CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Cincydawg on May 23, 2019, 06:42:07 AM
-
What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there? (I presume few of us rank every 297,000 teams each year.) I think many of us (most?) are influenced by Athlon et al. at least to get a top 20 or so. Maybe a team below that perks up and gets interesting later on, which is neat I think.
My own rather qualitative "ranking scheme" goes like this:
1. Solid returning QB with experience. This is my number uno factor, by a good measure. Obviously, a highly regarded FNG can be given some "points", and we fairly often today see an FNG QB do really well, but it's harder to predict.
2. Returning OLmen who were good last year. This can compensate for an inexperienced QB to an extent and make a decent RB look really good. If 3-4 return and 1-2 were all conference, really good sign.
3. Consistency. If the team has recruited well and has finished top ten over the past 5 year period or so, it's obvious they likely will finish there again. Duh.
4. Schedule. Each team typically has 4-5 "loseable games" each season, if they are top ten material. Some of these games can be decided by a late fumble or penalty or whatever and end up as a loss even by the better team.
This is usually pretty good for choosing 7-8 of the top ten, and sometimes useful in spotting a less heralded team that has the potential to have a great year (top ten). And of course, "round up the usual suspects" works well also.
-
throw returning defensive players/playmakers/difference makers in there someplace and I'm with you
-
That solid QB thing didn't work too well for my boys last year. He got worse...
I'm bullish on this season, due to his transfer, the OL, RB, TE and WR. DL is healthy too, which also hurt last year. LB is young, but very fast. It will be fun to watch them.
-
That solid QB thing didn't work too well for my boys last year. He got worse...
Nothing works every time obviously, else we could parade out a top ten that would be the same as the final top ten. I see it as a significant factor though.
Today, it seems plenty of freshmen QBs are ready to take the helm and do very well though as I think they get better coaching in HS than in 1990 or so. The OL thing is arguably more important than the QB thing.
-
OL is always important to any offense, but especially to offenses like the Badgers and the Hawkeyes and Georgia Tech
-
Georgia Tech is changing of course and it will be interesting to see how they fare over the years. I do not think it will be pretty. The Paul Johnson offense was quirky enough to win some games. It means you can recruit WRs who can only block a bit, same for TEs, and simplifies your needs.
Georgia is another team that depends heavily on a good OL. And they have one by all appearances today.
How often does a top level team hinge on a great defense these days? No doubt it's a clear asset, but Bama and Clemson and OSU etc. can be relied upon to have great athletes every year on D which is why I don't "worry about it much".
-
i think i'd go:
- returning oline that were/are good. returning a bad oline doesn't do much for me. same for other positions. to me, a good oline can mask almost all other problems on the o side, and today's game is geared towards offense.
- returning dline. all world secondary and/or lbs can't do much if the qb has time to throw or oline can easily get to second level.
- returning qb. can mask some, but will eventually get caught and need help.
- returning rb. can take over a game more effectively than a single lb, db, te or wr.
- coaching turnover
- recruiting consistency - this will allow for holes from leaving starters to be filled with quality players that already know the system
- recruiting needs met - a star player can change a team, but it's got to be in the right place.
- schedule - when and where the hard teams fall is a contributing factor.
-
My purported "system" only applies to top teams (top 15 or so). That is why I assume they will have a decent defense every year based on good recruiting, and special teams. I also assume they will have a very good running back.
Coaching is a good point, coaches in Year Two often do really well. Coaches in year one, rarely.
-
How often does a great defensive player change the game for a top team these days?
I was musing about Roquan Smith, who was close to as much of a game changer as I've seen for a while on defense. He certainly made a difference.
-
If that's the case, Maryland ought to be really good this year.
-
If that's the case, Maryland ought to be really good this year.
If what is the case?
"What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there?"
-
I guess I look at returning players, recruiting and coaches.
PLAYERS
Evaluating returning players is probably the most complicated and important part. How many returning starters? To gauge the returning starters' experience, how many career snaps do they have in aggregate? To gauge returning depth, how many snaps are returning from last year's non-starters? And then for the next layer of context: are the returners any good?
I think those questions about the whole ensemble are at least as important as the individual positions. But yes there should be some weighting here. Good returnees at QB, OL, DL and DB seem more valuable than the others.
