A Query About the Duke Football Program

[roywhite]

As for quarterback, Luck is simply an example. Certainly, it would be difficult for Coach Cutcliffe to lure a top-of-the-line prototype quarterback to Durham, but he can find projectable arms and try to develop them. We've all seen what Cutcliffe did with Peyton Manning at Tennessee, and I'm anxious to see what kind of signal-caller Sean Renfree turns out to be. But all that matters is results. He needs to find the best quarterback that can run HIS spread offense. That's the challenge.

Schematically, the defense has to undergo drastic change. The 3-4 was a terrible idea, so the team should (at least in my view) implement a risky and confusing non-traditional college defense that gives running offenses fits. The 46 and 52 and "amoeba" defenses can accomplish that.

Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.

[duke09hms]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.db...DB_OEM_ID=4200


Regarding the "frames" of which you speak - 300 lb. linemen don't exactly grow on trees, and Cut has only been here for 3 years. Take a look at this year's class, we got 9 linemen coming in, and most of them are big boys, even by football standards.

Size is not everything, just look at TCU whose average D-lineman was outweighed by 60 lbs by the average Wisconsin O-lineman. Yet, their defense largely shut down Wisconsin.

[J_C_Steel]

Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

[bluepenguin]

I'm not a big fan of football. I don't really follow it anymore other than to see how Duke is doing. (the reasons for my lost interest are not germane to this thread so I won't elaborate unless someone really wants to know).
But what I have seen in the last 10 years or so, is a paucity of talented players coming to Duke. I base this on the annual recruiting write-up in the Atlanta papers, where they list the top hundred players or so in the south and where they will matriculate. It is very rare to see Duke on that list. I have to believe this is the same throughout the rest of the nation.
Who's fault is it? Several posters argue that Cut is a good recruiter. I would suggest maybe he is not as good as we think. If so, shouldn't we see more of the top players in the south going to Duke?
Others have stated that we don't have the facilities/resources to match a school like Stanford. Hasn't Duke updated the stadium and the facilities in the past decade? And even if our facilities are not the best, why is that an excuse for not being able to bring good players in? Did it stop Coach K?
Cut may be a good field coach. But until the talent comes to Duke, he will not be able to show it. And if the talent doesn't come to Duke, either Cut needs to hire a recruiting coordinator who can do the job, or Duke may need to find another head coach who can convince players to come to Duke. Until Duke gets the talent, I don't see Duke improving.

[J_C_Steel]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.db...DB_OEM_ID=4200


Regarding the "frames" of which you speak - 300 lb. linemen don't exactly grow on trees, and Cut has only been here for 3 years. Take a look at this year's class, we got 9 linemen coming in, and most of them are big boys, even by football standards.

Size is not everything, just look at TCU whose average D-lineman was outweighed by 60 lbs by the average Wisconsin O-lineman. Yet, their defense largely shut down Wisconsin.

This year's class certainly looks better. I'm not ragging on it; I just want to see results.

And I agree with you about the defense -- scheme and technique are vital. That's why I'd like to see a non-traditional defensive plan implemented (NOT a 3-4) that can shoot gaps, stop the run game and create pressure. The Blue Devils play too much conventional defense for my tastes. They need to take risks.

[J_C_Steel]

Cut may be a good field coach. But until the talent comes to Duke, he will not be able to show it. And if the talent doesn't come to Duke, either Cut needs to hire a recruiting coordinator who can do the job, or Duke may need to find another head coach who can convince players to come to Duke. Until Duke gets the talent, I don't see Duke improving.

This is only partially true.

You can win without a lot of talent if you have a non-traditional scheme that is expertly executed by smart football players. They don't have to be the BEST football players, but they have to be smart and execute the system to perfection.

Boise State doesn't get a lot of 4- or 5-star recruits, but they have a brilliant coach in Chris Peterson who has implemented a complex offensive system that takes risks and puts opposing teams on their heels. If you don't have the talent, you have to take chances.

[bluepenguin]

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.

I think you may be missing the point. Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports. But Stanford has been much more successful at it than Duke. Stanford has won the Director's Cup sixteen straight years, winning sixteen out of the seventeen years it has been offered. So I wouldn't say they are a football school. What is it about the Stanford model that makes it so successful?
As for recruiting, I discussed this in another post. It shouldn't be easier to recruit at Stanford. A good coach can always get the recruits to come to a school.

[Duvall]

I think you may be missing the point. Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports. But Stanford has been much more successful at it than Duke. Stanford has won the Director's Cup sixteen straight years, winning sixteen out of the seventeen years it has been offered. So I wouldn't say they are a football school. What is it about the Stanford model that makes it so successful?

Cash, mostly.

Not having terrible coaches also helped the Cardinal.

[El_Diablo]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

[J_C_Steel]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

The problem there is technique. You need fewer defensive linemen to run a 3-4, but they have to be EXCELLENT (i.e. Casey Hampton and Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel in Pittsburgh). I'd rather see a bunch of average guys playing one-gap defense on the line than three under-skilled kids trying to play a two-gap scheme in the 3-4.

Actually, the 46 might have worked best in 2010 from a schematic point of view (provided the coaches had the time/ability to implement it).

