ACC Coaches Anonymously Talk about Conference Foes

[Deleted member 2897]

This. The people interviewed make their living coaching football. CPJ and his scheme often made a mockery of preseason predictions, mainly because there was no reliable way for non-TO coaches to predict how guys they passed over would fare in CPJs scheme. This year, they are looking at (mostly) guys they passed over and judging how they will do in schemes they are more familiar with. We might well surprise everyone and win 6 games, but the likelihood we only win 3-5 is pretty high.

I don't think that's a fair statement.

In 2019, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Duke, Louisville, Boston College, Syracuse, and Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia, NC State, and Miami.
In 2018, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Duke, Pittsburgh, NC State, Louisville, and North Carolina.
In 2017, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Louisville, Duke, NC State, Virginia, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Syracuse. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, and North Carolina.
In 2016, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia and Boston College. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Louisville, Wake Forest, Syracuse, NC State, and Virginia Tech.

The point is, our average player is about equal to the average player in the ACC in terms of talent/recruit rankings. And by team, there are only about 5 teams in the conference whose teams are full of players who could be viewed as materially better.

You could say our players are passed over by Clemson or Georgia or Alabama. But our peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh - no way.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Wait, I thought we sucked at recruiting?

 

[Oakland]

One thing to consider, these ACC coaches are probably not head football coaches supplying these quotes. I suspect assistant coaches, football operational personnel or even GAs. I'm not trying to minimize the article or the quotes, but I just don't see most head football coaches supplying information like this especially if there is a possibility of a leak.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Other than the fact we've had 1 single sub-0.500 season in ACC play in the last 25 years. That includes 4 different head coaches, and I can't remember how many different defensive coaches and schemes and offensive coaches and schemes. These same idiots said the same thing when CPJ was hired - how do we run an option offense with a bunch of players recruited into a different scheme?

I mean yes, we might win 3-4 games this year and that's it. But we might also win 9-10. Based on past history, our odds of winning 9-10 are probably even higher than only winning 3-4. Yet nobody ever gives us that benefit of the doubt. Ever.

Prior to CPJ, the ACC was a very different place. The G5 schools hadn't really begun sinking money hand over fist into football like they do now. The landscape of college football then was very different. I don't recall many of the teams prior to CPJ ever being predicted to finish last in the ACC, but then back then Duke still sucked, we played WFU every year, and VT and Pitt weren't in the conference. College football today is a different game, and predicting a single seasons success only on the basis of past season records is honestly indefensible. The records put forth by coaches 10-25 years ago has absolutely no bearing on the record that will be produced this season. None. We can stomp our feet and pout all we want, but we're going to have to beat teams running the same schemes we are with better talent. THAT'S why we're predicted to finish last in the Coastal. It's been universally acknowledged, even by CPJ supporters like myself, that offensive recruiting under CPJ led to some of the lowest ranked classes in the ACC. Prevailing wisdom, which was usually proven to be true, was that the scheme didn't need highly ranked offensive recruits to succeed. Now that scheme is gone and replaced with a scheme similar to what everyone else is running. Yet we will be running it with recruits who, for the most part, were recruited solely for the TO and were largely passed over by other P5 schools. Only one of our QBs had a P5 offer at QB, (Not including Yates, who although he had no P5 offers other than GT, is a 4* QB) and QB is the one position required to be solid for any offense. It's very possible, and even likely, that we only win 3-4 games this year. It's also possible, but less likely, that we win 6. Everyone knew this would be a rebuilding year. I'm not certain why we're acting so shocked that coaches who do this for a living are recognizing it as well.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

One thing to consider, these ACC coaches are probably not head football coaches supplying these quotes. I suspect assistant coaches, football operational personnel or even GAs. I'm not trying to minimize the article or the quotes, but I just don't see most head football coaches supplying information like this especially if there is a possibility of a leak.

Cutcliffe would and does regularly.

 

[85Escape]

If you all don't think that those anonymous quotes were not made with an eye to affect recruiting, then I've got some land in Lousiana that I think you'd like to buy.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You could say our players are passed over by Clemson or Georgia or Alabama. But our peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh - no way.

Show me the P5 offers for our ABs, BBs, WR, and OL. Very few had offers from P5 schools. Our 4* defensive recruits, and guys like Graham who was a 4* athlete where we were his only QB offer raise the ratings.

