[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

I like our talent as much as the next guy, but there are only 7 Power 5 teams that went 11-2 or better (plus a number that went 10-2): Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and U$C.  There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations.  I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period.  Georgia averaged 8th and U$C averaged 9th.  Clemson averaged a 12; Oklahoma averaged 16.  Stanford averaged 26.  Of the 7 teams that went 11-2 or better, only Wisconsin averaged a lower recruiting ranking (37), and their record was substantially aided by their division in the B1G; I doubt they go 12-1 against the teams we played.

Nor is their evidence of talent on the team disproportionate to its ranking.  We had 5 first team all-conference players, and 2 second teamers.  U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team.  Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.

We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries.  Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage).  I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention.  Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole.  Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1

Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent.  Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary.  Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; defensive backs can only cover someone for so long before eventually someone, somewhere gets open) but I think some of it was just underperformance.  But you've usually focused your ire on the offense.

BC
[/quote]

This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern.  It boils down to...

Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe? 

Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it.  I respect that kind of passion!  It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way. 

But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]

I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18390.msg218851#msg218851 date=1513882192]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18390.msg218845#msg218845 date=1513878729]
When you have 11-2 talent and go 9-4, then you can have "good" or even "very good" years . . . and still underperform.  THAT is what I've been consistently arguing over the years.

I think a fair criticism of my critique is that it overemphasizes offensive performance on game day, when so many other things go into being a great head coach.  I try to include this point in various posts - as Shaw does a GREAT job in 90% of head coaching duties.  And that has resulted in a very good tenure to date.

It's just . . . well, no need to repeat it for the hundredth time.

I like our talent as much as the next guy, but there are only 7 Power 5 teams that went 11-2 or better (plus a number that went 10-2): Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and U$C.  There are of course flaws with recruiting rankings, but as a general proxy for average talent on the squad, it's not a bad approximation of reasonable expectations.  I took the recruiting rankings from 2013 - 2016 and averaged them: Alabama had the top recruiting class every year. Ohio State was not far behind, it averaged the 4th best recruiting class over that period.  Georgia averaged 8th and U$C averaged 9th.  Clemson averaged a 12; Oklahoma averaged 16.  Stanford averaged 26.  Of the 7 teams that went 11-2 or better, only Wisconsin averaged a lower recruiting ranking (37), and their record was substantially aided by their division in the B1G; I doubt they go 12-1 against the teams we played.

Nor is their evidence of talent on the team disproportionate to its ranking.  We had 5 first team all-conference players, and 2 second teamers.  U$C had 7 first teamers and 4 on the second team.  Washington had 5 on the first team and 6 on the second team.

We had a unique talent on the team in Bryce Love, and we have one of the best offensive lines in the Pac-12, albeit one anchored by a true freshman left tackle, and a line that dealt with an unusual instability and moving around due to injuries.  Costello I suspect will be a great quarterback, but even if he had played all year, he is still a redshirt freshman and wound up the 7th highest rated QB in the Pac-12 by PER (8th by yards per attempt, and 9th by completion percentage).  I like our receivers, but we do lack a guy with game-breaking speed; our best, JJ Arcega-Whiteside was merely an Honorable Mention.  Tight ends, on the other hand, are probably the best in the conference as a group, if not the country as a whole.  Here's how I'd assign the offensive talent (in terms of expected record):
RB 13-0
QB 7-6 (for Costello), 4-9 (for Chryst); that will rise as Costello gets more experience, but hard to put it much higher for this year
OL 10-3
WR 7-6
TE 12-1

Thus, I think the offense performed commensurate with its talent.  Where I think you might have a case is on the defensive side of the ball, where I think the defense overall somewhat underperformed its talent, especially at the linebacker position and in the secondary.  Some of that can be attributed to key injuries at MLB (which necessitated playing an undertalented player) and DB, and I think some of that is that if the defensive line can be beaten, it puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the defense (linebackers might cheat up to try and help on the run, making them susceptible to passes over the middle as we saw against ND and U$C; defensive backs can only cover someone for so long before eventually someone, somewhere gets open) but I think some of it was just underperformance.  But you've usually focused your ire on the offense.

BC
[/quote]

This entertaining dialog pretty much always follows the same pattern.  It boils down to...

Facts vs. Alternative Facts (e.g., "Top 25" talent vs. "11-2" talent; 7th-best record in CFB since 2011 vs. "arghh, we should have made that first down with a better play call!")
Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
Reason vs. Passion, maybe?
Fixed Mindset (including myself here) vs. Growth Mindset, maybe? 

Without the passion to demand better than the status quo, one would never attain it.  I respect that kind of passion!  It's Shaw's job to approach everything that way. 

But to say that we've been significantly under-performing in relation to our recruited talent on either side of the ball is just plain factually incorrect.
[/quote]

I thought this debate was entertaining the first ten times we had it. Now, at least for me, it is starting to get a little old.
Does anyone else agree?