(no message)
Link: Breaking Down Notre Dame Football's Two Year Recruiting Haul: Offense
Denson didn't "recruit" well. I'd say the on-field production out of the running back was WAAAAAAAAY better than recruiting "stars". This, in my opinion, shows a superior level of coaching. Meanwhile, we've had high star QBs suffer (for 8 years).
An OL that's massively underperformed compared to their composite "star" rankings. Though this unit has put out a significant number of high draft (1st round) and quality pros. There is a lot of positive for the overall unit, but ND hasn't by any means had a real road-grader OL that can consistently pick up 4th and 1 when everyone knows you are running it. My point here is the general on-field product of the unit seems less as a whole than their respective star ranking.
The DL seems to have been on par with its overall star ranking. The DBs feels like a lower production, outside of Love? The wide receivers are a total scattershot, but for the most part, the big recruiting "star" names haven't done all that much if they weren't named Floyd.
This is one area where a Kelly coached team of lower "stars" feels and seems to produce better on the field than a "high star" ranking team. He doesn't do well with top-tier athletes in my opinion.
All of those backs were recruited before he got to Notre Dame. So you can't say the production of the players he recruited was better than their recruiting stars. Dexter Williams was also a very highly touted running back recruit too.
Next year's likely starter, Jafar Armstrong, was also recruited as a WR by Chip Long and Delvaughn Alexander. It's entirely possible that Denson will have spent 4 years at Notre Dame without ever landing a back that is a regular starter. However you want to slice it, that's terrible.
Yes recruiting and college football coaching goes hand in hand. But, it does not mean to be a successful coach, you have to be a successful recruiter.
Denson did a helluva job coaching and during his years we got more production out of backs than we have in a long, long time. Several of the players weren't even running backs, to begin with. So, that's multiple points and proof which validates Denson as a very good RB coach regardless of his recruiting. Also, his players backed up his work through their production and statistics on the field. Denson as a position coach outperformed in my opinion. Much like he did as an ND player that was fairly small without much breakaway speed. All he did then was 100+ yard game after game with TD after TD. When you have a guy that can produce, who cares if he's not the best recruiter. Make sure you have that base covered with someone that is.
My point is, as long as you have enough coaches that can recruit well. Which Notre Dame does. Then you also better have some position coaches that raise the level of the kids coming in. ND has been missing this for years, as a whole. Once coaches get the kids it's about a) getting them to perform b) Do they get better.
We saw this with consistency at the RB position, under Denson.
Anyway, I put the emphasis on the ratings because most of the players from 2018 haven't played yet, and obviously none of the 2019 group. Just gauging talent acquisition. Take it fwiw.
Even when Adams was RB and there was the whole "Trucker 33" or whatever. When push came to shove, against quality defenses, that OL was bad. See games against big time programs and D's below. They never mauled any defense that wasn't MAC level or lower. And rarely if ever did they win or get the tough yards.
2017 Adams
UGA - 9/53yds - L
Mich St. - 9/56yds - W
Miami - 16/40yds - L
USC - 19/191yds - W
Stanford - 20/49yds - L
LSU - 15/44yds - W
Those are 6 big time programs, big time games, with above average to great Defenses (even at those times). Those are terrible rushing numbers other than the USC game. If the OL was dominant why does a back like Adams never crack 60yds and only have one game over 100yds against D's like those? I picked that year because everyone talks about what a great line it was. There were individual stars but the unit wasn't that great.
(no message)
There is information that shows your hypothesis is wrong, but you ignore it because your impressions mean more. Don't get it.
Ball St. worked over NDs line this past season. So please, instead of spuing your views, back it up with something other than some random composite ranking of some sort or your personal opinion. I'm totally fine with you having an opinion but it has to hold water and you have to be able to support it. Nothing you've said is supportable other than you believe it because you really like anything ND football.
What was the OLs 3rd and 4th down conversion %s? What about when the game was on the line? What were these %s against quality and good defenses? What are they against bad defenses?
Regardless of your twisted homer view, it's about what happens on Saturday's when the games are played. Hense why we keep getting beat down when it really counts. Beating BC, Ball St., Vandy, NC St. and all the other subpar schools don't count. If you go back and watch, you'll see that against half of those schools our OL struggles.
Adams had 1430 yards in 2017
69.72% - 997 yds - came against Temple, BC, MIA-OH, UNC, NC St, Wake and Navy.
If you can convince yourself that these are "good" defenses, then I'm at a loss for words and just need to give up.
by smaller less talented defenses and flat out dominated by good defenses, then that's on you... either get your eyes checked or keep believing your misleading OL rankings.
But the truth is, despite the vast amount of raw talent we've had on the OL the unit as a whole has underperformed for years, damn near the whole time Kelly has been here to be frank.
(no message)
(no message)
I don't have time to go back and look at 2015 and '16, maybe those rankings are warranted, but 2017 is not at all. Show by the stats I listed. When a back like Adams, against quality defenses, can barely get 50 yards a game in 7 games outside of one, there is a problem with your OL.
You look at the box score and draw a conclusion. Adams only had 50 yards, the line isn't that good. What a formula like S&P+ does is take every individual play, weight them against the opponent, throw out garbage time, and it comes up with a number. The numbers say the lines have been quite good, which makes sense because we've seen a number of them go on to the NFL.
So we have:
-players going on to play in the NFL as high picks
- good rankings for the line as a whole
Maybe your hypothesis is wrong.
Remember, my hypothesis about Book was wrong for a year... Until they gave him a real chance.
And yes, "machines" aren't always right. Proof being that's part of the whole reason the BCS crumbled. Some S&P ranking can't show you that you have really slow unathletic linemen compared to other top units. Or that your tackles can't really block all that well.
The RB coaching has certainly coached up guys to play better than their rating, but even with good production, most of the high upside guys are now gone. And given the good coaching there, wouldn't it have been even better if the guy they were coaching up was a total stud?
On the OL, this past year was a bit of a disappointment, but aside from that, I don't think the OL has underpreformed their rating and may be part of the reason the RB's outplayed their rating.
WR I agree that some of the higher rated guys haven't totally panned out, but you have to keep going after the special kids. Aside from depth, that was the biggest difference between us and Clemson. Their WR's could make big plays and ours couldn't. I still have hope. Austin could be a Floyd type in the making and Lenzy, Keys or both could add the speed element we were missing.
DL I think your pretty much on target. Same, unfortunately, with QB.
I don't think you have to do both well. I'd rather have a few really good position coaches and a few talented recruiters for balance.
The OL was bad this year overall. Even in the good years ND OL's have struggled to dominate quality defenses (non MAC level) and they struggle with 3rd & 2 / 4th & 1, which is about the only sign you need to know if you have a good line or not. The early to mid 90's lines were WAAAAAAY better.
(no message)
Let’s face it, we have done a poor job recruiting at offensive skill positions.
(no message)
(no message)
Lots of bodies at receiver too. Wouldn't help with the talent deficiencies at the position though. He's a mid three star.
Pete Sampson had a mailbag on The Athletic yesterday that asked about position switches and he didn't mention that. Perhaps he was recruited as an athlete and didn't make the distinction?