Talent

[Coloradojacket]

I will try to explain further. Let me say , as I have mentioned in several posts before, I am commenting from afar. I am in Wisconsin. I can't attend practices and must watch the games on TV. So I suppose I should keep my OPINIONS to myself because I am less informed than others on this board. I don't proclaim to be an expert. But I am a HUGE fan of all things Tech, and this forum is my chance to vent or cheer on the team I love.

That being said, let me try to clarify. I feel we sign a number of players, at OL particularly, that never see the field except in blowouts. Perhaps this is getting better, but from the depth charts I see , it appears that very seldom do we have a singular backup at each individual OL position. We seem to have one player who can back up at 2 or more positions. This screams lack of depth to me because we are not truly 2 deep at each position. Same for DL , IIRCC. We have numbers, but not field ready players , at least not at the QUALITY we need.

My comments about teaching come from the constant head shaking by CPJ about missed assignments. I will not question the player's desire on this problem ( should I ? ). IMHO, these problems either stem from players being asked to play a position they are not fully ready to play ( see lack of field ready depth above ) ,or not enough instruction/ reps. I also previously mentioned the recruiting angle here, where a player missed an assignment because he is a step slow, or he is not agile enough, or he lacks proper technique ( because he played DL in HS ?)

WHISKEY, what do you attribute the " missed assignments" comments to ?

So I can't add from what is seen at practice as I live 1200 miles away in Colorado, but I can add to the idea of missed assignments having run CPJs offense at the youth level. Other offenses, particularly in the run game rely on zone blocking schemes. That means the offense just needs to slide the defense a certain way and then the Running back picks a hole. In CPJs offense, the lineman, and running backs have absolute assignments. IE the guard needs to get a linebacker, or a tackle needs to pull and block an outside LB. For those old enough and played O line think back to the 70s when you ran the wishbone or veer. You had an assigned defender to block. Miss that block and chances are the play failed. In some way this scheme is easier because everyone should know their job. And if done the play is very successful.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

So I can't add from what is seen at practice as I live 1200 miles away in Colorado, but I can add to the idea of missed assignments having run CPJs offense at the youth level. Other offenses, particularly in the run game rely on zone blocking schemes. That means the offense just needs to slide the defense a certain way and then the Running back picks a hole. In CPJs offense, the lineman, and running backs have absolute assignments. IE the guard needs to get a linebacker, or a tackle needs to pull and block an outside LB. For those old enough and played O line think back to the 70s when you ran the wishbone or veer. You had an assigned defender to block. Miss that block and chances are the play failed. In some way this scheme is easier because everyone should know their job. And if done the play is very successful.

Thanks , that is helpful to me.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I will try to explain further. Let me say , as I have mentioned in several posts before, I am commenting from afar. I am in Wisconsin. I can't attend practices and must watch the games on TV. So I suppose I should keep my OPINIONS to myself because I am less informed than others on this board. I don't proclaim to be an expert. But I am a HUGE fan of all things Tech, and this forum is my chance to vent or cheer on the team I love.

That being said, let me try to clarify. I feel we sign a number of players, at OL particularly, that never see the field except in blowouts. Perhaps this is getting better, but from the depth charts I see , it appears that very seldom do we have a singular backup at each individual OL position. We seem to have one player who can back up at 2 or more positions. This screams lack of depth to me because we are not truly 2 deep at each position. Same for DL , IIRCC. We have numbers, but not field ready players , at least not at the QUALITY we need.

My comments about teaching come from the constant head shaking by CPJ about missed assignments. I will not question the player's desire on this problem ( should I ? ). IMHO, these problems either stem from players being asked to play a position they are not fully ready to play ( see lack of field ready depth above ) ,or not enough instruction/ reps. I also previously mentioned the recruiting angle here, where a player missed an assignment because he is a step slow, or he is not agile enough, or he lacks proper technique ( because he played DL in HS ?)

WHISKEY, what do you attribute the " missed assignments" comments to ?

It's been discussed and debated ad nuaseum in the last couple weeks. I'll reiterate what I said earlier. I agree we lack experienced quality depth at OL. When injuries strike and our starters get knocked out, it hurts us. Like most teams not in the top 10.

