Atlantic Division Preview – The Case Against…Wake Forest

As college football season approaches, I noted how difficult it was to pick someone to win the ACC’s Atlantic Division. On the flip side, I could easily argue the case against every team. The “slow season” for Wolfpack news is an ideal time to explore this in more detail. Previously, we talked about Clemson and Florida State. Today, we look at the last non-NC State team to receive first place votes from the media – the Wake Forest Demon Deacons.

Jim Grobe has achieved near-legendary status on the Winston-Salem campus – and for good reason. In 2006, his Deacons won the ACC championship game and made the Orange Bowl. Despite coaching at a small private school with subpar facilities, a tiny fanbase, and no natural recruiting territory, Grobe managed to create a perennial ACC contender. Who says coaching doesn’t matter? And the good times seem like they will continue, as I have repeatedly predicted (correctly so far, despite numerous advances) that Grobe will stay at Wake as long as athletic director Ron Wellman is there.

But never mind all that fluff – this is “the case against,” after all. And the Deacons wouldn’t get my vote in 2009 even if you put a gun to my head and forced me to pick somebody. Let’s start with that 2006 ACC title game. Do you remember who the game’s MVP was? That’s right – Jim Grobe’s secret weapon, P/K Sam Swank. Wake’s chances at a second title vanished in 2008 when Swank missed multiple games due to injury. I’m not sure if the numbers will bear out my gut-level observations (calling VaWolf?), but Wake’s spread offense always seemed to move the ball much better between the thirties. In 2008, when these drives stalled, Swank wasn’t there to boot 48 yard FGs (even when he was semi-healthy and active, his range was diminished). Instead, Shane Popham took the honors, alternating shanked FGs with attempted pooch punts (another facet of the game that Swank had mastered). Even when the Deacs punched it in deeper, getting at least 3 points was by no means certain. Despite 45 red zone opportunities to just 34 for its opponents, Wake only punched in two additional scores (see here for this stat). Swank may be healthy this year (the Philadelphia Eagles sure hope so), but he’s out of eligibility. As Scooby Doo might say, ruh-roh.

2009 was also a banner year for Deacons turning pro. The 2009 NFL Draft saw four Wake defenders going in the first four rounds, led by stud LB Aaron Curry (4th overall to Seattle), and the ACC’s career leader in interceptions, Alphonso Smith (5th pick of 2nd round by Denver – who traded their 2010 first rounder to get the pick). Yep, four Deacons off the board before a single Miami Hurricane was picked. Grobe should certainly be proud of this feat – but can his defense really survive the loss of four NFL-caliber defenders? As always, Grobe has upperclassman depth to turn to, but it’s almost unfathomable to expect there not to be a significant dropoff.

And that’s what one expects from Wake Forest this season – a significant dropoff. Yes, they have a solid senior QB returning. Yes, they’ll still be a royal pain in the ass to more talented opponents. Yes, they will be exceptionally well-coached. Yes, I can see them in yet another bowl game. But Wake Forest’s formula for title contention revolved around stellar special teams, dominating the field position battle, and big plays (especially turnovers) from its defense. None of those prongs come without serious question marks in 2009. So yes, I would be very surprised to see the Deacons in Tampa this December.

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

'09 Football

23 Responses to Atlantic Division Preview – The Case Against…Wake Forest

  1. Classof89 07/28/2009 at 11:15 AM #

    I’d bet against them getting to Tampa, but I sure wouldn’t bet against them beating us in Winston-Salem this year, a place where we haven’t even been competitive since the early 1990s…In fact, based on recent results, its our most difficult road trip this year.

  2. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 11:20 AM #

    Nice breakdown.

    I’d add that it doesn’t look like the Deacs will simply be able to depend on the rest of the ACC being so poorly coached or poorly motivated that they can sit back and wait for said teams to hand them the ball game.

    One thing folks should look at w/ Wake is the close games vs. Duke. The year the Deacs won the championship, they were a blocked FG away from losing to the Blue Devils in Winston no less- yes, that same team that is 1-31 in the ACC it’s last 4 seasons.

