Started By
Message
re: Blue chip ratios for first year coaches
Posted on 7/9/24 at 4:30 pm to 3down10
Posted on 7/9/24 at 4:30 pm to 3down10
quote:
I remember you had a defense that couldn't stop 2 dimensional offenses and outside Oklahoma, you lost to every good opponent you played.
UGA beat every team they played in 2017 aside from Bama and they took Bama to OT. (Yes, they lost to Auburn on the road... just like Bama did, but then beat them in the SECCG. Bama never got a win over Auburn in 2017)
UGA beat #3 OU.
They beat #10 Auburn.
They beat #11 Notre Dame.
They beat #19 Mississippi State.
Both UGA and Bama had 4 wins against top 25 teams and 3 wins against top 11 teams in 2017. UGA played a tougher schedule than Bama in the prior to playoff selection in 2017 and finished with a better record and one more top 25 win (because they went on the road OOC and beat Notre Dame and made and won the SEC championship).
So your memory isn't that great. UGA ended up not being quite as good as Bama in 2017, but they earned their #2 finish by beating a lot of highly ranked teams on the field.
quote:
What's in doubt is the narrative he took over a program that was in bad shape.
UGA fans don't claim he took over a program in bad shape. They just (correctly) point out that it wasn't in particularly good shape either. A 51% blue chip ratio isn't horrible. But it's not great either. For comparison, Auburn had a 51% blue chip ratio entering last season. That's where UGA was when Smart took over... not poised for great things.
This post was edited on 7/9/24 at 7:15 pm
1
Posted on 7/9/24 at 4:32 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Kirby I mean, Deboer walked into the best situation imaginable" "Ryan Day was born on third base" "Dan left Florida in shambles"
Here’s another one
“Despite seeing your team have unprecedented success, you are still a homosexual dork posting stupid shite for attention”
Posted on 7/9/24 at 5:30 pm to FoTownBam
According to 24/7 Sports College Team Talent for 2023, Washington ranked 26th in team talent with 0 5-stars and 27 4-stars out of their 85 scholly players.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 5:32 pm to Foots51
quote:
According to 24/7 Sports College Team Talent for 2023, Washington ranked 26th in team talent with 0 5-stars and 27 4-stars out of their 85 scholly players.
Yes. And they didn't win the national championship.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 5:52 pm to DawginSC
quote:
UGA beat every team they played in 2017 aside from Bama and they took Bama to OT. (Yes, they lost to Auburn on the road... just like Bama did, but then beat them in the SECCG. Bama never got a win over Auburn in 2017)
UGA beat #3 OU.
They beat #10 Auburn.
They beat #11 Notre Dame.
They beat #19 Mississippi State.
Both UGA and Bama had 4 wins against top 25 teams and 3 wins against top 11 teams in 2017. UGA played a tougher schedule than Bama in the prior to playoff selection in 2017 and finished with a better record and one more top 25 win (because they went on the road OOC and beat Notre Dame and made and won the SEC championship).
So your memory isn't that great. UGA ended up not being quite as good as Bama in 2023, but they earned their #2 finish by beating a lot of highly ranked teams on the field.
Again, I'm not saying it was a bad team or anything. I'm saying you benefited from an easier schedule.
When I say good teams I mean teams you can reasonable expect a loss to. I mean yeah, those are generally good teams compared to all of college football, but not really in terms of being contender.
That's going to end somewhere around #10 generally, maybe #15 some years maybe less than 10. So as I said, I'll give a little credit for Notre Dame, but beating Miss St isn't really all that big of a deal if we're being honest. Not a dig towards Miss St, just that there is a drop off.
Most SoS methods are terrible and use averages. You really need to look at how many teams were faced that a great team could lose to. An average SoS method would claim facing the #48 and #49 ranked teams is a more difficult schedule than playing #1 and #125. But it's obviously wrong. Playing the #1 team adds to the expected losses of the schedule, while the #48 and #49 teams really doesn't.
And as far as Auburn, you got blown out by them when their offense was full strength, but won when it was not. I don't think that's a plus overall.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 6:03 pm to 3down10
quote:
And as far as Auburn, you got blown out by them when their offense was full strengt
After all of that discussion, you make this post.
You don’t seem capable of learning the sport of football beyond broad assumptions/Generalizations that don’t apply to this game. You are full of contradiction.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 6:21 pm to djsdawg
quote:
After all of that discussion, you make this post.
You don’t seem capable of learning the sport of football beyond broad assumptions/Generalizations that don’t apply to this game. You are full of contradiction.
After all that discussion, you're still the dumbass who thinks a RB running for 66 yards on 3 drives that end in a FG isn't successful and part of the reason why they score a TD on a 50 yard pass 2 drives later.