 

[Oakland]

Cutcliffe would and does regularly.

I think Athlon's headquarters is or was in Nashville. Maybe while he was an assistant at UT he made connections. Who knows.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Prior to CPJ, the ACC was a very different place. The G5 schools hadn't really begun sinking money hand over fist into football like they do now. The landscape of college football then was very different. I don't recall many of the teams prior to CPJ ever being predicted to finish last in the ACC, but then back then Duke still sucked, we played WFU every year, and VT and Pitt weren't in the conference. College football today is a different game, and predicting a single seasons success only on the basis of past season records is honestly indefensible. The records put forth by coaches 10-25 years ago has absolutely no bearing on the record that will be produced this season. None. We can stomp our feet and pout all we want, but we're going to have to beat teams running the same schemes we are with better talent. THAT'S why we're predicted to finish last in the Coastal. It's been universally acknowledged, even by CPJ supporters like myself, that offensive recruiting under CPJ led to some of the lowest ranked classes in the ACC. Prevailing wisdom, which was usually proven to be true, was that the scheme didn't need highly ranked offensive recruits to succeed. Now that scheme is gone and replaced with a scheme similar to what everyone else is running. Yet we will be running it with recruits who, for the most part, were recruited solely for the TO and were largely passed over by other P5 schools. Only one of our QBs had a P5 offer at QB, (Not including Yates, who although he had no P5 offers other than GT, is a 4* QB) and QB is the one position required to be solid for any offense. It's very possible, and even likely, that we only win 3-4 games this year. It's also possible, but less likely, that we win 6. Everyone knew this would be a rebuilding year. I'm not certain why we're acting so shocked that coaches who do this for a living are recognizing it as well.

With all due respect, I think you're oversimplifying.

Yes, college football was undeniably different several years ago, and was undeniably different several years before that, and so on. But it was undeniably different for everyone. Every team had the option to raise money and focus on recruits and facilities 5 years ago. It wasn't like we were shut out unfairly. The point is we've changed coaches and systems tons of times, yet didn't even have a losing record, much less a really bad losing record.

This year we play Clemson, Georgia, and NC State. That's our main competition who won 8+ games in the regular season last year. That leaves 9 other opponents who either didn't win 8 games, or they're in lower conferences (or both) like the Citadel, South Florida, and Temple (nobody in the Coastal won 8 games in the regular season). So that's the other side of this. Yes, we could go 3-9 and lose to a bunch of bad teams. But the odds aren't in favor of that.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

With all due respect, I think you're oversimplifying.

Yes, college football was undeniably different several years ago, and was undeniably different several years before that, and so on. But it was undeniably different for everyone. Every team had the option to raise money and focus on recruits and facilities 5 years ago. It wasn't like we were shut out unfairly. The point is we've changed coaches and systems tons of times, yet didn't even have a losing record, much less a really bad losing record.

This year we play Clemson, Georgia, and NC State. That's our main competition who won 8+ games in the regular season last year. That leaves 9 other opponents who either didn't win 8 games, or they're in lower conferences (or both) like the Citadel, South Florida, and Temple (nobody in the Coastal won 8 games in the regular season). So that's the other side of this. Yes, we could go 3-9 and lose to a bunch of bad teams. But the odds aren't in favor of that.

The odds, as I see them, are thus:

CU, NCSU, UVA and uga are losses.
Duke, Pitt, Miami are highly probable losses.

All those teams with the exception of maybe Pitt have out-recruited us routinely over the past several years and are arguably in better shape than we are ATM.

That's 7 losses.

If I grant The Citadel, USF, and Temple as wins, we are at 3-7. I am not certain the USF game shouldn't be rated as a toss-up, but we do have more talent than them, so I will concede the win for now.

That leaves UNC and VT.

UNC has recruited better than us routinely, and is currently ahead of us this year. They have more talent on their team, and their offensive talent came out of HS much more well regarded than ours. Their coach is old, and has been out of the game for a few years, but he does have a NC to his name at the FBS level. I'm not certain they will continue to be bad. We do however, play them at home, so I think all else equal, we can get a win in that game. That makes us 4-7.

