Feldman on Miami & Golden

[NoVaCaneFan]

The talent excuse is so pathetic I live in VA and year in and year out Virginia Tech's great DC Bud Foster has them 3* boys playing hard they've run a 4-3 aggressive attacking d-line and their secondary is always nice especially their CB's

Stop believing Alfred's lies about the talent level we have enough talent to win the Coastal and not give up 500 yrds. a game..............Al Golden is basically Al Groh 2.0

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

I'm not arguing that, but there isn't a service to re-rank the recruits this far into their college careers. The only option for comparing talent is their high school rankings.

Of course there are ways to re-evaluate the talent levels. Production, All-conference, draft status, etc. By saying that, you are suggesting that we still think Blake Bortles is a two-star, unranked quarterback, or that the only way NFL teams can evaluate talent is to look back at their high school ratings.

That's literally not what I'm saying at all. With how structured recruiting is, every single prospect is rated and analyzed to some extent. There isn't a service that takes every single player across D1 college football and compares them in a list. And once again, talent is what was being argued. Blake Bortles was an average 2 star recruit talent wise, however with good coaching and player development he's now a top 3 draft pick. His production and development have exceeded his talent. He's the classic interpretation of an overachiever, as is Johnny Manziel. A classic underachiever would be a Seantrel Henderson or a Jeff Driskel.

The disconnect we are having here is the confusion between talent and production. The word talent is defined as a special ability that allows someone to do something well. The rankings clearly show that our players were projected to have more talent than Duke's. However, coaching has allowed Duke's players to exceed their former talent and perform at a higher level. Ours clearly didn't.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

So did WF have more talent then FSU in 2011?

What does that have to do with anything?

Wake never has more talent than FSU just as Duke didn't have more talent than us this season.

We were out-coached in that game. That's the point that's trying to be made here.

Do you honestly feel that Duke had more talent than us this season and that's the reason we lost, or were they better prepared than we were and better coached?

Most important position QB Duke's proved to better, tougher, gamers,
RB's are better
WR we have the edge talent wise but their #1 can hang with ours.
OL push
DE theirs was better
Their MLB was better
Their saftey's are better

Should I continue.

So overall I don't think we out talent them. At least not enough to overcome an inefficient offense that couldn't convert on key 3rds downs.
2 long runs blew the game open for Duke. Go back and watch those runs and tell me if scheme or play calling was the reason why they were successful.

Lastly Cutcliffe is a heck of a coach

I disagree with almost every position you gave them the edge to. Every single recruiting service ranked our players higher on average.

According to ESPN's rankings,

QB=Morris was higher rated than the average of Boone and Connette. (48 vs. 37 and 61.)

RB=Since Dallas wasn't ranked at RB, Gus was higher rated than Thompson. (57 vs. 65.)

WR=For this particular game, Hurns,Waters, and Coley lead over McCaffrey, Crowder, and Blakeney. (103, 67 ATH, 4 vs. 233, 65 ATH, NR.)

TE=Duke's Deaver over Walford. (161 WR vs. NR.)

OL=Flowers, Feliciano, McDermott, Linder, and Henderson easily over Cofield, Harding, Skura, Tomlinson, Simmons. (57 OT, 51 OT, 5 C, 2 C, 1 OT vs. 127 OT, 58 OG, 13 OC, 65 OG, NR.)

DE=Green and Chickilo better than Foxx and Anunike. (140 DE and 5 DE vs. 138 DE and NR TE.)

DT=Porter and Pierre over Bruce and Sarmiento. (19 DT and High rank Post DE vs. 144 DE and 71 DE.)

MLB=Helton over Gaines. (31 ILB vs. NR OLB.)

OLB=Perryman and Cornelius over Brown and Cash. (28 ILB and 26 OLB vs. 88 OLB and 13 S.)

CB=Howard and Gunter over Patterson and ****rell. (1 CB and JUCO NR CB vs. 82 S and NR CB.)

S=Bush, Jenkins, Highsmith, an Rodgers II over Norman and McCarthy. (4 S, 42 S, 24 QB, and 32 CB vs. 51 S and 144 S.)

We more than enough talent and should have been able to overwhelm them. Certain things in the game prevented that from happening. Coley getting hurt, the defense quitting, stalling in the red zone, weak 3rd down performances, etc.. The 2 big runs certainly busted the onslaught open, but that's 14 points and our 30 should have been more than enough to beat Duke. Our mediocre scheme and play calling went up against elite scheme and play calling. That's ultimately why we lost.