This year we lost our best OT. How many teams can overcome this without missing a beat? It caused us to move one of our best OL from guard to OT. Caused us to start SD rather than play him in stretches and situationally. And it caused a great strength at OG to be weakened as WB was moved around to shore things up. When players rotate in for others, it sometimes causes issues in continuity for a variety of reasons. When the player rotating in is also less effective than the starter, this is compounded. When the guy rotating in is almost as good as the starter the line is better able to adjust to one another.

These things can exacerbate missed assignments. It seems pretty obvious to me why. Which is why your assertion that the answer to our lack of depth, recruiting fewer players to those positions, is so perplexing to me.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

It's been discussed and debated ad nuaseum in the last couple weeks. I'll reiterate what I said earlier. I agree we lack experienced quality depth at OL. When injuries strike and our starters get knocked out, it hurts us. Like most teams not in the top 10.

This year we lost our best OT. How many teams can overcome this without missing a beat? It caused us to move one of our best OL from guard to OT. Caused us to start SD rather than play him in stretches and situationally. And it caused a great strength at OG to be weakened as WB was moved around to shore things up. When players rotate in for others, it sometimes causes issues in continuity for a variety of reasons. When the player rotating in is also less effective than the starter, this is compounded. When the guy rotating in is almost as good as the starter the line is better able to adjust to one another.

These things can exacerbate missed assignments. It seems pretty obvious to me why. Which is why your assertion that the answer to our lack of depth, recruiting fewer players to those positions, is so perplexing to me.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

My answer to the problem is not that we should recruit FEWER players, but better . If I was not clear , I apologise. End of thread for me. I hope your nausea will be better now.

 

[Sideways]

Before anyone goes all technical about this, I know that football scores are not transitive properties.

Now, to get back to business. We've had a lot of threads recently lamenting a talent gap between Tech, Miami, Clemson, and Ugag. Most of these had the good intention of focussing us on the need to put more funding into the football program and Laws knows we need to do that. Right now.

I'm betting that a lot of people here watched Clemson and Miami play last night. It's a different context and it wasn't in the slop, but we looked a lot better against the Tiggers then Miami did last night. We scored 10 points against them and rushed for 198 yards in our game. They beat us, but they didn't run us off the field like they did da U last night.

Now, consider our game against Miami. They beat us by one point in the last 10 seconds on a play that was a pure miracle for them.

What lessons do I draw from this? First, Clemson is the new FSU. They have opened a true talent gap between their program and the rest of the conference, just like the Crimonoles. (Aside: I'm betting that the next coach at FSU will have a tougher time then Jimbo did.) Second, that Ugag had a pretty good team this year, but also played a so-so schedule with a largely senior group. Next year will tell the tale of whether Smart can keep it up over there. Right now, I like our chances next year. Third, I don't see - yet - any breathtaking difference between us and Miami. Could be that Richt will get them back all the way, but right now they are a pretty good team - like us - that had - unlike us - a lot of luck this year.

I'm not saying that the concerns about support for the football program are misplaced; they are shared by everyone here and by our athletic department as well. What I am saying is that the talent gap with all our opponents - except Clemson - is, imho, not as great as we think. Continuing to recruit wisely, upping our efforts, and working at it can get us on a more even footing pretty quickly.

I agree with this but there is a talent gap. That said, teams like Miami have a way of squandering talent. It's just what they do. Nonetheless, the talent gap is most evident on defense in general and the line in particular. We can find little fast guys all over creation. The rub is that finding the BIG fast guys is a whole lot harder. We must address recruiting and figure out ways to recruit linemen on a national level if need be. Of course, that will require more staff and more money. We can do this now when it is relatively painless or do it later when it becomes much harder and more painful.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