    What does this tell you? It tells you that almost anyone can hang w/ the Deacs so long as they don’t turn over the ball. Wake is actually a very conservative squad. And if the Deacs turn the ball over, they can’t keep pace w/ an athletic well-coached squad that is executing well against them…this has been proven out vs. the Hokies, the Tigers two years ago and last year vs. UMd.

    I’ve mentioned before that if you look closely at Wake, you’ll see that the “returns are diminishing”. What should worry Wake fans is that these returns diminished as their talent didn’t seem to do so. Now, their talent has taken a significant hit – so I could see Wake missing a bowl game all together.

    Still, they have Grobe – so you know they’ll be prepared and they’ll usually execute – they’ll definitely beat one or two teams that they shouldn’t, but I can see this as a year where Wake’s win total and bowl game reflect the ACC’s overall improvement.

  3. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 11:24 AM #

    “I’d bet against them getting to Tampa, but I sure wouldn’t bet against them beating us in Winston-Salem this year, a place where we haven’t even been competitive since the early 1990s”

    We did beat them in 2001 in Winston. We kept pace in 2005 and 2007 – being in striking distance late in the 3rd quarter in both games. I really think the 2003 game was a result of Chuck’s failure to properly mentally prepare the team for a tough game. Before that game – on what is now the “Scout-State message boards” – I penned a post: Are we heading into a buzz-saw Saturday?

    It was frustrating as hell to me that I could see exactly what was coming but our staff failed to do so.

  4. whitefang 07/28/2009 at 12:44 PM #

    Off topic although still football:
    If not already mentioned in an earlier thread, RW got his pic and a few sentences in Sporting News Today online – today’s issue. Also more reports from ACC media days including some stuff about Wake’s rb situation.
    I have been impressed with SNT college football coverage since I started getting it a month or so ago and it is free.

  5. VaWolf82 07/28/2009 at 12:57 PM #

    I’m not sure if the numbers will bear out my gut-level observations (calling VaWolf?), but Wake’s spread offense always seemed to move the ball much better between the thirties.

    I tried to quantify the Swank effect earlier this summer, but couldn’t. The first problem is that no one keeps the same statistics on college kickers as they do in the NFL….ie attempts vs yardage.

    The second problem is that there is no way to know what decisions Grobe was forced to make after Swank went down. How many times did he either punt or go for it on fourth down because a 50 yd FG attempt was doomed to failure?

    Specifically with last season’s offense…WF was simply terrible. I don’t think that it was a matter of running out of steam in the red zone…I just don’t think that they ever got out of second gear. I’ve seen alot of people blame the OL, but I didn’t see WF play enough to offer an opinion on whether this was the real problem or not. In any event, the Deacs return all five starters on the OL, so we’ll see what effect that has this year.

    Looking forward to State’s match-up with WF…when WF has the ball, it will be interesting to see who wins the battle of the trenches: the five returning OL starters for WF, or the four senior DL for State. When State has the ball, it looks like this will match State’s overall strength versus WF’s depleted defense.

    To balance all of the nay-saying about WF….just because a position is a question doesn’t mean that it will ultimately prove to be a disappointment. As we saw last year with State’s poor defense….it doesn’t really take that much defense to stop most of the ACC’s offenses. However, WF faces last year’s #1 rushing offense (GT) and the #1 passing offense (Miami) this year. Throw in games against FSU and State….and WF’s defense will be tested as much as any team in the nearly offense-free ACC.

  6. wdl836 07/28/2009 at 1:05 PM #

    Not sure where to ask this question, but I can’t find it.

    When does fall practice start? Is there a practice schedule?

  7. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 1:14 PM #

    Va Tech – your last sentence is a little funny – you say you’re going to balance the nay-saying, then kind of end up nay-saying :).

    I’m not writing off Wake’s D yet, but as I stated earlier, it should worry Wake fans that they haven’t really seen a depletion of talent since their championship squad, but are seeing diminishing results…and now, they appear to be seeing a pretty significant dilution of their talent(not just starters, but All-ACC calibre starters)…and if their offense was any hint last year after what happened when they lost some of their OL, well…

  8. tvp1 07/28/2009 at 1:57 PM #

    The case against Wake, essentially, is that the 2006 season was a fluke[FN1], they have regressed towards (but not yet quite to) the mean since, and several trends point towards a further regression.