I really appreciate your response however flawed it is. At least you tried to support your position with reasoning.

However like I said it's flawed. By your thinking Aldarius Johnson was more talented then Hurns.
But more than that its not like there were wide gaps in the position rankings in your comparisons. Given how inexact the rankings systems are and how player ratings mysteriously move up or down based on who's offering them a player ranked 40th and one ranked 50th is no real tangibly different.
LULZ at you using the average of Dukes to QB to support your position that Morris is more talent. C'mon man, talent aside, which QB's were better leaders? Which QB's willed their teams to win where ours couldn't will a cop to donut shop?

So I prefer the good ole way of judging by what I see of the players in college and college level acknowledgements they receive where Duke had 6 players on offense or defense in 1st and 2nd team ALL ACC compared to 4 for Miami.
Their Safety Cash takes a back seat to none of our safeties including Bush, who was severely limited that game due to his injury.
Both their LBs would start along side Perryman on our defense.
Anunike would start at DE for us.
Their CB ****rell would at least start at nickel.
Crowder would start in our 3 WR rotation.
Their RBs compared to our are a push.

So despite popular belief, we did not have some marked TALENT edge vs Duke.

It's only flawed depending on how you interpret the word, "talent," vs., "production." Aldarius Johnson was more talented than Allen Hurns. But Hurns hit the weight room, Johnson didn't. Hurns spent extra time on routes after practice, Johnson didn't. Hurns was focused and learned the playbook, Johnson didn't. There's a fire in Hurns that clearly wasn't in Johnson and it showed with how they produced on the field. The old adage of hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard may be the most accurate phrase in sports.

Nobody is arguing the point that their players outperformed ours and played better throughout the entire season and particularly in our game against each other. Rankings aren't exact by any means, but it's the best available when you can't watch every player's film in high school or college. We have players ranked #1-#5 at their position being outplayed by non-ranked guys. That is what speaks to coaching. Duke's guys have exceeded their projected talent by miles while many of ours have underperformed by equal gravity. Duke's players out-performed outs because they were better prepared, healthier, or just wanted it more, but it wasn't because they were more talented. They got 150% out of their talent while our players got around 45%.

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit and I'm not qualified to make up my own formula including it. Morris is no leader whatsoever especially when compared to Boone. But I believe t was their backup that scored 4 touchdowns against us. He vastly exceeded his projection.

We did have a large talent edge over Duke, based on high school projections and to the point where the talent for both teams was expected to have developed. Coaching and player development is what flipped the talent success and had Duke's players looking like studs and ours looking like nobodies. Their improvement of talent vs. our failure of talent is the problem.

 

[AntwanJ306]

That's literally not what I'm saying at all. With how structured recruiting is, every single prospect is rated and analyzed to some extent. There isn't a service that takes every single player across D1 college football and compares them in a list. And once again, talent is what was being argued. Blake Bortles was an average 2 star recruit talent wise, however with good coaching and player development he's now a top 3 draft pick. His production and development have exceeded his talent. He's the classic interpretation of an overachiever, as is Johnny Manziel. A classic underachiever would be a Seantrel Henderson or a Jeff Driskel.

The disconnect we are having here is the confusion between talent and production. The word talent is defined as a special ability that allows someone to do something well. The rankings clearly show that our players were projected to have more talent than Duke's. However, coaching has allowed Duke's players to exceed their former talent and perform at a higher level. Ours clearly didn't.

But we see proof every single year of how flawed those rankings were. Hundreds, every single year. Look at the 2011 quarterback rankings and see how many busts there are in that year's top 20. Do that for every single recruiting class. There aren't just one or two outliers. You look at those lists and ask "who the &^%* is that guy? He was a five star QB??"

 

[AntwanJ306]

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit.....

And that should be reason #1 for not relying on high school recruiting rankings when comparing QBs.

 

[Miami82]

What does that have to do with anything?

Wake never has more talent than FSU just as Duke didn't have more talent than us this season.

We were out-coached in that game. That's the point that's trying to be made here.

Do you honestly feel that Duke had more talent than us this season and that's the reason we lost, or were they better prepared than we were and better coached?

Most important position QB Duke's proved to better, tougher, gamers,
RB's are better
WR we have the edge talent wise but their #1 can hang with ours.
OL push
DE theirs was better
Their MLB was better
Their saftey's are better

Should I continue.

