ACC Coaches Anonymously Talk about Conference Foes

[stech81]

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.

Debate your wife, I would not do that with my wife that would mean she would be talking.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

True, although most of our recruits were not offered byu other P5 schools to play in the scheme we are now running. That's why I think this rebuild will be more painful than we want to admit.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

For the last 5 years, per 247, we have ranked 8, 11, 9, 10, and 9th in the ACC in recruiting. (8, 13, 8, 9, 8 per Rivals) We are in the bottom half to bottom third of the ACC in recruiting and now playing the same scheme as the other schools who have, for the most part, recruited better than us.

This year so far we are 5th, and there is good reason to believe we can stay there and improve that position over the next few years.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

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.

If you look at that list by how I've defined it (materially better than us is > 0.15 stars/recruit), North Carolina is not one of them. Its Clemson, Florida State, Miami. That's it. Then there is another group of teams who usually do rate better than us, but by pretty small margin, like 0.1 to 0.15. That's Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, and Virginia...although they rotate in and out of there from year to year.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

For the last 5 years, per 247, we have ranked 8, 11, 9, 10, and 9th in the ACC in recruiting. (8, 13, 8, 9, 8 per Rivals) We are in the bottom half to bottom third of the ACC in recruiting and now playing the same scheme as the other schools who have, for the most part, recruited better than us.

This year so far we are 5th, and there is good reason to believe we can stay there and improve that position over the next few years.

My analysis is by average star rating, not in total points. If you do total points, then you're taking your classes of 20 kids and comparing them to classes of 26-28 kids. You'll invariably finish at the bottom if you look at it that way. I was comparing average star rating per class versus average star rating per class and throwing class size away.

Size does matter (huh huh), because kids get injured, kids don't pan out the way their ratings said, etc etc. But I think to just say we suck and our players' talent is at the bottom of the conference is not fair. Player by player, they are on par with a wide swath of the conference.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If you look at that list by how I've defined it (materially better than us is > 0.15 stars/recruit), North Carolina is not one of them. Its Clemson, Florida State, Miami. That's it. Then there is another group of teams who usually do rate better than us, but by pretty small margin, like 0.1 to 0.15. That's Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, and Virginia...although they rotate in and out of there from year to year.

By the way, when I say a team was 0.1 better than us, what that meant is average star rating per Rivals. In other words, our average star ranking in a class was 3.0 and another team was 3.1. At the street level, what that translates to is that in a class of 20 players (for example), if we had 20 players all 3-stars, then the other team would have 18 players rated 3-stars and 2 players rated 4-stars. Other than about 3 teams, that's been the historical difference to why another 3-4 teams out-rated us. Then there's us, then there are 5-6 teams below us.

Those ratings difference matter (2 4-star players out of 20), but its not a Clemson type of difference.

 

[stech81]

For the last 5 years, per 247, we have ranked 8, 11, 9, 10, and 9th in the ACC in recruiting. (8, 13, 8, 9, 8 per Rivals) We are in the bottom half to bottom third of the ACC in recruiting and now playing the same scheme as the other schools who have, for the most part, recruited better than us.

This year so far we are 5th, and there is good reason to believe we can stay there and improve that position over the next few years.

Recruiting is half coaching them up is the other half , I believe CGC will do well on the 1st part we will see how he does on the 2nd part. If you don't coach them up you have a team like Miami good players but still can't get over the hump.

 

[takethepoints]

My analysis is by average star rating, not in total points. If you do total points, then you're taking your classes of 20 kids and comparing them to classes of 26-28 kids. You'll invariably finish at the bottom if you look at it that way. I was comparing average star rating per class versus average star rating per class and throwing class size away.

Size does matter (huh huh), because kids get injured, kids don't pan out the way their ratings said, etc etc. But I think to just say we suck and our players' talent is at the bottom of the conference is not fair. Player by player, they are on par with a wide swath of the conference.

And you are right. I won't go into all the reasons why using anything but stars is invalid - I've covered that ground ad nauseam here - but the composite ratings are so obviously off that I've always wondered why people pay so much attention to them.

