FB: Duke 27, Miami 17

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

Well Jim, this is true, Duke has been at least 3-5 in ACC play in six of the last seven years.

---

All of this points to the fact that we are a mid-level ACC team in the 4-4 range give or take a game each season. Much better than before; not as well as we would like to be.

But other than Clemson, who has consistently stayed up top? FSU, Miami and VT have cratered. Duke, Wake, and UVA have come off the bottom. UNC has consistently underperformed relative to recruited talent. We have one good team and fourteen so-so P5 teams.

This hits the nail on the head for this year, but seems to be most years the last decade: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ch/2589569001/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

But I think you have to admit, that's a nice massage of reality.
Another way of looking at it is that over the past four seasons, we are 10-22 in ACC play, which would seem to be a better description of where we are now...

---

I agree that the last few years have featured great starts, and then struggles to the finish once we hit conference play. We need to become a team that can consistently hit .500 or better in the conference, although as stated above there are a lot of teams over the last seven years that are in our same boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

let's see what Cut chooses to do, if anything, this off season...

---

Yup. I am sure he will evaluate everything and come up with a plan. Even if it's not the solution the board wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimsumner

Duke has been at least 3-5 in ACC play 6 of the last 7 years. In other words, no worse than one win from .500. That seems like getting somewhere near .500 in conference play consistently.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

All of this points to the fact that we are a mid-level ACC team in the 4-4 range give or take a game each season. Much better than before; not as well as we would like to be.

---

I respect both of you a lot, but y'all are looking at this through some seriously blue tinted glasses.
"At least 3-5", "seems like getting somewhere near .500", "no worse than one win from .500", and "in the 4-4 range" being tossed out as positives is, well, not positive.

This is our past schedule. We have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a winning year, and to 2015 just to break even.

2019 3-5
2018 3-5
2017 3-5
2016 1-7
2015 4-4
2014 5-3

How anyone can look at that and be happy is beyond me. I'm like everyone here, I was there in the dark days of Duke football; I know exactly how dismal it was. But just because it has "improved" doesn't mean that it's what I want to settle for. I want to see us on the other side of that 3-5 number with regularity. I also have faith that Cutcliffe can make it happen, at least if he is willing to make some changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

I respect both of you a lot, but y'all are looking at this through some seriously blue tinted glasses.
"At least 3-5", "seems like getting somewhere near .500", "no worse than one win from .500", and "in the 4-4 range" being tossed out as positives is, well, not positive.

This is our past schedule. We have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a winning year, and to 2015 just to break even.

2019 3-5
2018 3-5
2017 3-5
2016 1-7
2015 4-4
2014 5-3

How anyone can look at that and be happy is beyond me. I'm like everyone here, I was there in the dark days of Duke football; I know exactly how dismal it was. But just because it has "improved" doesn't mean that it's what I want to settle for. I want to see us on the other side of that 3-5 number with regularity. I also have faith that Cutcliffe can make it happen, at least if he is willing to make some changes.

---

If Duke had a good OC, I firmly believe we would have been 4-4 or 5-3 this season and this was suppose to be down year. We wasted a good defense with some awful offense at times and our QB play was below par. I'm in the camp of let's see what Coach Cut does this offseason. GoDuke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

I respect both of you a lot, but y'all are looking at this through some seriously blue tinted glasses.
"At least 3-5", "seems like getting somewhere near .500", "no worse than one win from .500", and "in the 4-4 range" being tossed out as positives is, well, not positive.

This is our past schedule. We have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a winning year, and to 2015 just to break even.

2019 3-5
2018 3-5
2017 3-5
2016 1-7
2015 4-4
2014 5-3

How anyone can look at that and be happy is beyond me. I'm like everyone here, I was there in the dark days of Duke football; I know exactly how dismal it was. But just because it has "improved" doesn't mean that it's what I want to settle for. I want to see us on the other side of that 3-5 number with regularity. I also have faith that Cutcliffe can make it happen, at least if he is willing to make some changes.

---

All fair points, and to be clear it's not what I want to settle for either. My general point is that, with the exception of Clemson, almost every team in the ACC is in the mediocre middle.

Believe me, the Peach-fil-A and Sun Bowls were a whole lot more fun than the Pinstripe, Belk, and Detroit (Motor City?) Bowl games. And all of that is better than sitting home.

Would someone who insists that we underperformed by more than a game (UNC, inexplicable loss) like to point to any preseason list that had us competing for the division?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

I respect both of you a lot, but y'all are looking at this through some seriously blue tinted glasses.
"At least 3-5", "seems like getting somewhere near .500", "no worse than one win from .500", and "in the 4-4 range" being tossed out as positives is, well, not positive.

This is our past schedule. We have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a winning year, and to 2015 just to break even.