Here's the kicker. I don't think we beat VT this year. Last year VT suffered an inordinate amount of injuries and bad luck. There is still a lot of talent on that team. I don't think they will win the Coastal this year, but I can see them winning 7-8 games. I do think, however, that after losing to us 3 years in a row they will have us penciled on the calendar.

That brings us to 4-8. That's what I have been projecting as probable. Can we surprise a team or two? Absolutely. I think we could very easily surprise a Duke or Pitt who look past us to the next game. It's possible Miami and NCSU tank and we beat them. It's also equally possible that USF and Temple beat us.

There is a big difference, however, in what id possible and what is likely. IMO, based on the schedule, and the talent we have in a new scheme, I am projecting that we go 4-8. I think if all fell into our favor, we could go 7-5. Conversely, a couple of bad breaks could tumble us to 1-11. Both of those scenarios I consider possible, but not likely. I see 4-5 wins and an improved team by the end of the season. I think we'll give a lot of teams first half scares before our lack of depth hurts us. If we can continue to recruit and survive the next two seasons, I see 2021 as the year GT football begins to make headway in the W-L dept.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The point is we've changed coaches and systems tons of times, yet didn't even have a losing record, much less a really bad losing record.

IMO, this is the oversimplification. There's scheme change, and then theirs offensive philosophy change. CPJ spoiled us. He managed to make the transition seamlessly when everyone expected a rebuild. He was also gifted one of the best recruiting classes GT has ever had to do it with. He was also a proven FBS coach who knew how to maximize the talent he had.

What we are going through now is not only a scheme change, it's an entire offensive philosophy change. We simply do not have all the right pieces to run the new scheme the way it's intended, and therefore will be somewhat limited in what we can do.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The odds, as I see them, are thus:

CU, NCSU, UVA and uga are losses.
Duke, Pitt, Miami are highly probable losses.

All those teams with the exception of maybe Pitt have out-recruited us routinely over the past several years and are arguably in better shape than we are ATM.

Please see the analysis I did up above. According to Rivals, UVA, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, South Florida, Temple, the Citadel, and Pitt have not outrecruited us during the time of our current rosters. That's 8 of our games. Even if they were all complete tossups, that's 5 wins (4 + Citadel). Even Virginia Tech didn't the last 2 years. And even though Miami always does, they are always a dumpster fire on the field, so I wouldn't rule that one out.

I'd say Clemson and Georgia are 98% losses. There are some others that are probable losses because they are decent and/or on the road. But 5-7 wins to me and 4-4 in the ACC seems to be in the range of what we should expect. We were picked something like 11th in the ACC in the pre-season last year and finished in 5th. This kind of crap happens to us every year.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

IMO, this is the oversimplification. There's scheme change, and then theirs offensive philosophy change. CPJ spoiled us. He managed to make the transition seamlessly when everyone expected a rebuild. He was also gifted one of the best recruiting classes GT has ever had to do it with. He was also a proven FBS coach who knew how to maximize the talent he had.

What we are going through now is not only a scheme change, it's an entire offensive philosophy change. We simply do not have all the right pieces to run the new scheme the way it's intended, and therefore will be somewhat limited in what we can do.

If you don't think learning CPJs playbook and blocking schemes is a challenge (again, with all due respect), I think you're understating how difficult that transition was. We had guys who had 2-3 years of a playbook in their head they had to erase and start all over with. And I mean it when I say with all due respect, I'm not just typing it. You are making valid points and I'm not trying to gloss over them or throw them out. I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

If you don't think learning CPJs playbook and blocking schemes is a challenge (again, with all due respect), I think you're understating how difficult that transition was. We had guys who had 2-3 years of a playbook in their head they had to erase and start all over with. And I mean it when I say with all due respect, I'm not just typing it. You are making valid points and I'm not trying to gloss over them or throw them out. I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate.

I agree with what you are saying, but CPJ was coaching OL athletes who were ranked much higher out of HS than the ones CGC is inheriting. It goes beyond the OL though. Our WRs, RBs, and QBs for the most part are not on par with the ones CPJ inherited and are not all good fits for the current system.

My biggest issue is using "it's never happened before" as a defense. That, to me, is what is indefensible.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I agree with what you are saying, but CPJ was coaching OL athletes who were ranked much higher out of HS than the ones CGC is inheriting. It goes beyond the OL though. Our WRs, RBs, and QBs for the most part are not on par with the ones CPJ inherited and are not all good fits for the current system.

