Recruiting analysis

[4shotB]

His haughty countenance is wearing thin.

His countenance is not the real issue. He would be held up as a non-nonsense, straightshooter "old school" type of guy who does not suffer fools gladly if he were still contending for Coastal championships annually. When people start talking about stuff like this, it's a symptom and not the disease. You get a "pass" of sorts to act like Saban and Bellechik when you get their results. When act like Saban and get poor results, it doesn't sit well with anyone.

 

[g0lftime]

A larger recruiting staff means you can cast a wider net. GT is more respected out of state since we have so many Uga fans that bash us in-state and that doesn't include the negative press.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yes I understand that but it is part of football I know it seems to happen to us more but it does happen to others. We just lack the depth of other teams to make up for losing some of our starters.

We’re not a factory. That doesn’t mean we can’t be successful, but we can’t do it with high attrition. We especially can’t do it when the attrition includes our best players.

 

[Boaty1]

????

What do you mean? Everything I have seen shows Duke spending more $ on football than GT

Duke plays in front of 20k of their own fans and does not have near the history and tradition that we have. To insinuate they have more resources just because they spend marginally more than us is really misguided. There is no reason Duke should be beating us with a quarter of their roster from Ga but they aren’t just beating us they are owning us.

Johnson and Cutcliffe were hired in the same year. At that time nobody thought the Duke program was in the same stratosphere as us. They made a great hire, we made a poor one. Now a decade later some are acting like they have recruiting advantages over us. It’s an outrageous claim and one I can’t wait to see go away under a new coach.

 

[stech81]

We’re not a factory. That doesn’t mean we can’t be successful, but we can’t do it with high attrition. We especially can’t do it when the attrition includes our best players.

We are on the same page. I have not looked but how many OL do we lose this year,and how many commitments do we have on the OL going into next year? Yes I know we will have a lot of starters coming back but if we lose 2 we are back to hurting again next year. I wish we would use all our scholarships but at times we don't.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

To be honest, I don’t want to compete with the Dukes, Pitts, UNC, and Vts of this world. I want to compete with Clemson, Miami, UGA, and FSU.

 

[COJacket]

Probably so, but they will look at his actions in other settings, too, like the way he yells angrily at an erring player coming off the field. Many other coaches (like Dabo, for instance) will encourage a player who is doing his best but has made a mistake. Or the way he will angrily complain to anyone in earshot about a bad play, standing there with his hands crossed. Most recruits know who they would rather play for, and it will most often not be Paul Johnson. His haughty countenance is wearing thin.

hmmm, did you see Dabo yesterday when they screwed up at the goal line right before the half, looked a lot like a whole bunch of coaches when players screw up and it was NOT all encouragement.

 

[slugboy]

I agree staff plays a role. I would be shocked however if when we go back to a traditional offense we don’t immediately start recruiting better than them regardless of staff.

We didn’t recruit better with a conventional scheme. Last time we recruited well, we had Friedgen’s scheme, which isn’t traditional. Gailey was conventional. Players wanted to play for Friedgen’s offense because it was non traditional and exciting

The flack that the flexbone gets isn’t that it’s missing a tight end or a fullback. It’s that there isn’t much passing. That can be fixed by changing the play call mixture. That gets you just about to a Ohio State or Florida or UCF offensive sizzle.

And there’s nothing that says our WRs can’t be TE types, either pulled in or split wide. They need to catch and block and line up on the line of scrimmage

You’d change how the OL practices, but I think they’d be OK.

If you got 20 passes per game, I bet perceptions of this offense would change overnight. That’s not nearly as pass happy as our competition


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[COJacket]

Duke plays in front of 20k of their own fans and does not have near the history and tradition that we have. To insinuate they have more resources just because they spend marginally more than us is really misguided. There is no reason Duke should be beating us with a quarter of their roster from Ga but they aren’t just beating us they are owning us.

Johnson and Cutcliffe were hired in the same year. At that time nobody thought the Duke program was in the same stratosphere as us. They made a great hire, we made a poor one. Now a decade later some are acting like they have recruiting advantages over us. It’s an outrageous claim and one I can’t wait to see go away under a new coach.