What I would like us be able to do , is NOT have to start Freshmen, except in rare instances, because yes they probably will have missed assignments , no matter how good they are. I would like us to be able to recruit OL and DL who played that position in HS , preferably in O and D systems similar to ours , and then spend at least one year getting stronger and learning/being taught by their position coaches. Am I dreaming ? Maybe. But the coaching staff are mostly veterans with lots of experience. CPJ has been doing this a looooong time. I would be curious to know if he is satisfied with what he has to work with , especially on the OL. He would probably say " it is what it is ", right ? When we get a well oiled OL, missing few assignments, the TO , interspersed with occasional SURPRISE passes, where the QB has time to make his reads and the WR gets down the field, is a thing of beauty. At times we have had it. My concern is at this point in CPJ's tenure at GT , why is this more of an issue than it should be ? Resources ? He has kept the same staff, so I would presume he doesn't think it's recruiting or coaching. Next year we COULD be better. But someone pointed out we have 23 seniors after next year. Then what ?? The " we are so young " excuse ? So, we wait for a year , or two , to make it to the ACC championship game again. Maybe Tech will NEVER consistently be in the top 15-25 every year , but something in my Tech psyche just refuses to accept that we cannot do that. That's what Tech is all about, right ? That what I learned, albeit the hard way, from 1968 -1973.

Paragraphs are your friend. I try and avoid being a grammar nazi as I rarely use proper grammar myself. But this wall of text is substantial.

Yeah we'd s prefer to shirt every freshman. Especially at the LOS. Lack of depth has prevented this. Which is a good argument for recruiting more bodies to the OL.

How many of our OL / DL, didn't play at the LOS in high school? I'm aware of none.

Resources and staff. Another ad naseum devate point. Even the coach haters have had to admit that our program has severely lagged in resources. Continuity of staff helps to mitigate this to a degree. But certainly can't overcome it.

Everyone wants our coaches to coach players up at an elite level. They want the coaches to recruit at an elite level. If we paid assistants competitive salaries we could largely get the assistants we want imo. If we had a competitive recruiting staff, that would probably relieve some of the recruiting burdens from the shoulders of our assistants and coordinators and would probably free them up to better meet the prior listed goal.

Yes it will be difficult to consistently compete in the top 25 annually. Is it possible though? Absolutely imo. Is it possible if we continue to underfund the program and fail to match our peers? Probably not. You may not be able to get your "psyche" to accept this but that failure to recognize the facts properly doesn't change the facts.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

My answer to the problem is not that we should recruit FEWER players, but better . If I was not clear , I apologise. End of thread for me. I hope your nausea will be better now.

I appreciate your opinions and welcome them. But I will challenge assertions I find to be invalid. Everyone here wants to improve our talent in recruiting. Pretty sure we all agree on that.

 

[Sideways]

We don't have enough QUALITY depth at many positions ( OL and DL , especially ) . If we have injuries or defections , we are paper thin. IMHO, this is NOT solely a recruiting problem. RECRUITING : we sign too many guys , particularly in the two positions I mentioned previously, who can't improve enough to see the field, get frustrated and transfer, hit their maximum potential in High school, are converts from other positions and have to learn the position from scratch, are overrated at 4 stars ( see Max potential mentioned before). The other problem IMHO is coaching/teaching. This would explain the " missed assignments" CPJ repeats. As I said before, is it the " teacher" or the " student " that is at fault ?
When you combine the RECRUITING with the TEACHING/LEARNING problem you get very inconsistent line play that limits what we are able to do
scheme wise. That in turn, makes us extremely predictable on both sides of the ball.

I am not trying to excuse the coaches but I have read and believe this to be true from years of following college football that the hardest position to properly evaluate and recruit is offensive line. It is a rare occasion when you find a prospect for tackle in our system who is both big and fast. I complain about Coach Sewark with the best of them but that does not mean I envy his job. He and the offensive tackle coach whose name escapes me have the hardest jobs on the coaching staff. Linemen are critical in any offense much more so in ours.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Just for fun, I took a look at our recruiting under Gailey and Johnson. I used Rivals as my base and that being said, recruiting rankings are weighed by class sizes in this system. Here is what I found. If you average all of CPJ recruiting classes by ranking, it comes out with a rank of 51. When you average all of Gailey's , you come out with a ranking of 51. Hmmm. Now CPJ has one awful class back in 2013 and Gailey has that 2007 class. 2013 was ranked 84 and 2007 was ranked 18. Take those out and here is what you get. CPJ rank 47 Gailey rank 57. So what does all this mean. Well whether it is CPJs offense or Pro style, we seem to get the same players no matter what.

Also just as a side, many of CPJs bets player were 2 star and 3 star. Some of the 4s never played.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Before anyone goes all technical about this, I know that football scores are not transitive properties.

