too bad about Young, but I don't see a huge impact since he couldn't ever get healthy...
too bad about Young, but I don't see a huge impact since he couldn't ever get healthy...
I think the impact is that this coming season he would probably come into camp as the number one WR....and I hate he's leaving. That said, we have FIVE in the transfer portal....about as many as anyone. I don't think we've transferred IN anyone yet (maybe we have). Is anyone else worried about this?
According to the lists on the various schools' 247 Sports websites -- and contrary to your statement bolded above -- it appears that Duke has 6 players in the transfer portal; but that is hardly "as many as anyone." Just within the ACC, Miami has 9 players in the transfer portal, and Virginia Tech has 12. In the Big Ten, Rutgers has 9 players in the portal, Illinois has 11, and Penn State has a whopping 13. And in the SEC, Arkansas has 12 players in the portal, and Tennessee has 8; even Vanderbilt has more than Duke, with 7. And that information required just a brief review of a few Power 5 conferences.
If you're going to say something that conveys negative implications about the Duke football program, or any other subject for that matter, I would be grateful if you could please check some reliable resources to verify your numbers before offhandedly tossing out inaccurate information as fact. Thanks.
Wow, that is incredibly focused and nitpicky.
If you average all the ACC teams, and their transfers, it comes up to 2.93 transfers per team, so if HBCK is to be faulted for anything, it should be for being too low. Here are the number of transfers per team in the conference.
BC 1
GT 1
Clemson 1
Duke 6
FSU 3
Louisville 4
Miami 3
NCSU 1
Pitt 1
Cuse 3
UVA 2
UNC 3
VT 12 (with one showing as transferring to VT?)
WF 0
Average per team. 2.93
PS..Miami has 9 players IN the portal. That includes players going TO Miami. Only 3 are leaving.
Last edited by CameronBornAndBred; 02-01-2019 at 10:52 AM.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
I was not conveying ANYTHING negative about Duke football...I was more asking a question...and I didn't offhandedly toss out anything. The list I had, which stated it was comprehensive, had 5 Duke players in the portal. That was disproportionately high - though not the highest - of any program on this list. It was also more than I remembered, as I had heard only about Young and Feamster.
Duke in the Transfer Portal and position on last year's depth chart (https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-footbal...art/duke/90406)
Keyston Fuller - RS JR - 2nd team Z-WR (note A. Young not on depth chart)
Aaron Young - SR - 1st team pre-spring - caught 34 passes in 3 years
Chidi Okonya - not on last year's depth chart - 3 tackles in 3 years - dismissed for team rules violations.
Brandon Feamster - RS JR - 1st team last years depth chart (Gilbert not on depth chart). 37 tackles in 3 years.
Terrell Lucas - JR - 34 total tackles in 3 years - not on last years depth chart - dismissed for team rules violations
Jordan Hayes - RS JR - 97 tackles in 3 years - not on last years depth chart.
Obviously A. Young and B. Feamster are the biggest losses but other than their experience the production can be readily replaced. Okonya and Terrell were dismissed and no great losses either one. I always liked Hayes as a safety because he seemed to be in the right place a lot and was a very sure tackler but without the needed top end speed. Young said he's transferring because he couldn't get into Duke grad school. Feamster got beat a lot and was likely to fall down the depth chart. Okonya and Lucas joined a disturbing trend of DLs dismissed but were replacement-level players.
Overall it seems the production of these kids can be or has already been replaced by younger players which is overall a good thing for the program.
The statement in question was: "we have FIVE in the transfer portal...about as many as anyone." On its face, the statement referred to the total number of players in the transfer portal, and compared that number to "anyone"; it said nothing about "averages," and was not limited to teams in the ACC. I can't speak for others, but in my book, 5 is not "about as many as" 11 or 12 or 13.
In any event, my point remains the same: The actual numbers do not support the statement made, which in my judgment renders it misleading. If the poster had said that the number of Duke players in the transfer portal is "more than the average among ACC schools," that would have been accurate information. Or even if the poster had said that the number of Duke players in the transfer portal "seems high compared to other schools," I would have thought that unobjectionable, because the wording makes clear that the poster is only sharing an impression, not making a statement of fact.
I believe that each participant here owes a duty to the community, which includes lurkers and visitors as well as fellow participants, to be careful in distinguishing the expression of personal opinions or impressions from affirmative statements of fact. While our opinions or impressions may be subject to debate as to their relative validity, any such debate is meaningless if the facts on which those differing opinions and impressions are based can be subject to disagreement. Unlike opinions or impressions, facts can be verified. All I'm saying is that when someone posts an opinion or impression that is supported by supposition rather relying on verified facts, it's not only lazy, but potentially misleading to those who read the message.
Finally, while others might interpret the message differently, it certainly seemed negative to me. Stating that the number of players transferring from Duke was "as many as" any other school struck me as implying that an inordinate number of players are choosing to leave the program, which suggests that there might be some mysterious issue causing dissatisfaction.
I don't understand this at all. My research and math proves that 5 is above average, and that 11 or 12 or 13 is way above average. So while we have 5, that is more than most. And I never got that he was being negative to the program at all.
I looked up the ACC solely because you used Miami (incorrectly) and VT as examples, and VT is an extreme.
I think it is pretty clear that HBCK is talking about players leaving, not those merely "in the portal", which as the Miami case points out includes transfers they are accepting as well as those leaving.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
It's signing day. 247 has Duke's 2019 group ranked 46th nationally, 8th in the ACC.
https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Fo...n=TeamRankings
https://247sports.com/college/duke/S...tball/Commits/
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
Nothing going on, we seem to be full up.
I think the program's in pretty good shape, but personally feel next year will be a struggle to get to six wins...hats off to Cut if he can pull it off, especially with a very imposing OOC schedule.
Its not so much that we lost 7 players to transfer, as it is that we didn't receive a single transfer or grad student. the key number should be the netted number -7. I agree with remaining Quarterback options that they all seemed to have baggage but surely one of the offensive linemen or wide receivers in the portal should be acceptable. I understand we are already at the limit of 85 but it seems a shame that we couldn't pick up a receiver or offensive lineman. We seemed to have had a pipeline from Ohio State for transfers.