    Wake won the ACC title in 2006 despite being outgained by a healthy margin by ACC foes. This can be explained by (1) a +13 TO margin in conference games and (2) a 5-0 record in games decided by 7 points or less. Everyone remembers the beat down of FSU, but other than that Wake pretty much scraped through by the skin of their teeth.

    They were outgained in 2007 and 2008 as well. Last year, they had an even better TO margin in conference games (+14) but only went 4-4. Why? Only a 2-3 record in those close games (due in part to Swank’s diminished ability, perhaps).

    The point here is that exceptional winning percentages in close games, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) exceptional turnover margins are very difficult to sustain year after year. Yet this is what Wake has relied upon in winning 16 ACC games over the past three years. The defense has been mediocre in terms of yardage allowed, and the offense has generally been anemic. In particular, Wake’s yard per carry average has declined for 5 years running and was last in the ACC last season.

    Wake will probably improve on those running numbers this year, but there’s no reason to think that they’ll suddenly become an offensive juggernaut. Skinner is an effective “game manager” type but not a star. The line should be better, but the skill positions look unimpressive. And after losing so many great defenders, Wake is unlikely to improve from their middle of the pack defense (on a yardage basis) – in fact a decline is far more likely. So once again, they’ll need to create many more turnovers than they give up (without Smith, Curry et al.) and hope to eek out a bunch of close wins.

    Grobe is a great coach, but people forget that he’s gone 4-8 at Wake before. I wouldn’t necessarily beat on it happening again this year, but I would not be surprised either.

    Footnotes:
    1 – Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, “fluke” here means something that is not sustainable and not a good predictor of future results. It is not meant to take away from Wake’s title, which they won and absolutely deserved.

  9. BJD95 07/28/2009 at 2:11 PM #

    I completely agree that sweeping close games and getting massive TO margins aren’t sustainable. They have SOME control over the TO margin with their discipline and defensive philosophy, but TOs generally are highly variable. I do think Wake’s “close game” magic has been due less to luck than to having a dominant kicker that they (wisely) trusted to win games for them. Problem is, high school kickers are EXTREMELY hard to predict, and Swank therefore is almost certainly lightning in a bottle rather than the start of a Deacon kicker dynasty. Now, you can expect close games to balance out more or less, taking Wake from “contender” to “pesky.”

    I do think The Swank Effect definitely cost Wake the Boston College game at bare minimum, and maybe they win the tiebreaker at 5-3 (they did beat FSU) if you flip that result. I don’t remember enough about the kicking adventures in their close losses to State and Miami, but maybe TSE is responsible for taking them from coin flip outcomes to losses. Thus, a 5-3 or 6-2 team goes 4-4 instead, and I expect you will see more 3-5 and 4-4 Wake teams in the future (with periodic 5-3 or better squads). Which is better than what you’d see sans Grobe, by a long shot.

  10. RickJ 07/28/2009 at 2:34 PM #

    “Grobe is a great coach, but people forget that he’s gone 4-8 at Wake before.”

    Actually, he hasn’t although he went 4 – 7, 4 – 7 and 5 – 7 the three previous years before their championship.

    “Swank therefore is almost certainly lightning in a bottle rather than the start of a Deacon kicker dynasty”

    I agree with this although their previous punter/kicker – Ryan Plackemeier was at least as good as Swank. Except for the games when Swank was hurt, Grobe has never coached a game at Wake without an NFL caliber punter & kicker.

    The disaster scenario for Wake is if Skinner gets hurt. Brett Hodges, his back-up transferred to Central Florida after graduating from Wake and may be eligible this year. Hodges was in the same class as Skinner and every Wake fan thought he was the future QB instead of Skinner. Their QB situation could be a lot like ours last year – a terrific starter and a nightmare backup.

    Here is the positive side for Wake – they started recruiting a lot better after their 2006 championship. Per usual, they have red shirted most of those players.