My biggest issue is using "it's never happened before" as a defense. That, to me, is what is indefensible.

I try to debate my wife all the time with non sequiturs and by tricking her through changing the subject slightly and waving my arms wildly, and she never falls for it either.

 

[knoxjacket]

If you all don't think that those anonymous quotes were not made with an eye to affect recruiting, then I've got some land in Lousiana that I think you'd like to buy.

Weird recruiting angle for an opponent to take hyping up our potential...

 

[smathis30]

Please see the analysis I did up above. According to Rivals, UVA, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, South Florida, Temple, the Citadel, and Pitt have not outrecruited us during the time of our current rosters. That's 8 of our games. Even if they were all complete tossups, that's 5 wins (4 + Citadel). Even Virginia Tech didn't the last 2 years. And even though Miami always does, they are always a dumpster fire on the field, so I wouldn't rule that one out.

I'd say Clemson and Georgia are 98% losses. There are some others that are probable losses because they are decent and/or on the road. But 5-7 wins to me and 4-4 in the ACC seems to be in the range of what we should expect. We were picked something like 11th in the ACC in the pre-season last year and finished in 5th. This kind of crap happens to us every year.

To be fair though an overtime win was the only thing separating that from happening. Since the expansion to 7 teams, 5 teams in the coastal have finished with a conference record within 1 game of .500, or in other words, 3-5 to 5-3. Best team was 7-1, worst team averaged 2-6.
One game literally can seperate you from 2nd overall to 2nd from last like tie breakers did in 2016 for Georgia tech.
Looking at it like that, picking the coastal is simply choosing the two teams not in the middle, and GT is the easiest pick for that on the bottom

 

[RickStromFan]

I'm with Bwelbo: Outside of Clemson and the mutts, I don't think we're that much worse (if at all) than ANY other team we play this season. We'll see how great Duke is with a brand-new QB. Pitt is never a team to fear, Miami is hot ,new-coached garbage (though being at Miami doesn't help us), so is UNC, VT was monkey crap last year and we get 'em at home. UVA and NC State are probably better than we are on paper but hell's bells - we beat UVA last year. The rest are cupcakes.

I can see anywhere from 4 to 8 wins and am predicting 7.

 

[GTRX7]

I don't think that's a fair statement.

In 2019, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Duke, Louisville, Boston College, Syracuse, and Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia, NC State, and Miami.
In 2018, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Duke, Pittsburgh, NC State, Louisville, and North Carolina.
In 2017, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Louisville, Duke, NC State, Virginia, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Syracuse. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, and North Carolina.
In 2016, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia and Boston College. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Louisville, Wake Forest, Syracuse, NC State, and Virginia Tech.

The point is, our average player is about equal to the average player in the ACC in terms of talent/recruit rankings. And by team, there are only about 5 teams in the conference whose teams are full of players who could be viewed as materially better.

You could say our players are passed over by Clemson or Georgia or Alabama. But our peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh - no way.

I would also add that the vast majority of those recruits played the exact same schemes in HS as the recruits of every other school, so it is not like our guys have to learn completely foreign football schemes they have never seen before.

 

[iceeater1969]

I don't think that's a fair statement.

In 2019, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Duke, Louisville, Boston College, Syracuse, and Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia, NC State, and Miami.
In 2018, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Duke, Pittsburgh, NC State, Louisville, and North Carolina.
In 2017, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Louisville, Duke, NC State, Virginia, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Syracuse. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, and North Carolina.
In 2016, our average rating in our recruiting class was AHEAD of Virginia and Boston College. We were tied or within 0.15 average star of Louisville, Wake Forest, Syracuse, NC State, and Virginia Tech.

The point is, our average player is about equal to the average player in the ACC in terms of talent/recruit rankings. And by team, there are only about 5 teams in the conference whose teams are full of players who could be viewed as materially better.

You could say our players are passed over by Clemson or Georgia or Alabama. But our peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh - no way.

Just to be clear, who are thect acc teams " full of players that could be viewed as materially better" than ours. ??
I suspect: Clem, fsu, miami, vt, unc?
Lets aim for recruiting to soon be consistently in range of vt and unc.

In list above he gap between the top three and next 2 is wide. Next i hope we can pass vt and unc and be near miami.