A Query About the Duke Football Program

[J_C_Steel]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.

To me, when you're coaching at a small school in a big-time conference, you have to do two things to be successful. First, you have to implement a non-traditional (or even gimmicky) offense and/or defense to make your team more difficult to prepare to play. Second, you have to recruit players that fit your system and can run it to perfection. This does not necessarily mean you have to bring in a ton of 4- or 5-star recruits. Rather, it means that you have to find the best players for your particular brand of football.

As to the first item, Coach Cutcliffe has done a pretty good job implementing a fairly non-traditional spread offense at Duke. However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground. He could go to a straight 4-6 or play a base 5-2. Whatever it is, he needs to take chances and implement (or hire a new defensive coordinator to implement) a new defensive system.

As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."

Those are my thoughts. As a huge football fan, I want to see the Duke program become a winner. I just think they'll have to take a non-traditional path to get there. So far, I don't think Coach Cutcliffe has been non-traditional enough. Here's hoping he takes more chances and strikes gold soon...

[Duvall]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

It also helps to have a $500 million athletics endowment, a brand-new stadium and the largest state in the union that you only have to share with three other BCS programs.

[DukeSean]

It also helps to have a $500 million athletics endowment, a brand-new stadium and the largest state in the union that you only have to share with three other BCS programs.

Can't speak for Alaskans, but we Texans take offense

[J_C_Steel]

I read about the attempt to implement a 3-4 defense. I never liked the concept for Duke.

I've been watching the Pittsburgh Steelers run the 3-4 about as well as it can be run the last 20+ years. And you not only need a stout nose tackle in the middle, you need smart and strong defensive ends capable of playing the two gap technique. Duke lacks kids that can do that.

Further, the 3-4 isn't non-traditional enough in my view. Duke needs to craft a risky defensive scheme that takes advantage of the athletes they do have. Now, no defense can work without some big men. So Coach Cutcliffe needs to lure some hogs to Durham. But in terms of scheme I'd LOVE to see Duke try to put together a blitzing, Buddy Ryan archetypal 46 defense. Play four down linemen in traditional one-gap technique, three linebackers right behind them, and then your biggest and most athletic safety roaming around the front seven and blitzing from every angle. You could even play an "amoeba" style (all front seven players standing upright and mulling around the line of scrimmage to disguise who is rushing and who is dropping into coverage) on passing downs.

I just want to see a coherent, non-traditional defensive scheme implemented. Soon. Like now.

[Bob Green]

However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground.

Coach Cutcliffe and defensive coordinator Marion Hobby attempted to implement a 3-4 defense in 2010 in order to emphasize Duke's strength at the linebacker position. However, the 3-4 scheme was not successful so Duke abandoned it. IMO, the 3-4 requires a dominant nose tackle, which Duke did not possess.

[Acymetric]

Coach Cutcliffe and defensive coordinator Marion Hobby attempted to implement a 3-4 defense in 2010 in order to emphasize Duke's strength at the linebacker position. However, the 3-4 scheme was not successful so Duke abandoned it. IMO, the 3-4 requires a dominant nose tackle, which Duke did not possess.

I think we also turned out not to have the linebackers to play the 3-4, as evidenced by the fact that we mostly played 4-2-5 after we bailed on the 3-4, using Matt Daniels as a hybrid safety/3rd linebacker. Hopefully some of the guys with all the physical tools develop the knowledge and instinct they need to play next year.

[loran16]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.

To me, when you're coaching at a small school in a big-time conference, you have to do two things to be successful. First, you have to implement a non-traditional (or even gimmicky) offense and/or defense to make your team more difficult to prepare to play. Second, you have to recruit players that fit your system and can run it to perfection. This does not necessarily mean you have to bring in a ton of 4- or 5-star recruits. Rather, it means that you have to find the best players for your particular brand of football.

As to the first item, Coach Cutcliffe has done a pretty good job implementing a fairly non-traditional spread offense at Duke. However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground. He could go to a straight 4-6 or play a base 5-2. Whatever it is, he needs to take chances and implement (or hire a new defensive coordinator to implement) a new defensive system.

As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."

Those are my thoughts. As a huge football fan, I want to see the Duke program become a winner. I just think they'll have to take a non-traditional path to get there. So far, I don't think Coach Cutcliffe has been non-traditional enough. Here's hoping he takes more chances and strikes gold soon...

I've said this before. Stanford is a TERRIBLE example.