So overall I don't think we out talent them. At least not enough to overcome an inefficient offense that couldn't convert on key 3rds downs.
2 long runs blew the game open for Duke. Go back and watch those runs and tell me if scheme or play calling was the reason why they were successful.

Lastly Cutcliffe is a heck of a coach

I disagree with almost every position you gave them the edge to. Every single recruiting service ranked our players higher on average.

According to ESPN's rankings,

QB=Morris was higher rated than the average of Boone and Connette. (48 vs. 37 and 61.)

RB=Since Dallas wasn't ranked at RB, Gus was higher rated than Thompson. (57 vs. 65.)

WR=For this particular game, Hurns,Waters, and Coley lead over McCaffrey, Crowder, and Blakeney. (103, 67 ATH, 4 vs. 233, 65 ATH, NR.)

TE=Duke's Deaver over Walford. (161 WR vs. NR.)

OL=Flowers, Feliciano, McDermott, Linder, and Henderson easily over Cofield, Harding, Skura, Tomlinson, Simmons. (57 OT, 51 OT, 5 C, 2 C, 1 OT vs. 127 OT, 58 OG, 13 OC, 65 OG, NR.)

DE=Green and Chickilo better than Foxx and Anunike. (140 DE and 5 DE vs. 138 DE and NR TE.)

DT=Porter and Pierre over Bruce and Sarmiento. (19 DT and High rank Post DE vs. 144 DE and 71 DE.)

MLB=Helton over Gaines. (31 ILB vs. NR OLB.)

OLB=Perryman and Cornelius over Brown and Cash. (28 ILB and 26 OLB vs. 88 OLB and 13 S.)

CB=Howard and Gunter over Patterson and ****rell. (1 CB and JUCO NR CB vs. 82 S and NR CB.)

S=Bush, Jenkins, Highsmith, an Rodgers II over Norman and McCarthy. (4 S, 42 S, 24 QB, and 32 CB vs. 51 S and 144 S.)

We more than enough talent and should have been able to overwhelm them. Certain things in the game prevented that from happening. Coley getting hurt, the defense quitting, stalling in the red zone, weak 3rd down performances, etc.. The 2 big runs certainly busted the onslaught open, but that's 14 points and our 30 should have been more than enough to beat Duke. Our mediocre scheme and play calling went up against elite scheme and play calling. That's ultimately why we lost.

I really appreciate your response however flawed it is. At least you tried to support your position with reasoning.

However like I said it's flawed. By your thinking Aldarius Johnson was more talented then Hurns.
But more than that its not like there were wide gaps in the position rankings in your comparisons. Given how inexact the rankings systems are and how player ratings mysteriously move up or down based on who's offering them a player ranked 40th and one ranked 50th is no real tangibly different.
LULZ at you using the average of Dukes to QB to support your position that Morris is more talent. C'mon man, talent aside, which QB's were better leaders? Which QB's willed their teams to win where ours couldn't will a cop to donut shop?

So I prefer the good ole way of judging by what I see of the players in college and college level acknowledgements they receive where Duke had 6 players on offense or defense in 1st and 2nd team ALL ACC compared to 4 for Miami.
Their Safety Cash takes a back seat to none of our safeties including Bush, who was severely limited that game due to his injury.
Both their LBs would start along side Perryman on our defense.
Anunike would start at DE for us.
Their CB ****rell would at least start at nickel.
Crowder would start in our 3 WR rotation.
Their RBs compared to our are a push.

So despite popular belief, we did not have some marked TALENT edge vs Duke.

It's only flawed depending on how you interpret the word, "talent," vs., "production." Aldarius Johnson was more talented than Allen Hurns. But Hurns hit the weight room, Johnson didn't. Hurns spent extra time on routes after practice, Johnson didn't. Hurns was focused and learned the playbook, Johnson didn't. There's a fire in Hurns that clearly wasn't in Johnson and it showed with how they produced on the field. The old adage of hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard may be the most accurate phrase in sports.

Nobody is arguing the point that their players outperformed ours and played better throughout the entire season and particularly in our game against each other. Rankings aren't exact by any means, but it's the best available when you can't watch every player's film in high school or college. We have players ranked #1-#5 at their position being outplayed by non-ranked guys. That is what speaks to coaching. Duke's guys have exceeded their projected talent by miles while many of ours have underperformed by equal gravity. Duke's players out-performed outs because they were better prepared, healthier, or just wanted it more, but it wasn't because they were more talented. They got 150% out of their talent while our players got around 45%.