[Acymetric]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

[J_C_Steel]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

I threw it out as a possibility against running teams. It makes things easier for the defensive linemen, who can line up hat-on-hat on the offensive line to create gaps for the two linebackers. Provided the safeties and/or corners can provide outside contain, it should free up at least one player for the tackle.

Personally, I'd prefer an aggressive 46 defense.

[-jk]

Whatever the merits of the two schools, we have both recent and long term baggage. We have been to two bowl games in last 50 years. Stanford's been to bowl games in every decade of the last 50 years, and 8 in the last 20 years.

That's a world of difference in what recruits think of the two schools. Toss in that football is the second sport at Duke - and a distant second at that - and some recruits will be reluctant to come.

-jk

[El_Diablo]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

Post 19.

Anyway, my point was to respond to the OP's supposed "query" about why Cut hadn't initially used a different defensive scheme using more D-linemen. I'm pretty sure Cut and his staff didn't go out of their way to find the worst possible formation for their personnel, and they likely had other reasons for not employing "riskier" schemes. For example: I haven't played Madden in a while, so my memory might be a little cloudy on this, but I thought a 4-6 needs some good DBs to lock down receivers. If so, this was a huge weakness for us last year, and I think we would have gotten absolutely torched in the passing game in relying on the 4-6, since our DBs (which were not very well suited for 1-on-1 coverage) would have been consistently exposed on the outside and deep.

[El_Diablo]

I threw it out as a possibility against running teams. It makes things easier for the defensive linemen, who can line up hat-on-hat on the offensive line to create gaps for the two linebackers. Provided the safeties and/or corners can provide outside contain, it should free up at least one player for the tackle.

Personally, I'd prefer an aggressive 46 defense.

Yeah, so it sounds like we're on the same page regarding what is needed for a 4-6 to work: effective DBs.

I'll admit, I only watched eight of our games this year. Maybe you saw something that I didn't, but I don't see how someone could plausibly believe that we had the type of players in our secondary to run a 4-6 consistently and effectively.

[cato]

Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports.

Frankly, I don't get the comparisons between Duke and Stanford at all. Sure, they are both selective private schools, but I'd put Stanford in a different class. It has more money, much better name recognition and reputation outside of the Southeast and a far more successful athletic program in general.

Should Duke aim to achieve the same levels of success? Sure. But the first answer for why Duke hasn't achieved the same success is, well, because it's not Stanford.

[duke09hms]

Frankly, I don't get the comparisons between Duke and Stanford at all. Sure, they are both selective private schools, but I'd put Stanford in a different class. It has more money, much better name recognition and reputation outside of the Southeast and a far more successful athletic program in general.

Should Duke aim to achieve the same levels of success? Sure. But the first answer for why Duke hasn't achieved the same success is, well, because it's not Stanford.

Minor quibble - I'd say money is by far the largest reason for Stanford's success. They had some bball alum named Arrillaga who dropped $100 million straight to the athletic department. The two schools are very similar in most other regard and the other factors are much smaller in extent - name recognition, reputation, etc. I mean, Duke still can't afford to offer financial scholarships to many of our athletes!

Gradually it is changing, and patience is key.

However, it all boils down to money.

[DueBlevil]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.db...DB_OEM_ID=4200

I noticed that, too; does anyone have any more details on this project or any recent information on where the stadium renovation stands?

Although progress has been slow, I must admit that I'm impressed that the university seems to be keeping on track with many of their promised facility upgrades thus far.

[El_Diablo]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

Scout had Renfree at #10.

BTW, where did all this talk about Luck wanting to play at Duke come from? Does anyone have a link? Seems pretty specious to me. Regardless, even if it were accurate that Luck was at one time considering Duke, he committed to Stanford six months before Duke even hired Cutcliffe. Renfree was a huge pickup in the spring of 2008, and was (I believe) the second-best QB still available. The only better one still open was Pryor, whom we were also recruiting and who listed us as one of his finalists out of respect for what Cutcliffe had accomplished elsewhere. So let's not rewrite history and make it seem like Cutcliffe simply went hard after some mediocre talent while ignoring all the better ones. Renfree was a huge prize for us, and I don't find any fault in Cutcliffe settling for a 4-star player who I believe was our biggest QB recruit in over a decade, no matter what recruiting service you use.

[roywhite]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.

Scout had Renfree at #10.

BTW, where did all this talk about Luck wanting to play at Duke come from? Does anyone have a link? Seems pretty specious to me. Regardless, even if it were accurate that Luck was at one time considering Duke, he committed to Stanford six months before Duke even hired Cutcliffe. Renfree was a huge pickup in the spring of 2008, and was (I believe) the second-best QB still available. The only better one still open was Pryor, whom we were also recruiting and who listed us as one of his finalists out of respect for what Cutcliffe had accomplished elsewhere. So let's not rewrite history and make it seem like Cutcliffe simply went hard after some mediocre talent while ignoring all the better ones. Renfree was a huge prize for us, and I don't find any fault in Cutcliffe settling for a 4-star player who I believe was our biggest QB recruit in over a decade, no matter what recruiting service you use.

J C Steel,

You've lost us here. Renfree was a very highly ranked QB prospect. There are several different rating services, but Parade and Scout ranked him very highly.

If you're going to continue to contest this point, I don't see much basis for discussion about areas for improvement in Duke FB.