RECRUITING
Which tier has the team recruited at the last five years? Has it been recruiting consistently - if inconsistent, are the classes front-loaded or back-loaded? What's the attrition like for the Jr/Sr/RSSr classes?
COACHING
How long has the HC been there? What type of program did he inherit? Any staff turnover? We're any of the losses crown jewels? What's the coach's record for replacing good assistants? And highly underrated: What's his record for ditching bad assistants?
-
I wanted to keep this one separate because it seems more theoretical and controversial:
I think DB is the most complicated set of returnees to evaluate. To me, the difference between a full set of great returning DBs (relative to one great returning DB) is greater than the same difference for full sets at OL or DL (again, relative to just one great one returning).
That's a nuanced point, so I have to be clear: I think, guy-for-guy, that returnees at OL and DL are more valuable than returnees at DB. But I also think that the *slope* for value as you go from one guy to a full set is greatest for DBs. Followed by OL and then by DL (and by far least for WRs and LBs).
There's always a slope for the incomplete sets. Because having a weak link (turd in punch bowl) will always blemish group. I just happen to think that effect is maximal for DBs. That the weak link for a 3(good)/4 DB set is easier to exploit than for a 4(good)/5 OL set or 3(good)/4 DL set.
-
I'm thinking that the OL has to work as a unit, a decent OL with experience can outperform a more talented but inexperienced OL. I can see how that factor works for the secondary as well. Perhaps the LBs and DL guys can play more "in space" without nearly as much need for coordination.
Obviously, a very talented QB who lacks experience may do well at least until great defenses throw complex looks at him. A talented and experienced QB should be harder to fool with scheme, and more apt to take advantage of defensive flaws.
I'm uncertain how to judge the difference between a very good and a great running back in such teams. Holyfield looked really good (to me) last year in college, he often started over Swift (who was banged up early). I'm curious how Holyfield does in the pros. He probably should have stayed his last year, but then his downside is speed (lack thereof) and that doesn't get better.
-
I steal from Bill Connelly. A blend of recent success, recruiting rankings and returning production. I think he’s delved more into the finer points of that last one.
Oh, and it’s all kinda a dumb crapshoot. Having good players mostly helps.
-
I think "we" can reliably choose 7-8 of the top ten teams each year. That's better than shooting craps. These days you might just take last year's final top ten and use that and be in pretty good shape, say picking 5-6 of the final TT. Does anyone think either Bama or Clemson is likely to finish out of the TT?
-
There's a good chance Bill Connelly has the best track record in town.
-
I think "we" can reliably choose 7-8 of the top ten teams each year. That's better than shooting craps. These days you might just take last year's final top ten and use that and be in pretty good shape, say picking 5-6 of the final TT. Does anyone think either Bama or Clemson is likely to finish out of the TT?
I should phrase it like this, the overall outcome is not a crapshoot, but the finer points are.
Like if I say, this team should be good because it returns a solid seasoned QB, a lot of linemen, six really good defensive players and a schedule that seems favorable, I’m likely gonna get a weird blend of them. Some will be important, some less so.
Like if I went into a lot of years saying Wisconsin will win 9ish game, I’m right. But of I said how, chances are it would be sort of mix of right, sort of right and wrong.
-
Quite a few critical games each season are decided by "flukes", unusual or unexpected plays the bounce one way or the other. At times, a good team will have say four "real games" and win three of them, when they almost lost three of them.
-
If what is the case?
"What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there?"
I refuse to follow your silly rules.
I'm using your guidelines for how good ANY TEAM can be.
-
My "silly rules" were laid out in my initial premise. They are not meant to be applied to teams ranked 60th or wherever for a good reason.
If you want to alter the premise and explain yourself, by all means have at it.
You have a chance to clarify your rather enigmatic post.
-
So this is interesting, I looked at No. 1, the solid retiring QB with experiance.
Of the final top-10, the experiance factor was low. Georgia had the best with a true sophomore. Beyond him, Texas had a true sophomore who was a halftime starter and posted a 124.1 rating the year prior. The top six all had new starters with scant experiance. Florida has a guy who was bad. Washington State has a grad transfer with a 3-14 record in the AAC.
I looked at Athlon’s list of top QBs coming in, and you had a mix. A lot of top guys led teams between 10-20. Tua was an outlier. Tate, Lock, Herbert, Stidham, Fitzgerald and Lewerke made top-12.