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit and I'm not qualified to make up my own formula including it. Morris is no leader whatsoever especially when compared to Boone. But I believe t was their backup that scored 4 touchdowns against us. He vastly exceeded his projection.

We did have a large talent edge over Duke, based on high school projections and to the point where the talent for both teams was expected to have developed. Coaching and player development is what flipped the talent success and had Duke's players looking like studs and ours looking like nobodies. Their improvement of talent vs. our failure of talent is the problem.

This

 

[AntwanJ306]

This

So you guys are in agreement that Duke will continue to win the Coastal despite massive losses next year since their coaches can just take anyone and turn them into a 10-2 team?

 

[Miami82]

This

So you guys are in agreement that Duke will continue to win the Coastal despite massive losses next year since their coaches can just take anyone and turn them into a 10-2 team?

What massive losses do they have?

 

[AntwanJ306]

This

So you guys are in agreement that Duke will continue to win the Coastal despite massive losses next year since their coaches can just take anyone and turn them into a 10-2 team?

What massive losses do they have?

What difference does it make? Do you have them challenging for the Coastal every year since Cutcliffe can apparently take anyone and turn them into studs?

 

[Miami82]

This

So you guys are in agreement that Duke will continue to win the Coastal despite massive losses next year since their coaches can just take anyone and turn them into a 10-2 team?

What massive losses do they have?

What difference does it make? Do you have them challenging for the Coastal every year since Cutcliffe can apparently take anyone and turn them into studs?

LMAO, if it doesn't matter why did you make the statement? Dramatic effect... That isn't what Ted said to begin with. Nice straw man.

 

[DaU83]

The talent excuse is so pathetic I live in VA and year in and year out Virginia Tech's great DC Bud Foster has them 3* boys playing hard they've run a 4-3 aggressive attacking d-line and their secondary is always nice especially their CB's

Stop believing Alfred's lies about the talent level we have enough talent to win the Coastal and not give up 500 yrds. a game..............Al Golden is basically Al Groh 2.0

you realize that foster can do that because they've been there for ever and recruit for their system regardless of star ranking and have the time to adequately develop those guys.. exactly what golden is trying to do.

 

[AntwanJ306]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

 

[Hobokane]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

They've only spent 10 pages trying to "define" their point, but you and those of your ilk seem incapable of grasping simple logic.

I've not read more circular reasoning in a thread in some time. IMO, you spew the same flawed, incomprehensible points and ignore those that don't fit you're point of view. So its not even a discussion any longer. Not b/c the other side isn't listening and responding, but you cannot seem to comprehend what they're saying.

It's all well and good to have a difference of opinion, but jezuz lord, why can't you (those supporting Al or downplaying the malaise of our program--not you specifically) cede even one or two points just for the sake of moving the "conversation" along? You're dug in like Al with D'onofrio, you seem incapable of reason.

 

[CaneAlmighty]

What does that have to do with anything?

Wake never has more talent than FSU just as Duke didn't have more talent than us this season.

We were out-coached in that game. That's the point that's trying to be made here.

Do you honestly feel that Duke had more talent than us this season and that's the reason we lost, or were they better prepared than we were and better coached?

Most important position QB Duke's proved to better, tougher, gamers,
RB's are better
WR we have the edge talent wise but their #1 can hang with ours.
OL push
DE theirs was better
Their MLB was better
Their saftey's are better

Should I continue.

So overall I don't think we out talent them. At least not enough to overcome an inefficient offense that couldn't convert on key 3rds downs.
2 long runs blew the game open for Duke. Go back and watch those runs and tell me if scheme or play calling was the reason why they were successful.

Lastly Cutcliffe is a heck of a coach

I disagree with almost every position you gave them the edge to. Every single recruiting service ranked our players higher on average.

According to ESPN's rankings,

QB=Morris was higher rated than the average of Boone and Connette. (48 vs. 37 and 61.)

RB=Since Dallas wasn't ranked at RB, Gus was higher rated than Thompson. (57 vs. 65.)

WR=For this particular game, Hurns,Waters, and Coley lead over McCaffrey, Crowder, and Blakeney. (103, 67 ATH, 4 vs. 233, 65 ATH, NR.)

TE=Duke's Deaver over Walford. (161 WR vs. NR.)

OL=Flowers, Feliciano, McDermott, Linder, and Henderson easily over Cofield, Harding, Skura, Tomlinson, Simmons. (57 OT, 51 OT, 5 C, 2 C, 1 OT vs. 127 OT, 58 OG, 13 OC, 65 OG, NR.)

