ACC Position Rankings

[LibertyTurns]

I have "heard" or "read" somewhere that a high school coach was at a practice when they were practicing that play and that is where the "leak' occurred. I do not know if that is true or not but sounds plausible. One thing is for sure, Searcy as a former high school quarterback and defensive back sized up the situation in a split second and made a play that very few players on either team could have made.

Maybe he had the ideal combination of lack of excessive upper body muscle and significant lower body strength allowing him to cut back like a wildman? A big, muscular top heavy back would have ended up running right into the other defender on the outside and got tackled losing the game.

 

[85Escape]

Keep in mind with stats that some teams are going to fluctuate a deviation above or below. Hale picked Syracuse near the bottom last year, and they played great.
That doesn’t mean that Hale is stupid. That means there are 14 teams, and even with the stats from last year, some are going to perform worse than expected and some are going to perform better. It would be surprising if everyone fell where they were slotted here.

Sure. No argument here on that, and that's my point. Pretty much this system is accurate except where it isn't...which is to be expected and perfectly okay 'cause it was accurate where it was, right?

Is this system provably any better than just 'eyeballing' it? I think it is unlikely that all this math significantly improves upon just plain guessing based on what we see. So why bother and why try to make the guess seem more scientific when it's just justified guessing? To sell stuff, I'm thinking...which makes it even more suspect. I think I'll go to my local palm reader to see what she thinks...her system is likely just as valid (well, as long as she watches a lot of football).

 

[LibertyTurns]

First of all none of this matters. I just think it’s funny that we as a group complain that the “usual suspects” get the benefit of the doubt in polls but then expect to get the benefit of the doubt based on our last 25 years. I don’t think we have as little talent as this suggests just that given the big changes in what we do and the lack of returning production at most positions, the chart makes some sense. I don’t get the RB score and I agree that the differences are such that it would make more sense to group teams instead of ranking them.

We’re really an odd situation. You’ve got our track record, same as Bammer etc but on our level not theirs. Just as you can expect they’ll be in the Top 5, you can expect we’ll be 1-3 in Coastal. Based on coaching turnover, #1 is unlikely. #2 would be a nice surprise. #3 is pretty much where we land and if we underperform it would be disappointing. What’s debatable is if the Coastal #3 would be 3-5 or 4-4 in conference which I think’s likely. That pretty much puts us at 6 or 7 wins in regular season.

Saying we’re going to be 2-10 or 3-9 is just blatantly disrespectful. I understand the defense mechanisms of the different factions on here, but really you think so little of our Team and new Coaching Staff that they’ll only beat Citadel & Temple plus maybe 1 other? It’s easy for some moron journalist to chuck crap our way because at the end of the day only about 200 GT fans probably read his crap & even care. He’ll be forgotten long before next year save a few GT zealots that will rub his face in it come October.

 

[ncjacket79]

We’re really an odd situation. You’ve got our track record, same as Bammer etc but on our level not theirs. Just as you can expect they’ll be in the Top 5, you can expect we’ll be 1-3 in Coastal. Based on coaching turnover, #1 is unlikely. #2 would be a nice surprise. #3 is pretty much where we land and if we underperform it would be disappointing. What’s debatable is if the Coastal #3 would be 3-5 or 4-4 in conference which I think’s likely. That pretty much puts us at 6 or 7 wins in regular season.

Saying we’re going to be 2-10 or 3-9 is just blatantly disrespectful. I understand the defense mechanisms of the different factions on here, but really you think so little of our Team and new Coaching Staff that they’ll only beat Citadel & Temple plus maybe 1 other? It’s easy for some moron journalist to chuck crap our way because at the end of the day only about 200 GT fans probably read his crap & even care. He’ll be forgotten long before next year save a few GT zealots that will rub his face in it come October.

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying or I am not being clear. I don’t think we will be 3-9. It may take us a bit of time to figure out what we do well but I do expect to be competitive and with some breaks can be bowl eligible. What I am saying is it is not unreasonable for the “experts” to have the low expectations most have for us based on how they evaluate teams. I’m also saying it has nothing to do do with respect or lack thereof, it’s simply how you evaluate teams when you are evaluating all of college football and don’t have the time to get too deep on any of them. It also doesn’t matter one bit.

 

[lv20gt]

Sure. No argument here on that, and that's my point. Pretty much this system is accurate except where it isn't...which is to be expected and perfectly okay 'cause it was accurate where it was, right?

Is this system provably any better than just 'eyeballing' it? I think it is unlikely that all this math significantly improves upon just plain guessing based on what we see. So why bother and why try to make the guess seem more scientific when it's just justified guessing? To sell stuff, I'm thinking...which makes it even more suspect. I think I'll go to my local palm reader to see what she thinks...her system is likely just as valid (well, as long as she watches a lot of football).