Now, to get back to business. We've had a lot of threads recently lamenting a talent gap between Tech, Miami, Clemson, and Ugag. Most of these had the good intention of focussing us on the need to put more funding into the football program and Laws knows we need to do that. Right now.

I'm betting that a lot of people here watched Clemson and Miami play last night. It's a different context and it wasn't in the slop, but we looked a lot better against the Tiggers then Miami did last night. We scored 10 points against them and rushed for 198 yards in our game. They beat us, but they didn't run us off the field like they did da U last night.

Now, consider our game against Miami. They beat us by one point in the last 10 seconds on a play that was a pure miracle for them.

What lessons do I draw from this? First, Clemson is the new FSU. They have opened a true talent gap between their program and the rest of the conference, just like the Crimonoles. (Aside: I'm betting that the next coach at FSU will have a tougher time then Jimbo did.) Second, that Ugag had a pretty good team this year, but also played a so-so schedule with a largely senior group. Next year will tell the tale of whether Smart can keep it up over there. Right now, I like our chances next year. Third, I don't see - yet - any breathtaking difference between us and Miami. Could be that Richt will get them back all the way, but right now they are a pretty good team - like us - that had - unlike us - a lot of luck this year.

I'm not saying that the concerns about support for the football program are misplaced; they are shared by everyone here and by our athletic department as well. What I am saying is that the talent gap with all our opponents - except Clemson - is, imho, not as great as we think. Continuing to recruit wisely, upping our efforts, and working at it can get us on a more even footing pretty quickly.

Well, have you seen Miami's recruiting? This year's class that they are putting together includes 2 5 stars and 13 4 stars. They also have 2 3 stars that are 0.1 below being a 4*, a 5.6, a 5.5, and a 5.2 who is a Kicker. Georgia Tech has 2 commits out of 16 who are rated > 5.6. Miami has 17 out of 20 who are rated > 5.6. Miami had 10 4* the year before, and 7 4* the year before that, and 7 more 4* the year before that. So next year they will have roughly 41 guys rated 4* or higher. We will have 6, none on offense.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I appreciate your opinions and welcome them. But I will challenge assertions I find to be invalid. Everyone here wants to improve our talent in recruiting. Pretty sure we all agree on that.

I suppose, at some level, I understand your viewpoints. It's the tone I find annoying. In my mind it's not a debate to " win " or " lose". Maybe I just don't take it as seriously as some. Obviously, none of us are experts, and I DON'T feel that all assertions I disagree with have to be challenged. I have other parts of my life that I spend in that frame of mind. Why does it sound like you are trying to school me on the use of paragraphs ? That comment is very condescending, in my opinion. Admittedly, I don't read EVERYTHING , everyday. So I really don't know if topics have reached the level of ad nauseum. Could it be that others are not nauseated about the thread ? When I reach the point of nausea ( I use bored) , I just stop reading the thread . I don't tell the poster that the thread is making me nauseated. If it is your intention to challenge participants who don't thouraghly research and sustantiate every thing they write - making sure they put it in proper paragraphs - then , in my opinion, you are doing a great job. I have given this board several trials over the years. Like previous trials, it goes pretty well , until someone has to prove they are the big dog in the yard. Done and out.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I suppose, at some level, I understand your viewpoints. It's the tone I find annoying. In my mind it's not a debate to " win " or " lose". Maybe I just don't take it as seriously as some. Obviously, none of us are experts, and I DON'T feel that all assertions I disagree with have to be challenged. I have other parts of my life that I spend in that frame of mind. Why does it sound like you are trying to school me on the use of paragraphs ? That comment is very condescending, in my opinion. Admittedly, I don't read EVERYTHING , everyday. So I really don't know if topics have reached the level of ad nauseum. Could it be that others are not nauseated about the thread ? When I reach the point of nausea ( I use bored) , I just stop reading the thread . I don't tell the poster that the thread is making me nauseated. If it is your intention to challenge participants who don't thouraghly research and sustantiate every thing they write - making sure they put it in proper paragraphs - then , in my opinion, you are doing a great job. I have given this board several trials over the years. Like previous trials, it goes pretty well , until someone has to prove they are the big dog in the yard. Done and out.

My point on your use of walls of text is this. You write in a form reminiscent a stream of conscious thought. And you flow from one point to a separate point with no breaks between same points. It just makes it difficult to follow. Do as you wish. As I have conceded I don't use proper grammar in the forum either. I do attempt to make long posts readable by breaking up different points with paragraphs. To each his own.

