Big bang theory

David Hale posted a series of tweets on a statistical topic worth your time to read.


Wait a minute.  Fromm outdid Tua?  Well, not exactly.  Here’s the whole story.

Smart and Tucker sacrificed pressure up front — you know, havoc — to keep teams from beating them with big plays.  And it worked!  That was kind of a big deal.

So there’s a big question for this year’s defensive strategy:  will Smart’s new emphasis on havoc weaken Georgia’s ability to prevent the big play?  If so, what sort of impact will that have?

By the way, here’s a bonus tweet that blew me away.

Second.  Against Alabama.  In the SECCG.


Filed under Georgia Football, Stats Geek!

21 responses to “Big bang theory

  1. Got Cowdog

    This having to beat Alabama twice shit is getting old. Maybe Orgeron can pull a rabbit out of his hat. Just for some variety ….


    • We shouldn’t have had to beat them once in 2017. We were the class of the league at the end of the year, but Saban talked his way into the final 4 after not having to play in the SECCG.


      • Got Cowdog

        Yep. And don’t forget last year. We played Bama within an inch of their lives and mickey picked a one loss ND. Of course had we actually won the game we would have likely gotten a shot at ND, then Clemson. Bama would have been playing Texas. Maybe. There was a lot of Bourbon flowing around that time. I’m a little fuzzy.
        Shit. It always comes back around to “If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man.” doesn’t it?


        • I think Bama would have likely played Clemson with OU on the outside looking in. While there would have been howling at 2 SEC teams in again, I think it would have been really hard to keep Bama out.


          • Got Cowdog

            That’s right. Texas beat OU. I still think Texas is underrated.


            • MGW

              They punched above their weight last year like UF did. Looked good doing it but they’ve got a ways to go. Sure they beat Georgia but that was not a 100% Georgia either.


  2. Trbodawg

    So Bama (or someone) is doing something in addition to explosive plays to insure they win. I hope Kirby knows what that is.


  3. BhamDawg

    FYI, that last tweet is poorly worded, but I don’t think it means Georgia had a 7.44% margin against Bama in the SECCG. I think it means that Georgia had a 7.44% margin all year and it made it to the SECCG (which is why Oklahoma, Bama, and Clemson all say “playoff.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dawg93

      Correct. I read it the way the Senator did at first when I saw the tweet earlier but then realized what you did, that it was for the season and noting how far those teams advanced last year.


  4. Otto

    I am more concerned with converting 3rd and goal than getting more explosive plays.


  5. Greg

    Team with the fewest points allowed (PPG), won the MNC in ‘18.



    They key is to scoring more points than your opponent on that given day. At least I think so. Or playing D in OT in the National Title Game. That works too.

    Stats are fun.


  7. Drives with explosive plays are more likely to result in a score than those that don’t. In other news, water is really wet.


  8. Rebar

    This year will depend on the inside linebacker’s play. If we have a Roquan type who covers sideline to sideline, Kirby will be able to let the dawgs create havoc.


    • W Cobb Dawg

      Yep, I’m a bit skeptical about the proposed increase in havoc rate if it means we give up even a few more big plays. Kirby isn’t going to change a successful scheme that much.

      I think LB Walker was our only returning player in 2018 who could consistently apply pressure. Now we have multiple athletes who might be able to get pressure, like Tindall, Cox, Anderson, Dean, Smith, Johnson, etc. This D is going to be considerably deeper and more athletic than last year.


  9. Al

    David Hale is a man among boys. I miss that guy on the Georgia beat.


  10. practicaldawg

    I want to prove a point
    Find some data
    Remove data that don’t help my case. Call them outliers.
    Present data that prove the point