I posted this article in a different thread. https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience

Basically we return less production than all but 11 teams; none of those 11 we play by the way. If you want is this system better than just a fan eyeballing it, then here's a notable passage.

"Meanwhile, 80 teams returned no more than 50 percent of their production; 65 of them (81 percent) regressed, 36 (45 percent) by at least a touchdown.
Last year’s bottom 10 teams saw their win total decrease by a combined 27 games, from 76 to 49. LSU and FIU each managed to improve by one win, and Colorado held steady at 5-7. The other seven all fell by at least two wins, and four (Navy, Colorado State, Louisville, and CMU) all fell by at least four"

That there are exceptions doesn't mean the system is the same as just guessing, or equal in validity to a fan's opinion. Just because LSU won one more game doesn't mean having a very low returning production isn't indicative of future struggles.

The reality of our situation is that we return very little production, are learning new systems on both sides of the ball, and from a recruiting standpoint we have been out recruited more often than not by two thirds of our schedule. There is very little rational support to the belief that we won't struggle this year. A commonly tried thread is that, paraphrasing, in 'x' of the last 'y' years it hasn't been the case that we have struggled so people shouldn't believe that we will. There are several problems with that argument. For starters, to some degree football is independent events. How we were last year is relevant to how we will be next year. How we were in 1998 or 2008 isn't. The reality is in the last 4 years, where there would be overlap in personnel with this year's team, we've missed two bowls, finished 3rd or worse in the coastal 3 out of 4 times, 5th or worse half the time, have an overall losing rerecord (24-25) and a losing ACC record (14-18). I have yet to see an actual objective reason for thinking we won't struggle.

Mumbo jumbo indeed. I always find it amusing to see journalists try to justify their beliefs with math. Makes me want to say:
"Hey bozo, there's a reason you went to journalism school. Stick to the human interest stuff and leave the statistics to your betters."

And I imagine there is a reason you are choosing to imply the math is wrong rather than showing it.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I posted this article in a different thread. https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience

Basically we return less production than all but 11 teams; none of those 11 we play by the way. If you want is this system better than just a fan eyeballing it, then here's a notable passage.

"Meanwhile, 80 teams returned no more than 50 percent of their production; 65 of them (81 percent) regressed, 36 (45 percent) by at least a touchdown.
Last year’s bottom 10 teams saw their win total decrease by a combined 27 games, from 76 to 49. LSU and FIU each managed to improve by one win, and Colorado held steady at 5-7. The other seven all fell by at least two wins, and four (Navy, Colorado State, Louisville, and CMU) all fell by at least four"

That there are exceptions doesn't mean the system is the same as just guessing, or equal in validity to a fan's opinion. Just because LSU won one more game doesn't mean having a very low returning production isn't indicative of future struggles.

The reality of our situation is that we return very little production, are learning new systems on both sides of the ball, and from a recruiting standpoint we have been out recruited more often than not by two thirds of our schedule. There is very little rational support to the belief that we won't struggle this year. A commonly tried thread is that, paraphrasing, in 'x' of the last 'y' years it hasn't been the case that we have struggled so people shouldn't believe that we will. There are several problems with that argument. For starters, to some degree football is independent events. How we were last year is relevant to how we will be next year. How we were in 1998 or 2008 isn't. The reality is in the last 4 years, where there would be overlap in personnel with this year's team, we've missed two bowls, finished 3rd or worse in the coastal 3 out of 4 times, 5th or worse half the time, have an overall losing rerecord (24-25) and a losing ACC record (14-18). I have yet to see an actual objective reason for thinking we won't struggle.



And I imagine there is a reason you are choosing to imply the math is wrong rather than showing it.

Sometimes having a lot of certain returning starters is the WORST thing that could happen to a program. It might be just as well to start over with people who WANT to pay the price to play ball. Nonetheless, your reasoning is irrefutable. By any reasonable standard, we should be expected to do poorly this year for the reasons you have listed. "I have yet to see an actual objective reason for thinking we won't struggle" Indeed, neither have I but then, we aren't the ones doing the playing or the coaching and for that we should be thankful. Just tell young men that they can't do this or they won't do that and see what happens. They will often respond to the challenge in unforeseen ways. But that is football.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Dunno. I didn’t quote the last 25. I pointed out the last 25 because we’ve had several different head coaches, assistant coaches, and schemes.