Have a great day.

 

[UgaBlows]

Well, have you seen Miami's recruiting? This year's class that they are putting together includes 2 5 stars and 13 4 stars. They also have 2 3 stars that are 0.1 below being a 4*, a 5.6, a 5.5, and a 5.2 who is a Kicker. Georgia Tech has 2 commits out of 16 who are rated > 5.6. Miami has 17 out of 20 who are rated > 5.6. Miami had 10 4* the year before, and 7 4* the year before that, and 7 more 4* the year before that. So next year they will have roughly 41 guys rated 4* or higher. We will have 6, none on offense.

Luckily they have a buddist monk on the sideline who regularly makes terrible in-game decisions and randomly fails to get his team up for big games.

 

[Jmonty71]

Before anyone goes all technical about this, I know that football scores are not transitive properties.

Now, to get back to business. We've had a lot of threads recently lamenting a talent gap between Tech, Miami, Clemson, and Ugag. Most of these had the good intention of focussing us on the need to put more funding into the football program and Laws knows we need to do that. Right now.

I'm betting that a lot of people here watched Clemson and Miami play last night. It's a different context and it wasn't in the slop, but we looked a lot better against the Tiggers then Miami did last night. We scored 10 points against them and rushed for 198 yards in our game. They beat us, but they didn't run us off the field like they did da U last night.

Now, consider our game against Miami. They beat us by one point in the last 10 seconds on a play that was a pure miracle for them.

What lessons do I draw from this? First, Clemson is the new FSU. They have opened a true talent gap between their program and the rest of the conference, just like the Crimonoles. (Aside: I'm betting that the next coach at FSU will have a tougher time then Jimbo did.) Second, that Ugag had a pretty good team this year, but also played a so-so schedule with a largely senior group. Next year will tell the tale of whether Smart can keep it up over there. Right now, I like our chances next year. Third, I don't see - yet - any breathtaking difference between us and Miami. Could be that Richt will get them back all the way, but right now they are a pretty good team - like us - that had - unlike us - a lot of luck this year.

I'm not saying that the concerns about support for the football program are misplaced; they are shared by everyone here and by our athletic department as well. What I am saying is that the talent gap with all our opponents - except Clemson - is, imho, not as great as we think. Continuing to recruit wisely, upping our efforts, and working at it can get us on a more even footing pretty quickly.

Well... That explains loses to Clemson, Ugag and Da U. What explains loses to Duke and UVA?? Talent gap?? I think there is more than just talent gap here. Team chemistry is off. The defense got a little better, but not good enough. We lost leads late in 4 games.... Had one game, just not played at all. It was an off season... I think we will bounce back next year, ironically a year that all the coaching staff will be on the hot seat.

 

[takethepoints]

I appreciate all the replies. Very thoughtful.

I still think what I said is pretty much correct (Duh). Clemson now has a real talent gap on the rest of the ACC; shoot, on the rest of the college football, when you come down to it. They are up there with Bammer in terms of recruiting success and player development. (I think the winner of the Clemson - Bammer game wins the MNC, btw.) But that's something we have to deal with. We've beat them when they had an immense gap on us before (2011) and we can do it again. Same with the Dwags: I think they benefited from really good senior players this year, but we'll see about Smart next year. Their fans will expect the same, but, imho, they won't get it. Same with Miami. Their "game" with Clemson exposed just how much all those star rankings mean when they don't have the outrageous luck they've had - especially against Tech - this year (and last).

I continue to think that most of the "star" rankings are a bunch of hooey, except for the 5 and high 4 star rankings. Further, on O at least, our "stars" don't mean as much because we aren't evaluating players in the same way. They do count more on D; it's easier to evaluate raw athletic talent over there, especially on the DL. Problem = a lot of DL recruiting is sheer luck. We recruit a player from OZ and he turns out to be an all-ACC pick and a starter for the pros. Who could predict that? But we can do better and need to commit the resources needed to do so.