DE=Green and Chickilo better than Foxx and Anunike. (140 DE and 5 DE vs. 138 DE and NR TE.)

DT=Porter and Pierre over Bruce and Sarmiento. (19 DT and High rank Post DE vs. 144 DE and 71 DE.)

MLB=Helton over Gaines. (31 ILB vs. NR OLB.)

OLB=Perryman and Cornelius over Brown and Cash. (28 ILB and 26 OLB vs. 88 OLB and 13 S.)

CB=Howard and Gunter over Patterson and ****rell. (1 CB and JUCO NR CB vs. 82 S and NR CB.)

S=Bush, Jenkins, Highsmith, an Rodgers II over Norman and McCarthy. (4 S, 42 S, 24 QB, and 32 CB vs. 51 S and 144 S.)

We more than enough talent and should have been able to overwhelm them. Certain things in the game prevented that from happening. Coley getting hurt, the defense quitting, stalling in the red zone, weak 3rd down performances, etc.. The 2 big runs certainly busted the onslaught open, but that's 14 points and our 30 should have been more than enough to beat Duke. Our mediocre scheme and play calling went up against elite scheme and play calling. That's ultimately why we lost.

I really appreciate your response however flawed it is. At least you tried to support your position with reasoning.

However like I said it's flawed. By your thinking Aldarius Johnson was more talented then Hurns.
But more than that its not like there were wide gaps in the position rankings in your comparisons. Given how inexact the rankings systems are and how player ratings mysteriously move up or down based on who's offering them a player ranked 40th and one ranked 50th is no real tangibly different.
LULZ at you using the average of Dukes to QB to support your position that Morris is more talent. C'mon man, talent aside, which QB's were better leaders? Which QB's willed their teams to win where ours couldn't will a cop to donut shop?

So I prefer the good ole way of judging by what I see of the players in college and college level acknowledgements they receive where Duke had 6 players on offense or defense in 1st and 2nd team ALL ACC compared to 4 for Miami.
Their Safety Cash takes a back seat to none of our safeties including Bush, who was severely limited that game due to his injury.
Both their LBs would start along side Perryman on our defense.
Anunike would start at DE for us.
Their CB ****rell would at least start at nickel.
Crowder would start in our 3 WR rotation.
Their RBs compared to our are a push.

So despite popular belief, we did not have some marked TALENT edge vs Duke.

It's only flawed depending on how you interpret the word, "talent," vs., "production." Aldarius Johnson was more talented than Allen Hurns. But Hurns hit the weight room, Johnson didn't. Hurns spent extra time on routes after practice, Johnson didn't. Hurns was focused and learned the playbook, Johnson didn't. There's a fire in Hurns that clearly wasn't in Johnson and it showed with how they produced on the field. The old adage of hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard may be the most accurate phrase in sports.

Nobody is arguing the point that their players outperformed ours and played better throughout the entire season and particularly in our game against each other. Rankings aren't exact by any means, but it's the best available when you can't watch every player's film in high school or college. We have players ranked #1-#5 at their position being outplayed by non-ranked guys. That is what speaks to coaching. Duke's guys have exceeded their projected talent by miles while many of ours have underperformed by equal gravity. Duke's players out-performed outs because they were better prepared, healthier, or just wanted it more, but it wasn't because they were more talented. They got 150% out of their talent while our players got around 45%.

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit and I'm not qualified to make up my own formula including it. Morris is no leader whatsoever especially when compared to Boone. But I believe t was their backup that scored 4 touchdowns against us. He vastly exceeded his projection.

We did have a large talent edge over Duke, based on high school projections and to the point where the talent for both teams was expected to have developed. Coaching and player development is what flipped the talent success and had Duke's players looking like studs and ours looking like nobodies. Their improvement of talent vs. our failure of talent is the problem.

ALdarius being rated higher then Hurns coming out of High School was not about talent level. It was about Aldarius playing for the nationally hyped NW Bulls compared to Hurns playing in Coral City that ran the wing T.
Nice reach by you trying to attribute Hurns ascent to his work ethic compared to Aldarius's. What, you're saying that Hurns work ethic was poor in High School?

so your logic remains flawed. You're basically saying NFL scouts should take a players High School rankings heavily into account as part of their evaluations. If a low rated HS kid turns into a baller in college its due to that player "being a hard worker" GTFOH with that.

You're using High School ratings as a crutch because that's all you have. But anyone that can look at a game and spot talent will tell your there was no Talent advantage either way when Miami played Duke. Especially not a "Large" one like you're trying to sell.