You can go by star ratings too, and we’re also not at the bottom of the ACC. (We’re around 9 out of 14 IIRC). And when 1 team is 2.96 avg stars and 4 others are 2.92-3.01 is there really a difference anyway? There is no factual justification for it other than pure disrespect.

The point is, we’ve never been bad, and always had this type of personnel.

No team ALWAYS overachieves relative to their recruiting but Georgia Tech seems to do it an awful lot as a general rule. I do not pretend to know the reasons for this but we have had one top 20 recruiting year since 2000 and have had a few excellent years and a number of good seasons that would seem to fly in the face of reasonable expectations given mostly mediocre recruiting. I don't know if this is an indictment of recruiting services, the star system, or just a lot of players overcoming obstacles and developing much better than anyone had a right to expect.

 

[TheFlyest]

Imagine if they had an effective front seven to help them.

 

[Cam]

I thought this was an interesting tweet. If you remember from the preseason, David Hale ranked our secondary (among other position groups) dead last in the ACC. Good on him for admitting his mistake in a public forum! Proud of the job the players and coaches have done in our secondary this year. And we only lose Campbell going into next year, while adding many highly talented transfers/recruits. Now we just need the DL to continue improving and to add Clayton to create true mayhem.

 

[CuseJacket]

Moved the DB tweet to the preseason position ranking thread that David Hale is referencing. Interesting to look at in retrospect.

 

[slugboy]

It’d be interesting to look back on this after the season.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pointer]

....
Saying we’re going to be 2-10 or 3-9 is just blatantly disrespectful.... but really you think so little of our Team and new Coaching Staff that they’ll only beat Citadel & Temple plus maybe 1 other? It’s easy for some moron journalist to chuck crap our way because at the end of the day only about 200 GT fans probably read his crap & even care. He’ll be forgotten long before next year save a few GT zealots that will rub his face in it come October.

I promise I'm not picking on you or trying to stir up anything, but I laughed really hard (and cried at the same time) at this.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I promise I'm not picking on you or trying to stir up anything, but I laughed really hard (and cried at the same time) at this.

Well outside Citadel & Temple I damn near nailed it!

 

[LibertyTurns]

I also got used to overachieving with such regularity I took it for granted. Not any more.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I also got used to overachieving with such regularity I took it for granted. Not any more.

I didn't "nail" anything. My preseason prediction was to win 5 and possibly 6. Not even close. In all likelihood, we will end the season with 3 wins. We will have had two memorable wins over Miami (always enjoyable) and NC State, a couple of losses where we played well such as UVA and a couple we played really bad such as the Citadel and Virginia Tech. A mixed bag all around as most outside pundits would have predicted. One thing NOBODY would have predicted is that the same Miami team that lost so miserably to Georgia Tech would turn around and win three in a row including a sterling effort against FSU that had their fans talking about winning the Coastal and playing in the Orange Bowl. Lo and behold FIU wins its first game against a Power 5 opponent and sends the Canes into another tailspin complete with "Fire Manny" airplane banners. Another crazy year about to come to a close in the Coastal Division.

 

[takethepoints]

I thought we'd win 6. If we were lucky.

We didn't. I think that was a result of continuing to play an offense our personnel didn't suit us for and injuries. I would also say that a lot of those injuries seem to be from knocking at practice well into the season, a truly silly way to do things. Add in not having players practicing multiple positions instead of the ones we expect them to play and … well, you get what we got.

I'm willing to give the coaches another year or year and a half. I'm not expecting much more next year then we had this year; the schedule is too tough. I'll expect real progress nonetheless and a really good start for 2022.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I didn't "nail" anything.

Of course I was being disingenuous. I bet a lot of money on 4 wins and 4 wins as a push. That Citadel game rally hosed me bad but to be completely honest I thought 5 wins was where we’d end up, 6 max and 4 at the worst.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Of course I was being disingenuous. I bet a lot of money on 4 wins and 4 wins as a push. That Citadel game rally hosed me bad but to be completely honest I thought 5 wins was where we’d end up, 6 max and 4 at the worst.

Now a smart fellow like you should know better than to bet on what 18 to 22 year old players are going to do. You might as well bet on which member of the Clarke County Correctional Institute is going to actually go to class next Monday.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Now a smart fellow like you should know better than to bet on what 18 to 22 year old players are going to do. You might as well bet on which member of the Clarke County Correctional Institute is going to actually go to class next Monday.

Yeah I know. Didn’t do my due diligence on the experience/capabilities of the staff and bought into the hype. Not my finest moment.

 

[gtrower]

The secondary ranking was the one we all thought was dubious. Wouldn’t be surprised if we’re Top 2 for the preseason 2020 rankings. Losing Campbell and adding Brooks, Allen, etc.