I have 0 respect for you, lick my balls.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 6:39 pm to djsdawg
quote:
That aspect doesn’t magically increase the quality of the inherited roster
He could’ve inherited 10% blue chips it doesn’t excuse losing to Butch Jones and Vandy
My point was that he landed in a talent rich state with no in-state competition for said talent. Everything he needs is right at his finger tips
DeBoer has a better initial roster for sure tho
Posted on 7/9/24 at 6:41 pm to koreandawg
Wonder what Mike Elkos ratio is?
A&M is 4 or 5 in composite talent.
A&M is 4 or 5 in composite talent.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 6:42 pm to 3down10
quote:
After all that discussion, you're still the dumbass who thinks a RB running for 66 yards on 3 drives that end in a FG isn't successfu
Successful? I used the word impressive. Not the same thing. Clearly.
Once again, you display a complete misunderstanding of basic words. You see one word, but think it’s another word, and then you run off when this glaring mistake is pointed out.
This post was edited on 7/9/24 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:08 pm to djsdawg
quote:
A 51% blue chip ratio isn't horrible. But it's not great either. For comparison, Auburn had a 51% blue chip ratio entering last season. That's where UGA was when Smart took over... not poised for great things.
Is “good” like top 25 and “great” top 15?
Where did 51% rank UGA in Kirby’s first year compared to the rest of the country?
The team that won the natty in Kirby’s first year, what was their BCR?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:25 pm to HighTide_ATL
quote:
The team that won the natty in Kirby’s first year, what was their BCR?
You think THIS is a good point? Its not.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:58 pm to 3down10
quote:
Again, I'm not saying it was a bad team or anything. I'm saying you benefited from an easier schedule.
When I say good teams I mean teams you can reasonable expect a loss to. I mean yeah, those are generally good teams compared to all of college football, but not really in terms of being contender.
UGA's schedule before the playoff was harder than BAma's was in 2017. Bama benefited from an easier schedule than UGA.
Neither UGA nor Bama played a team in the final top 9 in the regular season.
Both played the #10 team. But UGA played them twice while Bama played them once. Bama was 0-1 against Auburn, UGA was 1-1.
UGA also played the #11 team on the road and won in 2017.
You have to make up really stupid rules about "who could beat who" in order to make the claim you're making (like saying #11 was an easy game but #18... LSU... was a hard game).
In 2017 before the playoff Bama played:
AU at #10 (loss)
LSU at #17 (win)
MSU at #18 (win)
and no other ranked teams.
UGA played
AU at #10 (loss)
AU at #10 (win)
ND at #11 (win)
MSU at #18 (win)
UGA simply had a harder schedule using your own method of determining hard games, regardless of where you draw the line.
They played more top 10 opponents. More top 15 opponents. And more top 20 opponents. And they had the same number of losses despite playing more tough games than Bama.
UGA played a HARDER schedule than Bama. The whole "winning the east is easier" trope is rarely correct with UGA because UGA often goes OOC to add a top team. Bama did that with Texas last year. The difference is UGA generally WINS those games and last year Bama lost.
UGA plays Clemson this year who'll probably end up in the top 15. Wisconsin... won't.
UGA played Oregon in 2022, who ended up ranked in the top 15 while Texas (who Bama played) was 25th.
UGA played Clemson in 2021. They ended up top 15. Miami (who Bama played) was out of the top 25.
UGA played ND in 2019 who finished in the top 15. Duke (who Bama played) was not in the top 25.
UGA only had GT in 2018 who finished 7-6. Bama played Louisville who finished 2-10.
UGA played ND in 2017 who finished 11th. Bama played FSU who finished 7-6 and second to last in the ACC atlantic division.
Because UGA's OOC scheduling for Kirby's time as coach has been EXCEPTIONAL, they haven't had an easier road than any other top team in the SEC. It's been equal or harder depending on how the conference matchups worked out.
And UGA's won every single one of those OOC games. They didn't lose the first time they ended up playing an OOC team in the regular season who finished the season ranked in the last 7 years, like Bama did with Texas.
4-0 rather than 0-1.
What former SEC West teams fail to realize is that while in many seasons the east might have had fewer ranked teams than the west, UGA's schedule hasn't been easier because they schedule tough OOC games much more frequently than other SEC teams do.
They've also been lucky/unlucky (depending on how you view it) with drawing teams from the west who ended up ranked.
In 2017 Auburn and MSU were ranked and UGA played them a total of 3 times.
In 2018 LSU was ranked and UGA played them.
In 2019 Auburn was ranked.
In 2020 Bama was ranked and UGA played them (and was scheduled to play them before the number of cross divisional games expanded)
In 2021 Arkansas was ranked.
In 2022 Mississippi State was ranked.
In 2023 Ole Miss was ranked.
UGA has had schedules equal to or tougher than Bama's every year from 2017 on. Part of that came from "luck" from the cross divisional games they had. Part of it came from UGA scheduling more tough opponents OOC than Bama has.