Lastly, why did it take Coaching and player development at Duke 6-7 years?
Why did we beat the last 2 years?

 

[AntwanJ306]

Are you struggling with the point? Since you guys have spent ten pages trying to prove that David Cutcliffe had less talent than us and made them the best team in the Coastal, do you expect that to continue? Or will the 3-9 David Cutcliffe return once the guys who led the 2013 team are gone?

They've only spent 10 pages trying to "define" their point, but you and those of your ilk seem incapable of grasping simple logic.

I've not read more circular reasoning in a thread in some time. IMO, you spew the same flawed, incomprehensible points and ignore those that don't fit you're point of view. So its not even a discussion any longer. Not b/c the other side isn't listening and responding, but you cannot seem to comprehend what they're saying.

It's all well and good to have a difference of opinion, but jezuz lord, why can't you (those supporting Al or downplaying the malaise of our program--not you specifically) cede even one or two points just for the sake of moving the "conversation" along? You're dug in like Al with D'onofrio, you seem incapable of reason.

When you have Miami82 liking your posts, that can't be a good sign.

Why don't you practice what you preach. How about conceding a point or two on the other side. Do you think that David Cutcliffe does such a good job of developing "lesser talent" that he is going to continue to win the Coastal with no-name players? No one seems to be able to address that question, despite the embarrassing ***-kissing of Cutcliffe and his alleged developmental prowess.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

That's literally not what I'm saying at all. With how structured recruiting is, every single prospect is rated and analyzed to some extent. There isn't a service that takes every single player across D1 college football and compares them in a list. And once again, talent is what was being argued. Blake Bortles was an average 2 star recruit talent wise, however with good coaching and player development he's now a top 3 draft pick. His production and development have exceeded his talent. He's the classic interpretation of an overachiever, as is Johnny Manziel. A classic underachiever would be a Seantrel Henderson or a Jeff Driskel.

The disconnect we are having here is the confusion between talent and production. The word talent is defined as a special ability that allows someone to do something well. The rankings clearly show that our players were projected to have more talent than Duke's. However, coaching has allowed Duke's players to exceed their former talent and perform at a higher level. Ours clearly didn't.

But we see proof every single year of how flawed those rankings were. Hundreds, every single year. Look at the 2011 quarterback rankings and see how many busts there are in that year's top 20. Do that for every single recruiting class. There aren't just one or two outliers. You look at those lists and ask "who the &^%* is that guy? He was a five star QB??"

According to ESPN's rankings, 8 of the top 20 QB's from 2011 ended up playing a different position once in college. But Braxton Miller, Teddy Bridgewater, and Brett Hundley are some successes while Max Wittek, Tony McNeal, and Gary Nova have been less than stellar. I'm not debating that there are busts, but if the #4 QB plays like the #17 QB, how much of difference is that really? Morris by in large played like #48 QB that he is while Boone played above #39. There's been a lot more accurate recruiting hits than misses.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit.....

And that should be reason #1 for not relying on high school recruiting rankings when comparing QBs.

By that logic, we should just eliminate recruiting rankings/analysis all together. Leadership is not a measurable ability like delivery or arm strength is. It's a pass/fail category. Morris failed, but his elite arm strength should have made up for that. We directly saw results based on how good QB coaching from Fisch vs. average QB coaching from Coley affected Morris. Cutcliffe could have made Morris all world in 4 years. Leader? No. But stellar QB, easily.

 

[AntwanJ306]

By that logic, we should just eliminate recruiting rankings/analysis all together.

Amen. The only reason they exist is to sell subscriptions to college football fans. That's exactly the logic I am talking about.

Leadership is not a measurable ability like delivery or arm strength is. It's a pass/fail category.

Exactly. And that's exactly why I wonder why people like yourself fall in love with those rankings. They can't measure leadership, but you want to use them to rank QUARTERBACKS of all people. You don't see a problem with that?

Cutcliffe could have made Morris all world in 4 years.

Based on what? He had Sean Renfree, a four-star, top 10 QB out of high school, since you're all about rankings, and coached him up so well that the guy threw a whole 19 touchdown passes as a senior.

Leader? No. But stellar QB, easily.

There are stellar QB's who aren't leaders? Name them, please.

