was UK was able to go over the top repeatedly on deep roots. There is simply no way CSL is teaching the DBs to let the receivers blow by them and play chase. If you watch many of those passes, we had a CB and Safety there, just in chase. So the D was right – we just are hurting at the position for talent. The other problem was UK had a very nice pocket on those passes. You take an outstanding deep passer and give him a perfect horseshoe over and over, he is going to hurt you. Here, I may find a little more fault with CTG’s play calling. We seemed to almost always rush 4 against 5, and I even noticed that we had a LB stand and wait for a draw or something, not attacking, which gave them 3 on 5 basically. Too much time, too much protection on most of those deep passes. Now, in CTG’s defense (ha), he seemed to know the deep pass was coming and tried to get the world back in coverage to help. It seems he knows as well as anyone we just arent that good at the corners.
What this means to me in the Cocktail Party is we need to GATA on Brantley big time. It would be good if his buttocks hits the grass early and often and with body blows that make him feel not so good. We must bring pressure in my opinion.
CTG is in a bind – he can’t trust his man to man coverage because of talent which alters the blitz packages, and he can’t get into a soft zone and allow time for the QB. It’s that simple a problem, yet a problem that is difficult to resolve. I think another year of good coaching and recruiting will continue to help, and moving players around for match ups is brilliant, but he can’t undo the defiencies in position play in the backfield instantly. Furthermore, and I keep saying this, CSL is most certaintly not happy one bit about how badly our DBs get ate up on fakes, fly patterns and wheel routes. He is a great coach capable of molding the clay into something useful, but it still takes time if you start with clay hard as a rock.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Oct 25, 2010 5:59 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Well said.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
At the risk of sounding like...
a Falcons Cubs fan, I just have to say I can’t wait till next year! Reference:
He is a great coach capable of molding the clay into something useful, but it still takes time if you start with clay hard as a rock.
If you're gonna do it, go ugly early.
thanks all
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I see your point, T Kyle, but the methodology troubles me
(In fairness, you didn’t say it was).
I don’t like the statistical approach that says “if you just take away this right here, you’ll see [something better].” It is difficult to draw sound conclusions once you start taking things away. For example: if we take away that second drive, then UK’s efficiency on 1st and 2nd down increases a good bit. They didn’t convert 3rd downs because they were scoring by 2nd. Or coverting on 4th.
I think football is a profoundly interconnected game. What happens at one point affects lots of the other points in the game. (Except when it doesn’t.) We subtract or subdivide at our peril.
Remember Rambo’s lapse in coverage against ULL? We thought it was an aberration – but it was an omen. I wanted to say to myself “take away that play and we pitched a shutout.” Taking away that play has proved more difficult than an act of editing.
I guess what I am saying is that I agree with your conclusion, just not the premises that got you there. Let’s look at the effort as a whole (through the apt lens of UGA-UA 2008) and evaluate it on its merits. The D did enough at the right times in the context of the game to win.
by first and thom on Oct 25, 2010 11:19 PM EDT reply actions
I agree, and I definitely think what happened in the first half influenced the second half.
If it had been a tight ballgame at the break, I believe we’d have taken a very different approach in the second half.
Don’t get me wrong . . . our secondary still needs a lot of work, but improvements elsewhere ultimately will produce improvements there, and Kentucky’s passing attack is legitimate (certainly much more so than Florida’s or Georgia Tech’s).
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 25, 2010 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Right on.
Let’s hope they were practicing “getting a huge lead and then letting the other team kinda back in the game just enough so that when you score again it will hurt even worse.” I hear it’s hard to simulate that precise situation in practice.
by first and thom on Oct 26, 2010 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