I wonder if QB feels like a stronger indicator than it is. Like it’s pretty good, maybe not great.
-
Yeah, it could be, I noted quite a few QBs fresh out of HS seem able to do quite well these days, probably because they are so much better prepared than 20 years ago.
It's not a negative of course to have a guy back who is good and has experience, but perhaps it's somewhat over rated? A FNG means a "crap shoot", but he could turn out to be very good or every remarkably good.
-
My modified criteria, in order of importance:
1. Returning OLmen who were good last year. This can compensate for an inexperienced QB to an extent and make a decent RB look really good. If 3-4 return and 1-2 were all conference, really good sign.*
3. Consistency. If the team has recruited well and has finished top ten over the past 5 year period or so, it's obvious they likely will finish there again. This also applies to coaching.
3. Solid returning QB with experience. A highly regarded FNG can be given some "points", and we fairly often today see an FNG QB do really well, but it's harder to predict.
4. Defensive starters returning, especially experience in the secondary.
5. Schedule. Each team typically has 4-5 "loseable games" each season, if they are top ten material. Some of these games can be decided by a late fumble or penalty or whatever and end up as a loss even by the better team. This doesn't relate to how good a team is but does relate to how it gets ranked.
*I also think a good OL lessens the chance of an inferior team coming up with an upset. The great OL should be able to control the clock and open lanes etc. to enable the good team to just wear out the motivated but lesser talented teams.
-
My "silly rules" were laid out in my initial premise. They are not meant to be applied to teams ranked 60th or wherever for a good reason.
If you want to alter the premise and explain yourself, by all means have at it.
You have a chance to clarify your rather enigmatic post.
LOL
This isn't the political board.
I just took your rules and applied them to our team.
Good OL, not great that I'm aware, because we lost 2 to the NFL, but great highly sought after OL replace them, with experience.
Our RB situation is awesome. Sorry. I guess they're sleeping on them again.
Looks like Josh Jackson, (ex-Hokie and considered the best QB on paper compared since Scott McBrien), will be the QB.
So, that's the offense.
Defense is the wild card, but they're beefier.
Hung with Ohio State, like I said they would before the year started, and was laughed at.
So yeah, with the distractions gone, plenty of NFL talent that DJ Durkin recruited, enthusiasm for Locksley and his Alabama/Saban like teachings, it's quite possible that we could be a contender.
Personally though, I like the underdog role.
Don't get so whiny about your "rules". It was TIC.
-
I don't see many boxes I outlined being checked at all for Maryland.
-
I don't see many boxes I outlined being checked at all for Maryland.
Literally checks off most of your "boxes".
Locks as a HC is the only factor.
-
For Maryland, according to your post:
1. Returning OLmen who were good last year. Lost two to the NFL, remainder good but not great.
3. Consistency. Not much.
3. Solid returning QB with experience. Zero.
4. Defensive starters returning, especially experience in the secondary. Beefier defense, a wild card. Nothing on secondary.
5. Schedule. Not mentioned, but they would play OSU/PSU/UM/MSU at minimum.
Which boxes did you think were checked?
-
Maryland schedule:
Non-con Syracuse
west
10/12 Purdue
10/26 @Minnesota
11/23 Nebraska
-
Not even close Cincy.
Are you really senile?
Do you know who Josh Jackson is? Did you even read the rest of the post, or do you just stop at certain points?
You play that Merry-Go-Round game in the college football part as well?
-
Is Josh Jackson a "solid returning QB with experience"? Well, he has some experience, as to whether he's solid or not, that is arguable, but let's check that box as a plus.
Anything else? Does that "literally check off most of my boxes"? It's one box, arguably, out of 5.
The schedule, to me, looks rather daunting, with Syracuse as the main OOC opponent, plus Nebraska, and the usual East opponents.
-
Not even close Cincy.
Are you really senile?
Do you know who Josh Jackson is? Did you even read the rest of the post, or do you just stop at certain points?
You play that Merry-Go-Round game in the college football part as well?
Without delving into the efficacy of these particular requirements, I do tip my cap to this sort of aggressive brand of optimism.
You’ve been around a while, there’s always recruiting movements and players who should be in the conversation that pop up, and it’s presented with such fire. It’s been a long time since I could see a player like Josh Jackson, doing what he did in a QB friendly system and say “Ah ha, he’s gonna be a stabalizing force.”
