FB: Duke 27, Miami 17

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...

---

Regardless of turnovers (which were obviously horrific), our offense showed a distinct unwillingness or inability (I'm not in a position to know which) to throw the ball downfield, and as Acy mentions above, it's up to the coaches to fix that.
With one or two games left in the season, we were ranked #129 out of 130 in terms of explosive plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acymetric

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).

---

Yup. I don't blame the players for turning it over on 1st and two, I blame the moronic coaching that called the trick play in the first place.
Do they both share some of the blame? Of course, but it's the coaches that put the players in that position in the first place. Had Jackson run and fumbled, that's different. (And of course that's the play that should have been called...just one of many.)

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

---

Well, Bud, another poster wrote "But is it too much to ask that a program 11 years into a coach's tenure should get somewhere near .500 in their conference more consistently?"

I responded with the facts showing that Duke is consistently somewhere near .500 in their conference.

Which was the point of my response. Nothing more, nothing less.

How is that massaging reality? Move the goalposts on someone else please.

that is fair, Jim...but 10-22 is a pretty low bar, IMO, nothing more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimsumner

Well, Bud, another poster wrote "But is it too much to ask that a program 11 years into a coach's tenure should get somewhere near .500 in their conference more consistently?"

I responded with the facts showing that Duke is consistently somewhere near .500 in their conference.

Which was the point of my response. Nothing more, nothing less.

How is that massaging reality? Move the goalposts on someone else please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

that is fair, Jim...but 10-22 is a pretty low bar, IMO, nothing more...

---

Totally agree with Budwom here. "Near .500" is totally relational...one season it's not too bad, but overtime it's not close to .500 at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

Totally agree with Budwom here. "Near .500" is totally relational...one season it's not too bad, but overtime it's not close to .500 at all.

---

In fact, 10-22 is .312...in other words, "about 300" not near 500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

Totally agree with Budwom here. "Near .500" is totally relational...one season it's not too bad, but overtime it's not close to .500 at all.

---

the 1-7 season is somewhat of an outlier.

Successfully throwing the ball downfield resulted in a victory. Duke completed 10 passes with eight receptions being by wide receivers. Four of the eight WR receptions were for greater than 15 yards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Green

Successfully throwing the ball downfield resulted in a victory. Duke completed 10 passes with eight receptions being by wide receivers. Four of the eight WR receptions were for greater than 15 yards.

---

...you and I been saying that for what, 10 weeks now? Some others too, but I know you and I pushed that narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uh_no

the 1-7 season is somewhat of an outlier.

---

As was the 7-1 season, or whatever 2013 was...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK

As was the 7-1 season, or whatever 2013 was...

---

yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Green

Successfully throwing the ball downfield resulted in a victory. Duke completed 10 passes with eight receptions being by wide receivers. Four of the eight WR receptions were for greater than 15 yards.

---

It had been a long time coming after Pitt showed the recipe against our offense ( stuff the box and press coverage on the outside) and virtually every other team used it. This post game comment by Cut caught my attention - it almost seems to imply he had not had the conversation with his staff prior to Miami. If he did have the conversation prior to Miami, it was not heeded.

“We took a few more attempts,” Cutcliffe said. “That was another part of our conversation I had with the staff. I had them look at a reel of every explosive Miami has given up this season . . . and in reality . . . it was the attempt itself, allowing playmakers to make plays. I think the point was taken.”

I wish I would have said consistently at .500 after 11 years. I was just trying to be generous. Hopefully we will get our percentage up next year. Not sure why it is a negative toward Cut when all you are asking is to consistently be at the next level in ACC play. Most years it is the difference in a bowl game or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Green

Successfully throwing the ball downfield resulted in a victory. Duke completed 10 passes with eight receptions being by wide receivers. Four of the eight WR receptions were for greater than 15 yards.

---

Yup. Throwing it downfield - even if you don't have a ton of success - at least makes defenses think it's possible. Instead, Duke settled on what it has for too many years - tons of outside passes and bubble screens that haven't worked since Jamison Crowder. There are no Jamison Crowder's on this team.

Defenses stack the box and overwhelm the OL.

Offensive philosophy needs to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FerryFor50

Yup. Throwing it downfield - even if you don't have a ton of success - at least makes defenses think it's possible. Instead, Duke settled on what it has for too many years - tons of outside passes and bubble screens that haven't worked since Jamison Crowder. There are no Jamison Crowder's on this team.

Defenses stack the box and overwhelm the OL.

Offensive philosophy needs to change.

---

YES YES YES...said that on this forum til people get sick of reading it but it's true. Teams can play our offense like we're in the red zone all over the field, stacking the line.

One small quibble: with Calhoun, there is someone with Crowder like ability...and he's a freshman. If we spread the D out a bit, Calhoun would be a nice weapon on bubble screens used MUCH LESS OFTEN....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dm9e24

I wish I would have said consistently at .500 after 11 years. I was just trying to be generous. Hopefully we will get our percentage up next year. Not sure why it is a negative toward Cut when all you are asking is to consistently be at the next level in ACC play. Most years it is the difference in a bowl game or not.

---

I guess it could be perceived as a negative by anyone who thinks that holding Cut to the expectation of a .500 record over time is an unreasonable and unrealistic ask. Even so, 10-22 over the last 4 years or 19-29 over the last 6 seasons are not even close to .500 and those are very reasonable windows for assessing the program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK

YES YES YES...said that on this forum til people get sick of reading it but it's true. Teams can play our offense like we're in the red zone all over the field, stacking the line.

One small quibble: with Calhoun, there is someone with Crowder like ability...and he's a freshman. If we spread the D out a bit, Calhoun would be a nice weapon on bubble screens used MUCH LESS OFTEN...

---

I believe Calhoun can be a difference maker with a good OC and good Quarterback. The kid has impressed me when we've been able to get him the ball. I like the Crowder comparison.
GoDuke!

You may be able to put Pancol in that group. Didn’t he score touchdowns the first three times he touched the ball this season?

After posting I looked at the stats at go Duke. Pancol has 6 receptions and scored 3 touchdowns. Why weren’t we throwing to him more often. Did he get hurt? He also rushed for a touchdown on I believe 3 attempts. Those are unbelievable stats so why wasn’t he targeted more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK

YES YES YES...said that on this forum til people get sick of reading it but it's true. Teams can play our offense like we're in the red zone all over the field, stacking the line.

One small quibble: with Calhoun, there is someone with Crowder like ability...and he's a freshman. If we spread the D out a bit, Calhoun would be a nice weapon on bubble screens used MUCH LESS OFTEN...

---

Calhoun is good, but he needs a year or two if strength training.