 

[AntwanJ306]

According to ESPN's rankings, 8 of the top 20 QB's from 2011 ended up playing a different position once in college. But Braxton Miller, Teddy Bridgewater, and Brett Hundley are some successes while Max Wittek, Tony McNeal, and Gary Nova have been less than stellar. I'm not debating that there are busts, but if the #4 QB plays like the #17 QB, how much of difference is that really? Morris by in large played like #48 QB that he is while Boone played above #39. There's been a lot more accurate recruiting hits than misses.

So ESPN's rankings are so accurate that 40% of their top 20 quarterbacks didn't even play quarterback in college. I came into this thinking that high school rankings are silly, but you're giving me even more ammunition.

It's not that the #4 QB is playing like the #17 QB, it's that half of the top ten QBs never even take a snap. Yet 3-4 years later you still want to point to those same rankings as though they mean something.

 

[TedHendricksOffspring]

Most important position QB Duke's proved to better, tougher, gamers,
RB's are better
WR we have the edge talent wise but their #1 can hang with ours.
OL push
DE theirs was better
Their MLB was better
Their saftey's are better

Should I continue.

So overall I don't think we out talent them. At least not enough to overcome an inefficient offense that couldn't convert on key 3rds downs.
2 long runs blew the game open for Duke. Go back and watch those runs and tell me if scheme or play calling was the reason why they were successful.

Lastly Cutcliffe is a heck of a coach

I disagree with almost every position you gave them the edge to. Every single recruiting service ranked our players higher on average.

According to ESPN's rankings,

QB=Morris was higher rated than the average of Boone and Connette. (48 vs. 37 and 61.)

RB=Since Dallas wasn't ranked at RB, Gus was higher rated than Thompson. (57 vs. 65.)

WR=For this particular game, Hurns,Waters, and Coley lead over McCaffrey, Crowder, and Blakeney. (103, 67 ATH, 4 vs. 233, 65 ATH, NR.)

TE=Duke's Deaver over Walford. (161 WR vs. NR.)

OL=Flowers, Feliciano, McDermott, Linder, and Henderson easily over Cofield, Harding, Skura, Tomlinson, Simmons. (57 OT, 51 OT, 5 C, 2 C, 1 OT vs. 127 OT, 58 OG, 13 OC, 65 OG, NR.)

DE=Green and Chickilo better than Foxx and Anunike. (140 DE and 5 DE vs. 138 DE and NR TE.)

DT=Porter and Pierre over Bruce and Sarmiento. (19 DT and High rank Post DE vs. 144 DE and 71 DE.)

MLB=Helton over Gaines. (31 ILB vs. NR OLB.)

OLB=Perryman and Cornelius over Brown and Cash. (28 ILB and 26 OLB vs. 88 OLB and 13 S.)

CB=Howard and Gunter over Patterson and ****rell. (1 CB and JUCO NR CB vs. 82 S and NR CB.)

S=Bush, Jenkins, Highsmith, an Rodgers II over Norman and McCarthy. (4 S, 42 S, 24 QB, and 32 CB vs. 51 S and 144 S.)

We more than enough talent and should have been able to overwhelm them. Certain things in the game prevented that from happening. Coley getting hurt, the defense quitting, stalling in the red zone, weak 3rd down performances, etc.. The 2 big runs certainly busted the onslaught open, but that's 14 points and our 30 should have been more than enough to beat Duke. Our mediocre scheme and play calling went up against elite scheme and play calling. That's ultimately why we lost.

I really appreciate your response however flawed it is. At least you tried to support your position with reasoning.

However like I said it's flawed. By your thinking Aldarius Johnson was more talented then Hurns.
But more than that its not like there were wide gaps in the position rankings in your comparisons. Given how inexact the rankings systems are and how player ratings mysteriously move up or down based on who's offering them a player ranked 40th and one ranked 50th is no real tangibly different.
LULZ at you using the average of Dukes to QB to support your position that Morris is more talent. C'mon man, talent aside, which QB's were better leaders? Which QB's willed their teams to win where ours couldn't will a cop to donut shop?

So I prefer the good ole way of judging by what I see of the players in college and college level acknowledgements they receive where Duke had 6 players on offense or defense in 1st and 2nd team ALL ACC compared to 4 for Miami.
Their Safety Cash takes a back seat to none of our safeties including Bush, who was severely limited that game due to his injury.
Both their LBs would start along side Perryman on our defense.
Anunike would start at DE for us.
Their CB ****rell would at least start at nickel.
Crowder would start in our 3 WR rotation.
Their RBs compared to our are a push.

So despite popular belief, we did not have some marked TALENT edge vs Duke.