2019 3-5
2018 3-5
2017 3-5
2016 1-7
2015 4-4
2014 5-3

How anyone can look at that and be happy is beyond me. I'm like everyone here, I was there in the dark days of Duke football; I know exactly how dismal it was. But just because it has "improved" doesn't mean that it's what I want to settle for. I want to see us on the other side of that 3-5 number with regularity. I also have faith that Cutcliffe can make it happen, at least if he is willing to make some changes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

All fair points, and to be clear it's not what I want to settle for either. My general point is that, with the exception of Clemson, almost every team in the ACC is in the mediocre middle.

Believe me, the Peach-fil-A and Sun Bowls were a whole lot more fun than the Pinstripe, Belk, and Detroit (Motor City?) Bowl games. And all of that is better than sitting home.

---

There has been a bunch of mediocrity in the ACC besides Clemson, but I'm not sure I'd say all teams are equal in this regard. Here are the ACC records since 2014 (using same timeframe as above, going back 5 years to the last season Duke was above .500 plus five seasons seems like a reasonable timeframe):

Code:

---

team        win        loss        Pct
clemson        44        4        0.917
FSU        29        19        0.604
pitt        28        20        0.583
miami        28        20        0.583
va tech        27        21        0.563
lville        26        22        0.542
unc        23        25        0.479
gatech        22        26        0.458
nc st        21        27        0.438
uva        20        28        0.417
duke        19        29        0.396
bc        18        30        0.375
wfu        16        32        0.333
cuse        15        33        0.313

---

I would argue that (in addition to Clemson) FSU, Pitt, Miami, Va Tech, and Louisville have been mostly "above the middle" and are in a different tier for this timeframe than the rest of the ACC teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

Would someone who insists that we underperformed by more than a game (UNC, inexplicable loss) like to point to any preseason list that had us competing for the division?

---

Syracuse was considered a loss pre-season because they were expected to be a top 25 team. They were decidedly not that this year, and by the time that game rolled around it had changed from "likely loss" to "should win". Pre-season expectations have to be adjusted based on in-season evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

Would someone who insists that we underperformed by more than a game (UNC, inexplicable loss) like to point to any preseason list that had us competing for the division?

---

I can't point to any list, but I can point to Cutcliffe who annually maintains that our goal is to compete for championships, something we have failed to do for at least the past four years.
One of his best (of many) attributes) is his insistence that everyone in the program be accountable.
My position, like many others on this and other boards, is that while our defense is arguably good enough to compete for championships, our offense is nowhere close to that. I am hopeful that coach will
assess his offensive staff in an honest manner, and do what needs to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluedog

There has been a bunch of mediocrity in the ACC besides Clemson, but I'm not sure I'd say all teams are equal in this regard. Here are the ACC records since 2014 (using same timeframe as above, going back 5 years to the last season Duke was above .500 plus five seasons seems like a reasonable timeframe):

Code:

---

team    win    loss    Pct
clemson    44    4    0.917
FSU    29    19    0.604
pitt    28    20    0.583
miami    28    20    0.583
va tech    27    21    0.563
lville    26    22    0.542
unc    23    25    0.479
gatech    22    26    0.458
nc st    21    27    0.438
uva    20    28    0.417
duke    19    29    0.396
bc    18    30    0.375
wfu    16    32    0.333
cuse    15    33    0.313

---

I would argue that (in addition to Clemson) FSU, Pitt, Miami, Va Tech, and Louisville have been mostly "above the middle" and are in a different tier for this timeframe than the rest of the ACC teams.

---

There is also a lot of coaching turnover in the group below that...every team except for Duke and NC State (who hired Doeren one year before, 2013).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

Would someone who insists that we underperformed by more than a game (UNC, inexplicable loss) like to point to any preseason list that had us competing for the division?

---

given that duke is typically picked to finish last in the division almost every year, regardless of who they field, it speaks more about the media's ignorance of duke's prospects more than the actual potential of the team. Recruiting is a better benchmark.

Further, under-performing begets decreased future expectation anyway, so pointing to preseason expectations doesn't absolve duke of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluedog

I would argue that (in addition to Clemson) FSU, Pitt, Miami, Va Tech, and Louisville have been mostly "above the middle" and are in a different tier for this timeframe than the rest of the ACC teams.

---

True, but the flip side is that FSU, Miami and VT have been abysmal lately -- certainly against their standards. Particularly FSU and Miami, which have programs used to competing for championships.

When is the next scheduled time for Cut to meet the press? Or is there nothing pre-scheduled until next spring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uh_no

given that duke is typically picked to finish last in the division almost every year, regardless of who they field, it speaks more about the media's ignorance of duke's prospects more than the actual potential of the team. Recruiting is a better benchmark.

Further, under-performing begets decreased future expectation anyway, so pointing to preseason expectations doesn't absolve duke of anything.

---

While we are rarely picked in the upper half, you actually have to go all the way back to 2013 to find the last time we were picked to be in the basement.