I am not defending where Johnson currently is with the program. But I will call BS on saying Cutcliffe was a "great hire" and Johnson a "poor one". Over 10 years Duke has only had 4 good years (2015, 2014, 2013, and probably this year) GT has had 2 great years, and 3 good years. And the lows have not been as low: 2008 - 2011 were pretty bad for Duke. Overall, I would take Johnson's over all record at GT and his Orange Bowl 2014 win any day of the week over Cutcliffe. It may be time for Johnson to go, but let's not make up stuff. I don't think the facts say that Duke has out recruited us, but the facts certainly do say that Cutcliffe has Johnson figured out and has used his talent against us better than Johnson has recently. Overall Johnson is 7-4 against Cutcliffe with the 4 losses coming in the past 5 years. Hard to swallow, but Cutcliffe was not a "great hire".

Duke GT
2017 7 6 5-6
2016 4 8 9-4
2015 8 5 3-9
2014 9 4 11-3
2013 10 4 7-6
2012 6 7 7-7
2011 3 9 8-5
2010 3 9 6-7
2009 5 7 11-3
2008 4 8 9-4

 

[heyhellowhatsup]

I actually think Cutcliffe and Johnson were both good hires. Amazing I know.

Mike London, Frank Spaziani, etc are “bad hires.”

 

[bobongo]

I am not defending where Johnson currently is with the program. But I will call BS on saying Cutcliffe was a "great hire" and Johnson a "poor one". Over 10 years Duke has only had 4 good years (2015, 2014, 2013, and probably this year) GT has had 2 great years, and 3 good years. And the lows have not been as low: 2008 - 2011 were pretty bad for Duke. Overall, I would take Johnson's over all record at GT and his Orange Bowl 2014 win any day of the week over Cutcliffe. It may be time for Johnson to go, but let's not make up stuff. I don't think the facts say that Duke has out recruited us, but the facts certainly do say that Cutcliffe has Johnson figured out and has used his talent against us better than Johnson has recently. Overall Johnson is 7-4 against Cutcliffe with the 4 losses coming in the past 5 years. Hard to swallow, but Cutcliffe was not a "great hire".

Duke GT
2017 7 6 5-6
2016 4 8 9-4
2015 8 5 3-9
2014 9 4 11-3
2013 10 4 7-6
2012 6 7 7-7
2011 3 9 8-5
2010 3 9 6-7
2009 5 7 11-3
2008 4 8 9-4

I agree CPJ was not a "bad hire", but in your comparison notice how Cutcliffe, who inherited far less talent than CPJ, made Duke better over the years while Tech stagnated. In his first five years Duke averaged 4.2 wins, Tech 8.2. In the last five years Duke averaged 7.6, Tech 7.

 

[Milwaukee]

Never said it did. Oth, going 2 - 2 against VT and Ugag (consistently in the top 10 using the scale in the table above) in the last four years sure does.

You are fixating on Duke. It's like all sports; sometimes people get a streak going on you. This is almost always the result of bum luck, unless you can't get athletes like the other side does. Like, say, Clemson.

The same amount of people that are fixated on Duke are fixated on UGA though. Some hate PJ because he can't beat Duke and some love him because he beat UGA 3 out of 10 times, which is odd to me.

 

[COJacket]

I agree CPJ was not a "bad hire", but in your comparison notice how Cutcliffe, who inherited far less talent than CPJ, made Duke better over the years while Tech stagnated. In his first five years Duke averaged 4.2 wins, Tech 8.2. In the last five years Duke averaged 7.6, Tech 7.

. Like I said cutcliffe is not a great hire and has been doing better than Johnson lately. Especially against Johnson. And we have had a consistently tougher schedule so the .6 delta in past 5 years is not that much different. I am agreeing w you but let’s not make Cutliffe a “great hire”

 

[bobongo]

. Like I said cutcliffe is not a great hire and has been doing better than Johnson lately. Especially against Johnson. And we have had a consistently tougher schedule so the .6 delta in past 5 years is not that much different. I am agreeing w you but let’s not make Cutliffe a “great hire”

To average 7.6 wins over the last 5 years at Duke? Yeah, he's been a great hire for them.

 

[iceeater1969]

To be honest, I don’t want to compete with the Dukes, Pitts, UNC, and Vts of this world. I want to compete with Clemson, Miami, UGA, and FSU.