It's only flawed depending on how you interpret the word, "talent," vs., "production." Aldarius Johnson was more talented than Allen Hurns. But Hurns hit the weight room, Johnson didn't. Hurns spent extra time on routes after practice, Johnson didn't. Hurns was focused and learned the playbook, Johnson didn't. There's a fire in Hurns that clearly wasn't in Johnson and it showed with how they produced on the field. The old adage of hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard may be the most accurate phrase in sports.

Nobody is arguing the point that their players outperformed ours and played better throughout the entire season and particularly in our game against each other. Rankings aren't exact by any means, but it's the best available when you can't watch every player's film in high school or college. We have players ranked #1-#5 at their position being outplayed by non-ranked guys. That is what speaks to coaching. Duke's guys have exceeded their projected talent by miles while many of ours have underperformed by equal gravity. Duke's players out-performed outs because they were better prepared, healthier, or just wanted it more, but it wasn't because they were more talented. They got 150% out of their talent while our players got around 45%.

As far as QB is concerned, leadership really isn't factored in when grading a high school recruit and I'm not qualified to make up my own formula including it. Morris is no leader whatsoever especially when compared to Boone. But I believe t was their backup that scored 4 touchdowns against us. He vastly exceeded his projection.

We did have a large talent edge over Duke, based on high school projections and to the point where the talent for both teams was expected to have developed. Coaching and player development is what flipped the talent success and had Duke's players looking like studs and ours looking like nobodies. Their improvement of talent vs. our failure of talent is the problem.

ALdarius being rated higher then Hurns coming out of High School was not about talent level. It was about Aldarius playing for the nationally hyped NW Bulls compared to Hurns playing in Coral City that ran the wing T.
Nice reach by you trying to attribute Hurns ascent to his work ethic compared to Aldarius's. What, you're saying that Hurns work ethic was poor in High School?

so your logic remains flawed. You're basically saying NFL scouts should take a players High School rankings heavily into account as part of their evaluations. If a low rated HS kid turns into a baller in college its due to that player "being a hard worker" GTFOH with that.

You're using High School ratings as a crutch because that's all you have. But anyone that can look at a game and spot talent will tell your there was no Talent advantage either way when Miami played Duke. Especially not a "Large" one like you're trying to sell.


Lastly, why did it take Coaching and player development at Duke 6-7 years?
Why did we beat the last 2 years?

Aldarius was in a system that played to his strength while Allen was not. No argument here about that. What I'm saying is Johnson had more talent than Hurns, which he did, but he had an awful work ethic. He realized 50% of his talent while Allen realized 100%. You just said a reason that Hurns wasn't spotted sufficiently in high school was because of a bad system so how did I say he had a poor work ethic in high school?

The logic is not flawed. When players declare for the draft, their tape is analyzed and they are graded/ranked at their position just like in high school. It's the exact same process except it's done after 4 years of development and with multiple eyes being paid to evaluate the players. I said nothing of the sort that NFL scouts look at high school grades to reevaluate players, especially since new grades are made available to them. That's why there's a grading system. If a low rated recruit does turn into a star in college, I've been saying for 10 pages that COACHING could have put him in a scheme to succeed, maximize his talent, and surround him with other players that he can feed off of to be successful.

I'm using the high school ratings because that is numerical evaluation of talent. You are ignoring my point that talent is not the same thing as production. Were the 2007 New York Giants more talented than the 2007 New England Patriots? No. Same goes for 2002 Miami vs. 2002 Ohio State and 1986 Miami vs. 1986 Penn State. Production is not always reflective of talent, especially on a single given day. The gap talent wise between the two teams was large and still is, but the coaching gap is even larger.

This video does a better job explaining my point than I am: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVzETb9FSMw

Cutcliffe changed the scheme and recruited a brand new breed of player while being the 4th best team in his own state. Ted Roof, his predecessor went 6-45 over the previous 5 season and hadn't been to a bowl game since 1960. We think Golden took over a dumpster fire? Duke football was on life support. A 6 year rebuild in a weak recruiting bed when you're getting Plan D players and have no history since the 60's or NFL success to sell is about how long it should have taken.

We beat them in 2011 because we out talented them and had a senior QB throw to NFL receivers against freshmen and sophomores on Duke's defense while our average defense went up against other freshmen and sophomores on Duke's offense. Last year, the talent gap really showed when it took our Duke, the most talented player on the field, accounting for 5 TD's four different ways to beat them by 4 in a slugfest. If he isn't hurt this year, we may have actually won.