First of all, since 1999, they've had only two horrible-Duke-like seasons (a 1-11 season and a 2-9 season). Duke has had 7, including multiple 0 win seasons.

They even won the Pac-10 in 1999, a full 10 years more recent than Duke's last real ACC Title (well co-title).

Moreover, they are known in the last 20 years athletically more for football than their other sports, despite occasional good bball performances. While they did (disputably) lose the "Band is Out on the Field!" game, it's constant replaying only helps that reputation. Moreover, they've been a school far more recently than Duke that has put plenty of players into the NFL (14 Current NFL players). And of course, the memory of John Elway is a big one...and certainly helps luring QBs like Luck.

The end result is the fact that recruiting at Stanford is far easier and thus better than at Duke, and will ever be at Duke for the very nearby future.

If you do want to compare an academic school to Duke, Northwestern or Vandy better fit the bill. Both are good schools academically, without a recent history as a big time contender.

[J_C_Steel]

I've said this before. Stanford is a TERRIBLE example.

First of all, since 1999, they've had only two horrible-Duke-like seasons (a 1-11 season and a 2-9 season). Duke has had 7, including multiple 0 win seasons.

They even won the Pac-10 in 1999, a full 10 years more recent than Duke's last real ACC Title (well co-title).

Moreover, they are known in the last 20 years athletically more for football than their other sports, despite occasional good bball performances. While they did (disputably) lose the "Band is Out on the Field!" game, it's constant replaying only helps that reputation. Moreover, they've been a school far more recently than Duke that has put plenty of players into the NFL (14 Current NFL players). And of course, the memory of John Elway is a big one...and certainly helps luring QBs like Luck.

The end result is the fact that recruiting at Stanford is far easier and thus better than at Duke, and will ever be at Duke for the very nearby future.

If you do want to compare an academic school to Duke, Northwestern or Vandy better fit the bill. Both are good schools academically, without a recent history as a big time contender.

Stanford has had more success recently than Duke, but what happened in 1999 shouldn't be effecting recruiting in 2011. I'll give you the Elway advantage, given his national prominence, but Duke should be able to build a solid program much like Stanford's.

And hey, Vanderbilt had Jay Cutler. Where's our gunslinger?

[throatybeard]

California is the largest state in the Union by population. I don't see Pac10 coaches heavily recruting Alaska becuase of its large area.

7B) Why can Stanford and Northwestern do it, but we can’t?

[duke09hms]

Stanford has a much more recent history of football success than we do, and so Duke football is in a MUCH deeper hole than Stanford has been in.
Their university endowment of 15 billion is three times greater than Duke's of 5 billion, and their athletic endowment is also much larger.
Their training facilities and stadium and much larger and well-equipped than ours, though that may begin to change soon.
Stanford has Jim Harbaugh, arguably one of the best college football coaches in the country. Cutcliffe is a great coach, but probably not on Harbaugh's level. I don't think it's a knock on Cut to say this.

aside: I have to give props to the attitude Harbaugh has instilled in their program. In 2007 (a 4-8 season) prior to their game against #2 USC, he stated publicly, "We bow to no man. We bow to no program here at Stanford University." They then beat USC 24-23.

Therefore, it IS NOT logical or valid to compare the two programs head-to-head.
However, their 40-12 blowout of VT last night IS useful to show what Duke football can achieve, and it is what we should strive for.

It is not fair to Cutcliffe to say we are not getting better enough when in 3 years we have more wins than the previous 9. Building a football program takes a long time, much longer than with basketball, and ultimately time will tell, but 3 seasons after 8 wins in 9 seasons is not enough time.

It obviously starts with recruiting, and our classes coming in have much more depth and more than half the commitments are 3-star recruits. I think a reasonable goal for us is to expect mostly 3-stars with a few 4-stars.

I believe the loss of John Drew, a would-be sophomore 300+ lb DT and 4-star recruit to expulsion, was a huge factor in our porous defense and 3-9 season.

[-bdbd]

Stanford has a much more recent history of football success than we do, and so Duke football is in a MUCH deeper hole than Stanford has been in.
Their university endowment of 15 billion is three times greater than Duke's of 5 billion, and their athletic endowment is also much larger.
Their training facilities and stadium and much larger and well-equipped than ours, though that may begin to change soon.
Stanford has Jim Harbaugh, arguably one of the best college football coaches in the country. Cutcliffe is a great coach, but probably not on Harbaugh's level. I don't think it's a knock on Cut to say this.

aside: I have to give props to the attitude Harbaugh has instilled in their program. In 2007 (a 4-8 season) prior to their game against #2 USC, he stated publicly, "We bow to no man. We bow to no program here at Stanford University." They then beat USC 24-23.