We can't all be 11 stem degree schools like Purdue.
Wonder if MBob just got lucky w the new fb coach.
I sure have been hard on MBob--- hmmmm.

As to getting significantly better so we can compete with those u listed.

IMO the temporary benefits of scheme were not accompanied with real lasting improvements. As the schemes benefits have waned, we are now faced with a strong head winds without a MEASURABLE AND TRACKABLE PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT.
I have told my rep, no more $$ till I see a plan to recruit at a high level

 

[first&ten]

You need to read the analysis again. I never said that star rankings are valid; I said they were the best I could do and much better then the overall ranking (sorry, RiseUp; I suppose we disagree) when comparing over years. I never said that Purdue and Rice were "in a better position then we are"; what I said is that they are like Tech in that they are like us in terms of image and curriculum.

Oth, I also pointed out that VT wasn't actually directly comparable. I put them in there because they are a tech school. I agree they have the highest ceiling, with Pitt and Tech close behind.

As I bet you do, I wish the stat resources were up to a real analysis on this. Why they aren't is a question. I think there isn't much incentive for the people who do this as a business to do much more. It may need a Bill James to come up with the insight to do it.

Update: Purdue 48, OSU 20 with 2:30 to go! BOILER UP! HAMMER DOWN!

I'm glad you mentioned the Purdue game! They were a 3&3 team playing the mighty Buckeyes. Purdue had a game plan offensively&defensively , a wellcoached team and stuck with the plan.As far as I know they had no 5 star players and I highly doubt they recruit any slackers.It can also be done at Tech under T. Stan, but johnson and his TO has to go! Tech has alot to offer dammit, someone has to sell it!!

 

[jacketup]

Duke plays in front of 20k of their own fans and does not have near the history and tradition that we have. To insinuate they have more resources just because they spend marginally more than us is really misguided. There is no reason Duke should be beating us with a quarter of their roster from Ga but they aren’t just beating us they are owning us.

Johnson and Cutcliffe were hired in the same year. At that time nobody thought the Duke program was in the same stratosphere as us. They made a great hire, we made a poor one. Now a decade later some are acting like they have recruiting advantages over us. It’s an outrageous claim and one I can’t wait to see go away under a new coach.

Your point is correct. We are starting to see the impact Bronco Mendenhall is having on the UVa program. UVa didn't suddenly start spending a bunch of money on infrastructure. A coach who knows how to run a program makes a difference--and that doesn't mean he is an Xs and Os genius (Exhibit 1- Dabo).

Chan Gailey made $1.2 million/year. Johnson was hired at $2.4 million--top 15 money at the time--as our Athletic Board was out negotiated again just as they were with Hewitt. Spending money on coaches is not necessarily the answer. See Exhibit 1---Dabo makes a ton of money now, but he was hired at about $1 million/year. Clemson was smart enough to pay him big bucks after he delivered results--not before, like our Athletic Board did.

I so miss Homer Rice and Kim King.

 

[g0lftime]

Cutcliffe was a good hire at Duke. Roof was awful as a head coach and Carl Franks even worse. The best hire they have had in a while was Spurrier. Johnson was a good hire for us at the time but seems to have fallen into a rut with this offense. I realize that 2014 was a special year but in several games the stars were in alignment for us. VT had us beat until their QB threw 2 late picks. We then got a great call on a fumble by GSU that JT then made a great run and throw to pull that one out late. Watson pulled up lame when we played Clemson and the backup started throwing int's. UNC and Duke both beat us. We had a great win at UGA when they had a mediocre QB and JT heroics with Butker's big kick. Against MSU they had a new DC before that game and he had no clue how to stop our O. They did have over 600 yards of offense against us but we had a great game and won despite our D. That was a magical year but we were far from a dominant team that year.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

To be honest, I don’t want to compete with the Dukes, Pitts, UNC, and Vts of this world. I want to compete with Clemson, Miami, UGA, and FSU.

Ironically,our record against that second half of teams is no different than the first. Now how do you feel saying that LOL.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We beat undefeated FSU when we were 2-5. Purdue has not turned any corner. They just had 1 amazing game like many schools have.