  11. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 2:47 PM #

    tvp1 – I’m not sure about the exceptional TO rates. You say that it’s hard to recreate, yet Wake seems to be in the upper half of this stat every year.

    On offense, I think TO’s are more likely when you run the option frequently and/or pass a lot.

    Conversely, I think you are more likely to create INTs on D if your defenders are playing more zone – simply because you are more likely to have a defender w/ a better look at the ball than they’d have in man to man.

    Doing things like building leads, stopping the run and creating 3rd and longs – which leads to more passing situations, which makes the “D’s” job easier in terms of what to expect and how to attack it – all make a TO more likely.

    The close game stat – well, you better have a really good kicker and kicking game. In the last 3 years as you know, Wake definitely had those.

  12. tvp1 07/28/2009 at 2:50 PM #

    ^I agree generally with this. One useful comparison is between Wake and VT. Like Wake, VT generally wins the turnover and special teams battles, and wins games with middling to poor offensive performances. The difference is that VT’s defense is among the top 2 in yards allowed every year in the conference, so VT still produces better than their opponents on a play-by-play basis. That’s why VT can sustain their success.

    Swank was a difference in Wake’s 2006-2007 successes (see the 2006 State-Wake game), but so have other special teams plays, turnover, and just dumb luck. In the second game of the 2006 season, Wake beat Duke 14-13. Wake was basically outplayed all game but got a late TD drive, then blocked a 28 yard FG attempt at the buzzer. What happens if that kick isn’t blocked? Does Wake, 0-1 in the ACC with a loss to Duke, go on to win the ACC title, or even a bowl?

  13. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 3:24 PM #

    tvp1 – the VaTech comparison is very interesting. And perhaps all that seperates Wake from VaTech type results is talent and depth- that they may be starting to bring that in is scary.

  14. tvp1 07/28/2009 at 3:31 PM #

    choppack: Let me clarify. Turnovers have a degree of randomness to them. I agree that the players and schemes can affect the turnover margin greatly. But turnovers are rare (and very important) compared to plays in general, so small variations have a large effect on turnover margin, and thus, performance. And having very large TO margins one way or the other – and +13 in 8 games is very large – is very, very difficult to sustain on a year over year, or even game over game, basis.

    Take our team last year for example. I can virtually guarantee that we will turn over the ball less frequently with Wilson as a QB than with Beck in the game. Nothing random about that. But if we are counting on only turning the ball over 5 times in ACC play, like last year, then we are in trouble.

    What you find, pretty consistently, is that most teams are within +/- 1 TO per game, and that most teams aren’t very consistent in their TO margins from year to year. Even those teams that generally win the TO battle can’t count on putting up very high positive turnover margins each year – just like teams that are generally better at winning close games can’t count on going 5-0 in close games every year.

    In contrast, there is much less randomness to things like yards per play or yards per game. The best teams over time are the ones that consistently outgain their opponents.

  15. Classof89 07/28/2009 at 4:18 PM #

    choppack1 said:

    “We did beat them in 2001 in Winston. We kept pace in 2005 and 2007 – being in striking distance late in the 3rd quarter in both games. I really think the 2003 game was a result of Chuck’s failure to properly mentally prepare the team for a tough game. Before that game – on what is now the “Scout-State message boards” – I penned a post: Are we heading into a buzz-saw Saturday?”

    I’ll grant you 2007 was a good first effort for an outmanned TOB squad. But good lord…2005? On paper, what was the talent difference betwee State and Wake that year based on recruiting stars coming into college? 2003, 2005, and MOC’s losses in 1999 and 1997 were absolutely disgraceful (and one of the MOC losses was to a Jim Caldwell squad).

  16. VaWolf82 07/28/2009 at 4:23 PM #

    With the exception of 2005 (4-7 record), WF has been near the top of the conference in both turnovers gained and turnover margin going back to 2002. Check out the NCAA stats here:

    http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?doWhat=archive&sportCode=MFB

    However, TO’s and TO margin are not the most important statistic. Points off turnovers (for and against) are what really matter. While getting TO’s is never bad; if you don’t score, then those TO’s you got aren’t helping you win the ball game.