And, yes, we do have good players, as I expect the rest of the conference will see once we get a game or two under our belt. But you can't blame the opposition for not pumping us up. You never know; they may be right. I still think we win 6, but we could win 4 or 8. We'll know soon enough.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

My analysis is by average star rating, not in total points. If you do total points, then you're taking your classes of 20 kids and comparing them to classes of 26-28 kids. You'll invariably finish at the bottom if you look at it that way. I was comparing average star rating per class versus average star rating per class and throwing class size away.

Size does matter (huh huh), because kids get injured, kids don't pan out the way their ratings said, etc etc. But I think to just say we suck and our players' talent is at the bottom of the conference is not fair. Player by player, they are on par with a wide swath of the conference.

I am in no way saying that our players are not talented. I am saying that we have the wrong kind of talent on our team. Running a 4x100m race with marathoners is a guaranteed loss. Asking sprinters to run a marathon is equally foolish. Both are talented, but fit their races. Our QBs and OL were recruited to a specific system, which we no longer run. Our QBs were largely passed over by other P5 schools as QBs. Our WRs were largely passed over as well. Same with our BBs. We have talent, but ask yourself this: If CGC had been here the last 5 years, how many of our current players would honestly be on the team right now? Maybe a handful. I have no doubt they are talented, and no doubt they will give their all, and I'll be in the stands cheering for them, but that doesn't mean I can't be realistic and see that we might very easily struggle with the transition this year.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I am in no way saying that our players are not talented. I am saying that we have the wrong kind of talent on our team. Running a 4x100m race with marathoners is a guaranteed loss. Asking sprinters to run a marathon is equally foolish. Both are talented, but fit their races. Our QBs and OL were recruited to a specific system, which we no longer run. Our QBs were largely passed over by other P5 schools as QBs. Our WRs were largely passed over as well. Same with our BBs. We have talent, but ask yourself this: If CGC had been here the last 5 years, how many of our current players would honestly be on the team right now? Maybe a handful. I have no doubt they are talented, and no doubt they will give their all, and I'll be in the stands cheering for them, but that doesn't mean I can't be realistic and see that we might very easily struggle with the transition this year.

I mean, Jordan Yates and James Graham are both 4-stars. Graham had offers from 4 SEC schools, 4 ACC schools, Michigan, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma State. And our starting quarterback probably won't be either of those, but one of our lower rated QBs Lucas Johnson.

I get your point that we went after certain types of players, but its not like people were born for certain systems and that's all they can do. Bernard Lagat owns the American Master's Record in the Marathon. He also owns it in Half Marathon. He also owns it in the 10k. He also owned the American Record in the 5k, 2 Miles, 3k, and 1500m. Yes you wouldn't line him up in the 100m dash, but those types of comparisons are a bit of hyperbole. Its just running.

 

[H-Wade]

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.

Just curious, which one of our QBs had an offer to play QB from another P5 program? And who was the school? I'm guessing it's Graham but wasn't sure which school offered him to play QB.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Lamar Jackson was a 3-star QB and most of his offers weren't to play QB. IIWII.

 

[alentrekin]

Why is this true? What prevents Duke from building a football powerhouse? They spend more money than us and have shown that they can build a top tier basketball program. Why could they not also continue to spend and build a comparable football program.

While I tend to agree with you that there is a finite limit to Duke football success unless they continue to up their spending (same is true for us) it is simply hubris to assume that they cannot be successful merely because they are Duke. I'm sure uga and other factories have said the same about us.

Nothing prevents Duke from investing more in football, and I did not say they will not succeed. I said that we will pass them. They could spend more, but as you implied, Tech could spend more than planned too. AI2020 will bring more spending in the short term and even if they match or beat us, our recruiting results since CGC joined have been far better than Duke's. I am basically just drawing a line from when CGC began and looking at all of the recruiting rankings and tape, and it's not a comparison. If you don't buy the recruiting rankings, then look at the tape on the guys that CGC has signed and their size / speed. If it keeps up for the 2020 class, we will have more talent than Duke by this time next year.

