CFB Returning Production (ESPN)

gtrower

gtrower

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
10,126
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...football-teams-most-returning-production-2020

This guy has some model to project "returning production." His defensive percentages look weird. But who cares b/c GT ends up high on the list at the end.

• Percentage of last season's QB passing yards returning: 32% of offensive returning production formula
• Percentage of last season's WR/TE receiving yards returning: 32%
• Percentage of career starts returning on the offensive line: 17.5%
• Percentage of last season's offensive line snaps returning: 12%
• Percentage of last season's RB rushing yards returning: 6.5%

• Percentage of defensive returning production formula derived from defensive line: 5%
• Percentage derived from secondary: 37%
• Percentage derived from full defense: 21%
• Tackles for loss (including sacks) account for 15%
• Passes defensed account for 33%

Returning Production for 2020
Team...Overall Offense...(Rank)...Defense...(Rank)

1. Northwestern 84% 88% (6) 80% (23)
2. Georgia Tech 84% 74% (39) 94% (2)
6. Virginia Tech 82% 74% (36) 89% (5)
18. North Carolina 75% 87% (9) 64% (63)
38. UCF 71% 67% (61) 75% (35)
48. Pittsburgh 69% 77% (24) 60% (78)
56. Virginia 66% 51% (94) 81% (15)
59. georgia 65% 50% (98) 80% (21)
65. Duke 65% 56% (84) 73% (41)
83. Notre Dame 59% 66% (64) 51% (101)
95. Clemson 55% 60% (79) 51% (103)
96. Miami 55% 59% (82) 50% (105)
105. Syracuse 52% 61% (76) 42% (120)
130. Utah 37% 48% (104) 27% (130)

ACC
Average projected SP+ change: +1.1 points per team (first among conferences)
Most returning production: Georgia Tech (84%, second)
Least returning production: Wake Forest (50%, 110th)

Clemson aside, the ACC has underachieved dramatically over the past two seasons, but inexperience could be blamed for at least part of 2019's struggles. Ten of 14 teams rank in the nation's top half in returning production, and five are in the top 25. Leading the way: the team that underwent maybe the biggest youth movement in college football last season: Geoff Collins' Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets.
 
I agree that we were young last year and are bringing a lot of “production“ back. Also, we went 3-9. The players must improve their play...more experience won’t mean much if they aren’t physically and mentally better.
 
NC State was younger than us last season. They lose a starting QB or something? They aren't on the list

Nevermind, 23
 
This could be read as either a positive or a negative, depending on your outlook and other presuppositions.
 
18in32 said:
This could be read as either a positive or a negative, depending on your outlook and other presuppositions.
Click to expand...
It reads as a strong positive compared to last year. We should expect a significant improvement.

The problem is, we could improve markedly and still go 3-9 again. We really won't know what to expect until we get back out there.
 
I am more excited about "replacing" production rather than "returning" production.

But I do not see an area or position that I expect us to be worse at in 20 than we were in 19.
 
JoeCakeEater said:
I agree that we were young last year and are bringing a lot of “production“ back. Also, we went 3-9. The players must improve their play...more experience won’t mean much if they aren’t physically and mentally better.
Click to expand...

Were going to be super young again this year because a lot of guys are gonna get beat out.
 
The gaggers lost 10/11 offensive starters and the googly eyed kicker that set the career points record at the school, and they still have "50%" returning production? I don't see how. James Cook and George Pickens are good players but they didn't account for half of their offense.
 
johncu said:
It reads as a strong positive compared to last year. We should expect a significant improvement.

The problem is, we could improve markedly and still go 3-9 again. We really won't know what to expect until we get back out there.
Click to expand...
No way we go 3-9 with the grad transfers, Ezzard, Clayton, our RB's, getting Jahaziel Lee healthy and on the DL where he belongs
 
We are adding two experienced starters on the OL and one on the DL. We have OL, DT and WR starters returning from injury. Finally we have a great Freshman class coming in. We should be much better. If only we could pick up a DT and TE from the portal, this could be a big step forward.
 