A couple of random thoughts:

• The blown assignment problem was a difficulty in 2015 also and for the same reason: inexperience and playing out of position. As Whiskey pointed out, Will played most of the year at OT instead of guard. He was good at OT, but he's a better guard. This didn't hurt as much because Shamire played so well, but it wasn't what we were planning before we lost Fromayen and Marshall before the season started. That TM missed a lot of reads and didn't pass well comes from the same problem. Repetition is the key to what we do on O.

• I agree that we need to look carefully at player development and placement. We have some outrageously strong players on this team, but you wonder if that is what we need. Here I'm really out of my depth; this has changed a lot from my playing days (player development advice, circa 1963 = "Be sure to lift weights this summer!"). We don't seem to be able to avoid injury as much as we should, however.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

@takethepoints
The downside to increasing the number of academic exceptions is more drop outs. Which makes balancing classes that much more difficult and robs other players of more reps / experience.

@Jacket in Dairyland
On one hand you assert we are too thin at OL/DL (I happen to agree but I think it's improving) but then you also assert we sign too many players there but lose them for a myriad of reasons. That doesn't really compute to me.

Your other assertions about teaching / coaching assignments and lack of quality of same...Id be interested to hear how you draw that conclusion without attending practices.

With regard to stars....

Elite recruits stand out to everyone. Coaches, services, everyone. Where stars fail to tell the story is in the difference between a "low 4 star" and "high 3 star". The difference is very negligible and based mostly on pure speculation imo.

You say the major power programs get the most stars and have the most success. Ok I agree. But I also very often see those programs sign a 3 star who the next day, without playing a game or attending an additional camp, get jumped up to 4 stars.

Conversely we sign a 4 star, and the next day he's downgraded to a 3, once again without having played an additional game or attending an additional camp. This is fairly brilliant of the services in many ways imo. It's also complete garbage with regards to any actual evaluation of those individual players and why many fans (quite a few Tech fans anyway) disregard the services and with cause.

Our starting lineup is fairly competitive with most teams. Our starting Oline is top notch imo. But the OL has lacked experienced depth. The Dline, particularly DTs, has improved a lot in talent and depth. They just don't compare to elite Dlines like Clemson and still lack a good rush from the edge.

Special teams are too much of a mixed bag but a lot of this was due to some deficiencies in place kicking and adequate kickoffs.

I agree with all of this. I think recruiting is like gambling in Vegas. Every kid we offer/sign is a gamble on their ability to "pan out." Evaluation is of utmost critical importance. We must evaluate them on several fronts beyond athleticism and scheme fit, we must evaluate on character and academic ability (GT fit). Missing on the last two criteria have seen several good/great players not make it at Tech.

Now, with the promised increase in recruiting staff, we can make strides in both improving evaluation and increasing the pool of prospects that pass all three levels of evaluation. The second part is critical, too, as we won't get all our first choices. We must have second and third choices waiting to target if our first choices go elsewhere. Those backup plans have to on par with the top choice. Most of the time, there's too big a drop off.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well, have you seen Miami's recruiting? This year's class that they are putting together includes 2 5 stars and 13 4 stars. They also have 2 3 stars that are 0.1 below being a 4*, a 5.6, a 5.5, and a 5.2 who is a Kicker. Georgia Tech has 2 commits out of 16 who are rated > 5.6. Miami has 17 out of 20 who are rated > 5.6. Miami had 10 4* the year before, and 7 4* the year before that, and 7 more 4* the year before that. So next year they will have roughly 41 guys rated 4* or higher. We will have 6, none on offense.

This post encapsulates the disparity in talent between GT and the factories. I don't put a lot of stock in the star system, but in order to beat those numbers on the field, you better find a TON of diamonds in the rough, coach them up and put them in the right scheme. We used to do just that...

 

[Deleted member 2897]

This post encapsulates the disparity in talent between GT and the factories. I don't put a lot of stock in the star system, but in order to beat those numbers on the field, you better find a TON of diamonds in the rough, coach them up and put them in the right scheme. We used to do just that...

And where you really start to see it is depth. When Mark Walton at Miami went down, many people were nervous about who would step up to take his place. Well, Travis Homer was that backup. And he was rated higher than every single guy on our entire team except maybe 1 or 2 people. Travis only started in 8 games but still made 2nd team All-ACC.

 

[Lavoisier]

The attrition thing seems to hit us in really specific areas. How many B-Backs have we lost over the years to non-injury stuff? OLine over the years as well. Maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part.