FWIW, I think the comparison to the Duke basketball program is a non-starter; that program generates tons of revenue, a village in line for seats, and years of boo$ter involvement. I will not mention our basketball program..

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I mean, Jordan Yates and James Graham are both 4-stars. Graham had offers from 4 SEC schools, 4 ACC schools, Michigan, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma State. And our starting quarterback probably won't be either of those, but one of our lower rated QBs Lucas Johnson.

I get your point that we went after certain types of players, but its not like people were born for certain systems and that's all they can do. Bernard Lagat owns the American Master's Record in the Marathon. He also owns it in Half Marathon. He also owns it in the 10k. He also owned the American Record in the 5k, 2 Miles, 3k, and 1500m. Yes you wouldn't line him up in the 100m dash, but those types of comparisons are a bit of hyperbole. Its just running.

Graham was offered as an athlete by every school except us and UK, and I'm fairly certain that UK wasn't planning on him staying at QB. @H-Wade this also answers your question.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Its just running.

LOL. It's not even close. Distance runners can often do well in all the longer distance runs, but the shorter run are a completely different race altogether. I run 1/2 marathons, 10ks and 5ks, and I can still turn in a decent mile for my age, but I am not built or trained to be even close to competitive for the sprints. Completely different techniques.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Nothing prevents Duke from investing more in football, and I did not say they will not succeed. I said that we will pass them. They could spend more, but as you implied, Tech could spend more than planned too. AI2020 will bring more spending in the short term and even if they match or beat us, our recruiting results since CGC joined have been far better than Duke's. I am basically just drawing a line from when CGC began and looking at all of the recruiting rankings and tape, and it's not a comparison. If you don't buy the recruiting rankings, then look at the tape on the guys that CGC has signed and their size / speed. If it keeps up for the 2020 class, we will have more talent than Duke by this time next year.

FWIW, I think the comparison to the Duke basketball program is a non-starter; that program generates tons of revenue, a village in line for seats, and years of boo$ter involvement. I will not mention our basketball program..

I was responding more to your statement "They are peaking with resources allocated." I don't know that they are, and I am not sure we are in a position to assume that Duke is topped out in football.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

We will have better players than them by next year. They are peaking with resources allocated. We will only improve. In three years, We will be on par with Miami for talent and within range of the dwags.

Baby steps man, baby steps. Eyes on the prize. Deal with Duke, Pitt, UNC and UVA first, then Miami and Virginia Tech and finally UGA and Clemson. Three years or so sounds about right. Change the culture, improve strength and conditioning, improve player development and begin to target players that not long ago would have been written off as factory bound. At the same time, target every high school in the 404 and recruit the heck out of metro Atlanta. The other stuff will take care of itself.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

While that may be true, it still doesn't prohibit Duke from building a legitimate football program. They currently spend more than us. We have to rectify that.

Duke has done a good job with the resources available to them. Coach Cut's success has more than one athletic director kicking himself for not hiring him years ago. I find it interesting that more often than not, their success is tied up with the level of quarterback play. Similar to us, they require superlative quarterbacks who can make things happen and make players around them better. When they and us, get that we can be a tough out for anyone in either the ACC or SEC. In other words, game manager types need not apply.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

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.

Good observations although it was not long ago that Virginia Tech and UNC were hauling in exceptionally good recruiting classes but those days may be over for the present. The rest of them we can pretty much stand toe to toe with and it will not be long before all of them except maybe Miami and Clemson will be eating our dust in recruiting. Duke, Wake Forest, UNC, UVA, and Virginia Tech are going to find the metro Atlanta happy hunting grounds a thing of the past but they will be welcome to any leftovers we may wish to let them have.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

LOL. It's not even close. Distance runners can often do well in all the longer distance runs, but the shorter run are a completely different race altogether. I run 1/2 marathons, 10ks and 5ks, and I can still turn in a decent mile for my age, but I am not built or trained to be even close to competitive for the sprints. Completely different techniques.

That’s what I just said, and I explained why that’s hyperbole.