    If you go back to my 2008 ACC review, you will see that WF’s total offense and scoring offense are about equally ranked. I take that fact as proof that WF didn’t capitalize on their great TO margin last year. In direct contrast, UNC did capitalize on their TO’s because their scoring offense is much higher ranked than their total offense.

    The best teams over time are the ones that consistently outgain their opponents.

    Not if Mazzone is your OC. 😉

  17. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 4:35 PM #

    tvp1 – they definitely do if the game is played the same…but it isn’t. By a large swath of the college football world it is, but I think it’s something well-coached football teams will do more often than not.

    I think that some coaches do a better job at creating TOs and/or keeping the ball than others do. As you, VaWolf and myself have all noted, Wake does a really good job at this – and it’s not randomness.

  18. VaWolf82 07/28/2009 at 5:21 PM #

    but I think it’s something well-coached football teams will do more often than not.

    You are giving “coaching” a lot more credit than I do…unless your definition of “coaching” includes the type of players recruited.

  19. choppack1 07/28/2009 at 9:04 PM #

    Va Wolf – in a broad sense it does.

    However, whether it’s in college, high school or the pros, some coaches are able to get their team to take care of the football more than others.

  20. tvp1 07/28/2009 at 11:48 PM #

    choppack: I agree that some teams are more likely to consistently win the TO battle. But there’s a difference between winning the TO battle and REALLY winning the TO battle by a large margin, AND doing that year in and year out. I don’t care how good your scheme or players, winning the TO battle in conference play by 1.5 TO/game or more on average is an unsustainable anomoly.

    What I am saying is that TOs are not totally random, but that they have a degree of randomness. All plays have a degree of randomness. A fluky occurrence of a CB falling down on a post route might turn an incompletion into an 80 yard TD. But the plays that end up as TOs due to some degree of randomness have a disproportionate affect on TO margin (as compared to the effect that a big play has on overall yardage margins).

    And I still contend that, well coached or not well coached, Wake’s been getting some breaks. Take Ohio State, for instance. They are a well-coached team by any measure. Here are their TO margins over the past 5 years in conference play:

    2004: -2
    2005: -8
    2006: 6
    2007: -2
    2008: 12

    Look at just about any good team and you’ll see something similar – they may be more likely than not to have a positive TO margin, but they sure aren’t cranking out +10-15 TO margin seasons with regularity (like they are cranking out 400 yard per game offenses with regulariy).

    My point is that if you are relying on a big positive TO margin to carry your team to wins, then you are standing on a razor’s edge.

  21. tvp1 07/28/2009 at 11:51 PM #

    “While getting TO’s is never bad; if you don’t score, then those TO’s you got aren’t helping you win the ball game.”

    Unless those TOs are stopping drives and helping keep the score against you low.

  22. choppack1 07/29/2009 at 1:03 PM #

    “My point is that if you are relying on a big positive TO margin to carry your team to wins, then you are standing on a razor’s edge.”

    And I think that’s a very fair statement – and part of the reason we beat UNC like a drum last year.

    The tOSU #s surprise me a bit. I do agree w/ your statement that you can’t rely on a positive TO amount…but I’d also argue that taking care of the football is something good football teams do (more often than not).

    I’d like to look at some historical data to see how the legends of the NFL did in this category…guys like Lombardi, Parcells, Joe Gibbs, Jimmy Johnston, and Bill Walsh.

  23. VaWolf82 07/29/2009 at 1:30 PM #

    and part of the reason we beat UNC like a drum last year.

    UNC’s offense was pathetic last year. IIRC, UNC was outgained by over 60 yds per game by the opposition. Without their generally good TO margin, it’s unlikely that they would have been bowl eligible.

    But don’t ever let a UNC fan blame that loss to State solely on their greasy fingers…

    State averaged 4.2 yds/carry….UNC 2.2 yds/carry
    State averaged 10 yds/pass attempt….UNC 5.2 yds/attempt
    Along with 6 TO’s, UNC had 4 punts….State had no TO’s and only 3 punts

    Bottom line…UNC was beaten like a drum all day long.

Leave a Reply