Therefore, it IS NOT logical or valid to compare the two programs head-to-head.
However, their 40-12 blowout of VT last night IS useful to show what Duke football can achieve, and it is what we should strive for.

It is not fair to Cutcliffe to say we are not getting better enough when in 3 years we have more wins than the previous 9. Building a football program takes a long time, much longer than with basketball, and ultimately time will tell, but 3 seasons after 8 wins in 9 seasons is not enough time.

It obviously starts with recruiting, and our classes coming in have much more depth and more than half the commitments are 3-star recruits. I think a reasonable goal for us is to expect mostly 3-stars with a few 4-stars.

I believe the loss of John Drew, a would-be sophomore 300+ lb DT and 4-star recruit to expulsion, was a huge factor in our porous defense and 3-9 season.

I grew up in the Stanford area and almost went to school there, twice - undergrad and grad school. It is a fair parallel as far as the academics -- Stanford might generally rank just a few slots higher -- but the comparison stops there (other than both schools having terrific BB coaches!). Stanford is located in a metropolitan setting (Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, just outside SF -- full of people to more easily fill their larger, nicer stadium), with year-round gorgeous weather, a huge endowment, and much, much better football facillities. Don't under-estimate the value that top-notch facillities and a full stadium has on recruits, to say nothing of a decent tradition and playing in a major media market (SF/Oak/SJ). I'm guessing that Stanford has a greater population to recruit from within 50 miles than we do in the entire state of NC (not that they are limited to just that area). BTW, Stanford has an incredible overall athletic tradition, and is a perrineal Sears Trophy contender.

We are addressing the facillities issues slowly, after 40+ years of lagging horribly far behind the rest of D1. We will eventually do some things to improve our stadium, and it will show greater attendance with greater on-field success. We can't do much about playing in a metro area or major media market, but can emphasize other things that favor Duke (like B-ball and Lacrosse, proximity to the East coast, med school/Sports Medicine, beautiful campus, etc). But for the moment, it isn't a fair comparison.

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there. And I believe Cut will be our coach when we do. Heck, Harbaugh probably won't even be the Stanford coach by the time next year when they come to Durham. (With any luck, their QB will be gone by then too...)

And I agree, we are still building up our talent pool at key positions, such as D and O-lines (which this year's recruits, and last year's Red-shirts will go a long way to address). ....Patience, grasshopper.

[SupaDave]

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there.

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

On the money! People who are unfamiliar with Durham easily overlook the caliber of athletes in the Durham schools. Hillside is hot right now. In the recent past, Riverside, Northern and Southern have been hot.

[jimsumner]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

[SupaDave]

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

I totally agree Jim. But Duke and Cut are doing things VERY different in Durham nowadays. He has a shot he never had before. Start winning a little more with local kids and the program becomes even more attractive.

[jimsumner]

I totally agree Jim. But Duke and Cut are doing things VERY different in Durham nowadays. He has a shot he never had before. Start winning a little more with local kids and the program becomes even more attractive.

I agree and support Cut's increased emphasis on recruiting North Carolina. I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

[-jk]

I agree and support Cut's increased emphasis on recruiting North Carolina. I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

Those of us who grew up in Durham carry the scars for life!

It was especially tough being in Durham's public schools during the early 70's. <sigh>

-jk

[Bob Green]

It was especially tough being in Durham's public schools during the early 70's. <sigh>

-jk

Life in Fayetteville's public schools during the early 70's wasn't any easier.

[sagegrouse]

Life in Fayetteville's public schools during the early 70's wasn't any easier.

In my South Carolina HS a few years earlier, no one gave a rat's patootie about college sports, except in the abstract. The real question was whether you were a Ford guy or a Chevy guy. And the difference among the guys in class was whether you were focused totally on cars (you know, seven coats of lacquer on your bat wing Chevy from the early '50s, or pinstriping your '55 T-bird) or whether you viewed cars as just transportation. It was about 50-50.

sagegrouse

[alteran]

I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

Amen, brother. As a local, I can tell you it drives me batty when people think Durham is a "Duke town." We're outnumbered 4-1 here, at that's just with UNC.

I will say that I think Duke has been visibly trying to reach out to the local community more (it's always reached out, but lately it seems more visible), and in my entirely subjective opinion it seems to be paying dividends.