• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Football Prognostications...

Not sure what you mean other than the basic standard of success. Making bowls and continually upgrading the status of the program in terms of on field play, recruiting, and exposure. Going 4-14 over the last 18 games is not building off past success, it's distancing the program from past success.
 
PhDeac said:
Not sure what you mean other than the basic standard of success. Making bowls and continually upgrading the status of the program in terms of on field play, recruiting, and exposure. Going 4-14 over the last 18 games is not building off past success, it's distancing the program from past success.
Click to expand...

I guess that is what I mean: what would be your basic standards of success following the Orange Bowl?

The '07 season felt like something of a disappointment. But it also could be seen as one of the top 5 seasons in Wake football history. The '08 season also had the feeling of a disappointment, yet we won a bowl, something that has only been done 5 other times in Wake history. Then the last 2 seasons have not felt like disappointments but have been hugely disappointing.

It still remains to be seen what the new "normal" for Wake football will be under Grobe. Will it be more like '07 and '08 or will it be like '09 and '10?
 
In '07 and '08, we did what I said on defense and special teams, but failed miserably on offense. The offense was the disappointing part, not the rest of the team. Then the FRESH DEACS left and we managed to hold on for half a season before the bottom fell out without them.

I was hoping "new normal" would be fundamentally sound, well-coached football teams that give 110% every play. Given the weakness of our schedule, that sort of team ends up with a floor of 5 wins and 6-8 wins a year. We haven't seen that team in awhile.
 
Ph - is it fair to say you were in favor of firing Dino, you're in favor of firing [Redacted], you're in favor of firing Grobe, and you're in favor of firing Lobo?
 
Not in favor of firing Grobe, but if the bottom continues to falls out of the program I will be. It's sad that not thinking a guy should get a free pass = fire Grobe.
 
I don't understand how you can reconcile your posts with the position that you do not think we should fire Grobe.

But you are in favor of firing Lobo, [Redacted], and you were in favor of firing Dino (and if I recall, were souring on Prosser before his passing and opposed the Dino hire originally).
 
PhDeac said:
Not in favor of firing Grobe, but if the bottom continues to falls out of the program I will be. It's sad that not thinking a guy should get a free pass = fire Grobe.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to me. No one in their right mind would want to fire Jim Grobe right now, but we are definitely trending downward. 5-7 wins should be the standard, and I believe we are totally capable of that.
 
DCDeac said:
I don't understand how you can reconcile your posts with the position that you do not think we should fire Grobe.

But you are in favor of firing Lobo, [Redacted], and you were in favor of firing Dino (and if I recall, were souring on Prosser before his passing and opposed the Dino hire originally).
Click to expand...

Yeah. I like winning. Once that stops, we have to question if the coach is the solution or the problem. It's strange to me how people can look at a coach who is not winning and not bringing in the level of recruits with which he had success and not question him going forward. It's not like it's a new story in Wake sports.

Look at Grobe post FRESH DEACS. Can you definitively say Grobe either can recruit players of that caliber again or win without them? He deserves a chance to show he can, but not indefinitely. Giving Caldwell so much time was a mistake. Giving Grobe forever to get back would be a mistake too especially if he's not willingly to make major changes in order to improve the team.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. I like winning. Once that stops, we have to question if the coach is the solution or the problem. It's strange to me how people can look at a coach who is not winning and not bringing in the level of recruits with which he had success and not question him going forward. It's not like it's a new story in Wake sports.

Look at Grobe post FRESH DEACS. Can you definitively say Grobe either can recruit players of that caliber again or win without them? He deserves a chance to show he can, but not indefinitely. Giving Caldwell so much time was a mistake. Giving Grobe forever to get back would be a mistake too especially if he's not willingly to make major changes in order to improve the team.
Click to expand...

What was the Fresh Deacs class rated coming in? Were they the highest ranked Grobe recruiting class or were they "coached up"?
 
I think they were rated about the same as most classes back then, so you could say they were "coached up".

Of course, from there the question is why haven't other classes gotten coached up like the FRESH DEACS were?

There was an article a few weeks ago saying that Wake was one of the 5 best programs in developing NFL talent based on the percentage of players at each star level who make it pro. It made Grobe look really good until you really look at it. Over half of our players who have been drafted came from that one class. It's what's called a cohort effect.
 
PhDeac said:
I think they were rated about the same as most classes back then, so you could say they were "coached up".

Of course, from there the question is why haven't other classes gotten coached up like the FRESH DEACS were?

There was an article a few weeks ago saying that Wake was one of the 5 best programs in developing NFL talent based on the percentage of players at each star level who make it pro. It made Grobe look really good until you really look at it. Over half of our players who have been drafted came from that one class. It's what's called a cohort effect.
Click to expand...