Maryland just feels like so many wildcards. O-line was nothing super special last year. Coach is a question, recent history a question, recruiting is decent, but probably at best fourth in the division. Maybe they deliver.
-
Maryland could well deliver, but against the five items I posted as criteria, they check off one of them, apparently. I'm willing to entertain which other box they check.
They might well do better than 5-7 though. If they hold serve against lesser or equal foes and lose to say Syracuse/PSU/OSU/UM, they'd have a shot at say 9-4 with a bowl win, which would be an outstanding result I think.
-
. . . How often does a top level team hinge on a great defense these days? No doubt it's a clear asset, but Bama and Clemson and OSU etc. can be relied upon to have great athletes every year on D which is why I don't "worry about it much".
Sooner fans wish that we could take defense for granted. The last two years, we'd have loved to have had even a mediocre one.
-
I wonder what a good defense would put up in terms of numbers in the Big 12. Iowa State?
-
Iowa State probably has the best defense in the Big 12, especially when results are measured against talent.
Matt Campbell has a good program going in Ames. And Iowa State fans certainly deserve some success. They are the most loyal and steadfast in the conference, I believe.
-
Campbell and the Clones getting some love in the way too early prognostications
might be a helluva early battle with the Hawkeyes
two solid defensive teams
-
The OL checks another box.
It was good enough to run rampant over most teams last year, and the 2 tackles who are in the NFL now, underperformed.
"3 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 2 RS sophomores, and 4 RS freshmen, one of which, Jaelyn Duncan, is a 4-star recruit who can really move, has cracked the starter spot at LT it looks like, and caught a pass in the Spring game."
-
1) Bama
2) Clemson
Does it really matter after that?
-
The OL checks another box.
It was good enough to run rampant over most teams last year, and the 2 tackles who are in the NFL now, underperformed.
"3 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 2 RS sophomores, and 4 RS freshmen, one of which, Jaelyn Duncan, is a 4-star recruit who can really move, has cracked the starter spot at LT it looks like, and caught a pass in the Spring game."
Optimism man.
So the line was good, but loses two guys. Not just two guys, but NFL guys, one of whom was basically getting the same treatment as Duncan. But using NFL guys should be bad, but those NFL guys underperformed, so not as much of a loss.
We move over the running rampant on most teams. This ... it turns out to be a little less clear. They ran rampant on oddly half the teams they played, really rampant. And then were kinda not great against half. Yes, they just mushed five of the six worse run defenses in the league (that's a good sign), and got held below 4.4 YPC six times, to 4.0 or fewer five.
Beyond that, the run success was boom or bust, which tends to reflect less on the line. More than 22 percent of their carries went for loss. They were a bit above average in how often their runs went 5 or more yards. (Pass pro was statistically just dreadful)
And that's all before we look at the departure of a very run-friendly system and going to a Scottie Montgomery offense. I did not realize he took over there. Not sure how to feel about that. (Enjoy the O-line hire)
Anyway, not to say that precludes the line from being good, but I don't know it checks a box. Granted, all offseason O-line hype is to a degree muddled. It's hard to measure and prone to getting puffed up everywhere, especially since the line tends to be on average more lamented.
-
"Good OL, not great that I'm aware, because we lost 2 to the NFL, but great highly sought after OL replace them, with experience. "
That doesn't sound to me like a proven experienced OLine, but even if so, it's 2 out of 5, which is not most.
-
1) Bama
2) Clemson
Does it really matter after that?
not until proven otherwise
-
Looks at list of previous year's final standings.....then,
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b4/60/cf/b460cf66dc6e44a26d2616fdce466b0f.gif)
-
the program that finishes 3rd isn't so interesting any longer with the playoff
-
Well, the fourth see won it in 2017. Any team in the playoff has the potential to win out obviously. The fifth seed gets a short straw.
-
yes, but after the seeding and the playoff, who cares who finishes 3rd?
-
Without any serious study or research, anecdotally, often at least one team that is at least a "knight" in college football's royalty that was preseason very high last year, but stumbled to a mediocre finish, will start off at a more rational top-20-ish position, and finish the year threatening for the playoff.
Because my team fits the first few criteria, I'm hoping it will fit the last. Because science.