But you're simply not correct in thinking UGA had an easier path... UNLESS you go down to looking at teams outside the top 25 from the west and saying that an unranked Arkansas would be a tougher opponent than an unranked Kentucky in a given year. And you said yourself that only games against teams that might win matter.
So, in conclusions... you're wrong.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 8:25 pm to HighTide_ATL
quote:
He could’ve inherited 10% blue chips it doesn’t excuse losing to Butch Jones and Vandy
Yes, UGA lost to Tennessee on a Josh Dobbs hail mary. A Tennessee team that also beat UF who finished 14th. Tennessee was ranked 22nd.
They also did lose to Vandy by 1 point. If you want to say WTF on that game, you should. UGA had 421 yards to 171 for Vandy and had no turnovers. I still can't explain what happened there.
UGA also lost to GT by 1 point that year. GT was 9-4, so it wasn't horrific, but the reality is Kirby in his first year was 2 1-point games and a 3- point hail mary loss from being 10-2 instead of 7-5 in the regular season. He learned how to win those close games since then.
quote:
My point was that he landed in a talent rich state with no in-state competition for said talent. Everything he needs is right at his finger tips
This is somewhat funny because UGA actually recruits the state of Georgia less now than they did under Richt. Smart gets the bottom of his recruiting classes from Georgia, but recruits nationally for the top end of his classes.
This has bitten him a few times. He prioritized Zach Evans in 2020 over Tank Bigsby. UGA did land Evans... but decided to pull his offer and not accept his LOI on signing day due to new off the field issues). Could they have landed Bigsby if they had focused on the in-state guy? I think so. They had to scramble after Evans fell apart and ended up with 3-star Daijun Edwards instead (who was pretty solid so it's hard to complain too much). But most would say Bigsby would have been better. But the reality is UGA isn't dependent on Georgia talent for the top of their classes.
UGA had the #1 class last year. Of their top 10 recruits, 4 were from Georgia, 2 were from Texas, and 1 each were from FL, MO, VA and CA.
UGA only landed 4 of the top 30 players from the state of Georgia last year and ended up with the best recruiting class in the country.
They also had 4 of the top 11 (and would have had 5 if Raiola hadn't flipped to Nebraska). So it's not like they avoid the top players in Georgia if they're also near the top in the country. They just don't focus on the state like prior coaches have.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 8:31 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
You can have 1 or 2 positions stacked with 4* and 5* and the rest in shambles and still score high here. It's surface level analysis.
This point applies to UGA 2016 with Michel and Chubb at RB, but holes elsewhere.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 8:56 pm to djsdawg
quote:
You think THIS is a good point? Its not.
I'm asking a question.
I'm going to assume that your immediate defensive response, plus you completing avoiding where 51% ranked in comparison to the rest of the country that year means that 51% was actually pretty high for 2016.
This post was edited on 7/9/24 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:08 pm to HighTide_ATL
quote:
I'm going to assume that your immediate defensive response, plus you completing avoiding where 51% ranked in comparison to the rest of the country that year means that 51% was actually pretty high for 2016.
It was 12th. 5th in the SEC. Behind Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M.
Most years under richt UGA was 4h or 5th in the conference in talent.
In 2017 UGA was at 5th. 63%. 3rd in the conference behind Bama and LSU.
4th in 2018 at 69%. 2nd in the conference (where UGA remained since).
3rd in 2019. 79%
2nd in 2020. 82%.
2nd in 2021. 80%
3rd in 2022. 77%
3rd in 2023. 77%.
3rd in 2024. 80%.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:10 pm to HighTide_ATL
quote:
I'm going to assume that your immediate defensive response, plus you completing avoiding where 51% ranked in comparison to the rest of the country that year means that 51% was actually pretty high for 2016.
Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. Doesnt make your point about Clemson good either way.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:13 pm to DawginSC
And in case you want to see prior Richt years.
2015 - 51% (12th, 5th in SEC)
2014 - 51% (11th, 5th in SEC)
Can't find any results before then.
2015 - 51% (12th, 5th in SEC)
2014 - 51% (11th, 5th in SEC)
Can't find any results before then.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 6:09 am to DawginSC
quote:
It was 12th. 5th in the SEC. Behind Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M.
Most years under richt UGA was 4h or 5th in the conference in talent.
So inheriting a roster in the 90th percentile in the country for talent isn't a "good situation?"
quote:
In 2017 UGA was at 5th. 63%. 3rd in the conference behind Bama and LSU.
4th in 2018 at 69%. 2nd in the conference (where UGA remained since).
Sounds like he was able to quickly improve upon what was in place when he got there, which one could presume had something to do with the available blue chips in the immediate area to pull from
Kirby is a great coach that landed at a program that was primed to succeed but wasn't reaching it's potential under the previous regime. Are you arguing this isn't true?
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 6:20 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News