All things considered I think we are in good shape for a significant advancement, although that may be hard to show on the W-L column. Other analyses have suggested 15 returning starters is the sweet spot. Seems if there is too much continuity guys are used to the same old habits. For us, Lee and Cooper might be returners, but they are also new in a lot of ways too. Transfers that are new on the line or had to sit out last year are likely to be much bigger contributors than the average replacement for graduating players. I think we can count on greater off-season gains in S&C and understanding of technique and scheme than would be usual. We are starting camps from a much better position than last year. Despite the misadventures kicking the ball last year, returning both kickers and Harvin is actually worth a good bit too. A healthier Juanyeh will contribute to the return game, and Gibbs has a chance to be special there too.

On the flip side, we are starting from an awful 3-9, face an even tougher schedule, and overall talent is average P5.
 
johncu said:
It reads as a strong positive compared to last year. We should expect a significant improvement.

The problem is, we could improve markedly and still go 3-9 again. We really won't know what to expect until we get back out there.
Click to expand...
I remember these same comparisons over the years with other regimes.

The question is whether a new starter would be more or less of an upgrade than a returning starter who improves.

And part of the way you answer that question is to look at how the returning starters did last year. If we were 15-0 last year then I would say your conclusion is obviously right. But we weren’t!

Gonna have to play the games to figure that one out.
 
18in32 said:
I remember these same comparisons over the years with other regimes.

The question is whether a new starter would be more or less of an upgrade than a returning starter who improves.

And part of the way you answer that question is to look at how the returning starters did last year. If we were 15-0 last year then I would say your conclusion is obviously right. But we weren’t!

Gonna have to play the games to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

It's more than that. Continuity is very important with the players knowing each other and having an established culture. Continuity in scheme is very important as well. Of course, if you have continuity of something bad, it's likely to follow. That said, we have enough new players and newly healthy players to shake up the dynamics productively without starting from ground zero. Scheme and coaching-wise we have absolute continuity. But as to whether they are any good, there's some disagreements about that. Personally I think last year's results were certainly influenced by the lack of continuity on all fronts, and so long as they are good enough, we are in massively better shape with the same coordinators working on the same stuff with some tweaks.
 
Architorture23 said:
I am more excited about "replacing" production rather than "returning" production.

But I do not see an area or position that I expect us to be worse at in 20 than we were in 19.
Click to expand...

I think this is accounted for in the analysis. Consistency and experience is very important in football; more so than other sports SO if you have a "new" player that is better than a returning productive player, then that is a large positive for your team. This analysis doesn't just measure the players that came back.

I'm not a huge Graham fan but I expect he will be much better in 2020 and GT will have much better QB play in the first 4 games than it did last year; I expect him to be the starter but if one of the new guys is good enough to start over him, that that is a huge jump in quality at the QB position for GT next year. Same can be true at many positions on the field.
 
To put that "improvement" in context.

On offense it would move us from a rank of 124 to 100. Still really bad but in the ACC it would have been better than 2 teams. I think finishing 10th in the ACC on offense would be a good goal for next year.

On Defense it would move us from 103 to 64. Middle of the pack in the ACC. That is a solid defense and IMO, very possible. Our offense HURT our defense next year; if they can just be competitive then defense will have an easier time.
 
interchange said:
It's more than that. Continuity is very important with the players knowing each other and having an established culture. Continuity in scheme is very important as well. Of course, if you have continuity of something bad, it's likely to follow. That said, we have enough new players and newly healthy players to shake up the dynamics productively without starting from ground zero. Scheme and coaching-wise we have absolute continuity. But as to whether they are any good, there's some disagreements about that. Personally I think last year's results were certainly influenced by the lack of continuity on all fronts, and so long as they are good enough, we are in massively better shape with the same coordinators working on the same stuff with some tweaks.
Click to expand...
You are right, but that's just an extension of my point. Continuity of course should mean improvement. But if you're starting from a really low level, even improvement might be worse than replacement.

Really no way to know!
 
Tech has never had a good season without a strong senior class. We had 6 seniors last year on the team who made it through 4 years of football. That’s not a recipe for success.
 
5 wins makes me a happy man this year. Returning talent is great but so is building a machine to rebuild year in and year out. This year’s class was arguably the best in school history but those dividends don’t return until year 3. Coach has made a lot of moves to add depth where it was missing with transfers but there is still work to do. We have a lot of upside but need to keep building to realize the potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top