ACC Preseason Media Projections
2019 Duke 5th in Coastal (ahead of unc/GT) 6 first place votes
2018 Duke 4th in Coastal (ahead of Pitt/unc/UVA) 1 first place vote
2017 Duke 6th in Coastal (ahead of UVA) 4 first place votes
2016 Duke 5th in Coastal (ahead of GT/UVA) 2 first place votes
2015 Duke 4th in Coastal (ahead of unc/Pitt/UVA) 4 first place votes
2014 Duke 2nd in Coastal (ahead of VT/unc/GT/Pitt/UVA) 33 first place votes
2013 Duke 7th in Coastal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

True, but the flip side is that FSU, Miami and VT have been abysmal lately -- certainly against their standards. Particularly FSU and Miami, which have programs used to competing for championships.

When is the next scheduled time for Cut to meet the press? Or is there nothing pre-scheduled until next spring?

---

Abysmal by their standards, but still markedly better than us WRT results (some head to head wins against Miami/VT notwithstanding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

While we are rarely picked in the upper half, you actually have to go all the way back to 2013 to find the last time we were picked to be in the basement.

ACC Preseason Media Projections
2019 Duke 5th in Coastal (ahead of unc/GT) 6 first place votes
2018 Duke 4th in Coastal (ahead of Pitt/unc/UVA) 1 first place vote
2017 Duke 6th in Coastal (ahead of UVA) 4 first place votes
2016 Duke 5th in Coastal (ahead of GT/UVA) 2 first place votes
2015 Duke 4th in Coastal (ahead of unc/Pitt/UVA) 4 first place votes
2014 Duke 2nd in Coastal (ahead of VT/unc/GT/Pitt/UVA) 33 first place votes
2013 Duke 7th in Coastal

---

Thank you for offering an actual answer instead of snide remarks or anecdotal replies.

We were picked 5th and finished 6th. The difference between expectations and reality was the horrible jump pass against UNC.

That was terrible - no one disagrees with that. But let's stop pretending like the wheels have somehow come off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

Thank you for offering an actual answer instead of snide remarks or anecdotal replies.

We were picked 5th and finished 6th. The difference between expectations and reality was the horrible jump pass against UNC.

That was terrible - no one disagrees with that. But let's stop pretending like the wheels have somehow come off

---

If it were a 1 year deal, I would agree with you...but low projections are impacted by years of being <500. So we are meeting the bar that we ourselves caused to be lowered. It's more like one wheel coming off each year than 4 wheels coming off this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15

Thank you for offering an actual answer instead of snide remarks or anecdotal replies.

We were picked 5th and finished 6th. The difference between expectations and reality was the horrible jump pass against UNC.

That was terrible - no one disagrees with that. But let's stop pretending like the wheels have somehow come off

---

I would still have serious concerns about the current state of the team even if we had beaten UNC on that play (assuming the rest of the season played out as it did). I also remain unconvinced that "we were projected to have x wins, and we finished with x wins" is an open and shut discussion ender for "was the season a disappointment".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acymetric

I would still have serious concerns about the current state of the team even if we had beaten UNC on that play (assuming the rest of the season played out as it did). I also remain unconvinced that "we were projected to have x wins, and we finished with x wins" is an open and shut discussion ender for "was the season a disappointment".

---

Agreed. I really don't know any avid fans who watch all of our games, and attend many, who feel the offense is well coached.
With regard to expectations, I expected a down year (4-5 wins) BUT a good bounce back next year. I no longer feel that way unless the offensive woes are addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acymetric

I would still have serious concerns about the current state of the team even if we had beaten UNC on that play (assuming the rest of the season played out as it did). I also remain unconvinced that "we were projected to have x wins, and we finished with x wins" is an open and shut discussion ender for "was the season a disappointment".

---

Well, I don't pretend to have the answer to what number of wins ought to leave fans not disappointed. But, I figure that comparing our results with the predictions of sports media folks ought to give us a reasonable bar.

I'm bowing out of this thread, as I don't care for the negativity levied at Cut, and I'm clearly in the minority in being happy with the current state of our program both on and off the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

Agreed. I really don't know any avid fans who watch all of our games, and attend many, who feel the offense is well coached.
With regard to expectations, I expected a down year (4-5 wins) BUT a good bounce back next year. I no longer feel that way unless the offensive woes are addressed.

---

Are the turnovers the primary responsibility of the coaches? Quintin , #18 on the field, had 18 TO's -- 11 interceptions and seven fumbles lost. Cost us the Pitt game, at least. He made some great plays, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sagegrouse

Are the turnovers the primary responsibility of the coaches? Quintin , #18 on the field, had 18 TO's -- 11 interceptions and seven fumbles lost. Cost us the Pitt game, at least. He made some great plays, but...

---

I feel like I probably talk out of both sides of my mouth on this (or at least come across this way), because it is tricky. On the one hand, yes the players have to play well and execute. The coaches can't go out on the field and play for them. On the other hand, it is the coaches' responsibility to recruit, develop players, and implement schemes to mitigate player weaknesses, so "the problem is player execution or lack of quality players" still parses as a coaching problem to me (especially at the college level, I probably tend to shift more responsibility towards the players in the pros whether that is reasonable or not).