I know. Either way is troubling. Either they way the best recruiting class Grobe ever had (on paper) and the coaching staff has failed to duplicate that feat. Or they represent the best player development work of the coaching staff and they have failed to duplicate that feat.
 
PhDeac said:
I think they were rated about the same as most classes back then, so you could say they were "coached up".

Of course, from there the question is why haven't other classes gotten coached up like the FRESH DEACS were?

There was an article a few weeks ago saying that Wake was one of the 5 best programs in developing NFL talent based on the percentage of players at each star level who make it pro. It made Grobe look really good until you really look at it. Over half of our players who have been drafted came from that one class. It's what's called a cohort effect.
Click to expand...

Until you look at it? Is there a reason this cohort effect can't be negative? That may be what we've seen from a class or two post-Fresh Deacs, especially at certain positions.

The problem is that you can't credit the players for good results and blame the coaches for bad. This "Fresh Deacus Ex Machina" theory tells us little beyond what we know: they were unusually good.

Grobe and the players both deserve credit for good years and blame for bad. But because coaches recruit and train, the lion's share of responsibility falls to management -- at least in my view.
 
Not sure what you're saying. Seems like you agree with me.
 
If what you're saying is Grobe done good with the Fresh Deacs, Grobe failed of late, and Grobe deserves time to do well again, then yeah we agree.

If what you're saying is Grobe just got lucky with the Fresh Deacs, Grobe sucked before and after, and Grobe should be on the hot seat this year, then no we don't.
 
PhDeac said:
I was hoping "new normal" would be fundamentally sound, well-coached football teams that give 110% every play. Given the weakness of our schedule, that sort of team ends up with a floor of 5 wins and 6-8 wins a year. We haven't seen that team in awhile.
Click to expand...

Lots of clichés to sort through in that first sentence. I'm not sure how you could even identity which of those 3 criteria are being met. Was last year's team poorly coached, or were the players not good enough? Did the coaches coach better in 2006, or were the players better? Those are nearly impossible questions to answer.

The second sentence is complete horseshit. You think the floor for Wake Forest football is 5 wins per year? Texas won 5 games this year. Michigan won 5 games last year. You think our floor is the same as theirs?

Going back a couple years, Notre fucking Dame went 3-9.

This past year, out of 64 BCS teams besides Wake, 11 won fewer than than 5 games. That includes some pretty proud programs. UCLA won 4. Ole Miss won 4. Cincinnati (1 year removed from an undefeated regular season and the Sugar Bowl) won 4. Look at the schools similar to Wake: Virginia won 4. Duke won 3. Vandy won 2.

I really want to hear your rationale as to why Wake football's floor is 5 wins (and please don't just say some variant of: "our floor is 5 wins if we give 110% on every play!" You are better than that, I think.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Our schedule next year is certainly not weak. Our schedule last year was certainly not weak either.
 
We're lucky to have a good coach that is committed to staying at Wake. I have faith that he'll return us to respectability and on to some bowls shortly. The problem with getting rid of him, IMO, is who in the hell could we get that would be any better (and would stay for more than a few years)?
 
PhDeac said:
The point is we don't play a schedule hard enough that 5 wins are unrealistic. Last year's was very bad and not to far from 5 wins due to the weak schedule.
Click to expand...

Wake Forest SoS last year (out of 245 schools nationally, 120 D1A, 65 BCS): 26th
 
Last edited:
dc9deac said:
If what you're saying is Grobe done good with the Fresh Deacs, Grobe failed of late, and Grobe deserves time to do well again, then yeah we agree.

If what you're saying is Grobe just got lucky with the Fresh Deacs, Grobe sucked before and after, and Grobe should be on the hot seat this year, then no we don't.
Click to expand...

Well then we agree as long as you don't think that time should be unlimited.

pOH, I already explained my logic in post #95 and you even quoted it in your first post. Not only that, in your second post on these boards, you provided even more evidence for my point by showing that two of the teams we play regularly were the two worst BCS teams last year.

doofus, our schedule is strong enough that it's unlikely we'll pull out 10 wins most years. Way back when the expansion schedules were announced, I pointed at 2006-08 as the sweet spots on the schedule because we had two games each against UNC and UVa and one each against VT and Miami. Interestingly that schedule repeats in 2011-13.

Our schedule isn't strong enough that if our program is where it needs to be we shouldn't win under 5 games because we regularly play some really weak opponents. By making the argument that a floor of 5 game is unreasonable, you're basically saying that a Wake program that has improved under Grobe shouldn't expect to win the following games year to year:

FCS team (1 win)
Duke and Vandy (2 wins)
1 or 2 other non-con (i.e. Cuse, Army, Rice, NIU)
At least 1 other ACC game
 
So, long story short, you think our floor is the same as Texas and Michigan's? And higher than UCLA and Notre Dame's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top