Kansas Football Gradecard: Preseason Edition
This football season I'll be giving each unit on the team a "gradecard" every week. To start the year, I'm doing a preseason version of the gradecard, basically stating where I expect each piece of the team to be as we approach opening weekend.
The grading scale is simple. A "C" is where I expect an average, six-win, bowl-qualifying team to be. "A+" is Todd Reesing in 2007. I could give examples of "F" play, but we all watched KU enough last year to know what that looks like. The unit ratings begin after the jump.
Quarterbacks - D+I'm taking the "I'll believe it when I see it" approach here. We've heard plenty of indications that Webb has improved greatly in the offseason, and given that he was a freshman playing in a brand new offense behind a patchwork offensive line last year, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, the QB play was atrocious last fall, and I don't feel like I can give the quarterbacks anything above the "D" range until I've actually seen some solid play in a real game.
Running Backs - B
This is the strength of the offense, and possibly the team as a whole. We already know Sims is a beast, and the word is that Bourbon, Pierson and Miller are poised to impress as well. By the end of the year, this group could be approaching the "A" range, but as of right now this an incredibly young group of players, and they will likely need some time before they grasp some of the nuances of the position.
Wide Receivers/Tight Ends - C-
This is a hard bunch to rate. We've seen what Patterson is capable of, but we know very little about the rest of the group. DJ has very little playing time at the position and Pick was a QB at this point last year. We've heard good things about Matthews and Omigie, but neither has managed to earn themselves meaningful playing time. Tim Biere's blocking and receiving skills are the only things bringing this grade up near the "C" range right now.
Offensive Line - C+
This grade should probably be higher. The unit is healthy and looks to be in much better shape than what we saw last year. That being said, the o-line was the root of the offense's problems in 2010, and until I see them playing as well as we all believe they should, I don't feel like a higher grade is warranted.
Defensive Line - D
In my opinion, this is easily the biggest weakness on the team. Agostinho, Lewandowski and Sellers are young and unproven on the ends. Williams seems to fill the role of nose tackle fairly well, but the other listed starter at DT is Kevin Young, who is undersized for the position after a transition from DE. Johnson and Dorsey have been fixtures at the position for a couple of years, but that's not saying much, given that this has been the team's biggest weakness for a couple of years. In the 3-4, the d-line's responsibility will be gap control, which is good, because most of the actual playmaking potential is too young and small to be fully realized at this point.
Linebackers - B
This should be the best unit on the defense by far. Opurum returns to the LB crew and may be the best player on this side of the ball, Steven Johnson returns as last year's leading tackler, and Darius Willis, Malcolm Walker, and Tunde Bakare are added to the mix. You can also throw in Huldon Tharp, who was a tackling machine as a freshman, and after missing last season, can't even find a starting job amidst this talented group. The quality of the LBs was likely a major factor in the decision to go to a 3-4 base.
Secondary - D+
Many disagree with my thoughts on the secondary, particularly the coaching staff, who continues to mention them as one of the standout groups on the team. The problem is, they said the same thing last year, when Kansas was unable to defend even a simple bubble screen (see: KU vs Baylor, October 1, 2010). Barfield and Brown have shown flashes of talent, but neither seems to be able to play both their man and the ball at the same time. Tyler Patmon plays the ball remarkably well, but lacks the speed and athleticism necessary to cover many Big 12-quality receivers on the outside one-on-one. The safeties have high ceilings, but only a handful of games' experience combined. Yes, a quality pass rush would put a giant band-aid over some of these problems, but until one is developed, I expect the DBs to continue to look outmatched.
Special teams - D+
This was the hardest unit to grade. We have a new punter, placekicker, and long-snapper, who have a combined zero games of D-1 experience. That's frightening. Fortunately, last year left nowhere to go but up. It's hard to say if punt or kick coverage will improve, but one would hope Aaron Stamn will have learned from last year's mistakes and solidified things a bit. The saving grace here is DJ Beshears, who was a big enough threat as a kick returner last year to have teams kicking short or toward the sidelines against the Jayhawks, which instantly improves the kick return squad's efficiency.
Overall - D+
It hurts to give the team such a low grade, but let's face it, that's where we are today. The good news is that this is an incredibly young team, and by the end of the season they may well be miles ahead of where they are Saturday. Make no mistake: there is talent here. What Turner Gill and his staff do with it will ultimately determine their fate in Lawrence. Unfortunately, these talented young players are still a little too young to expect results this season. I hold out hope that at the end of the year, I can give out a higher grade, but given the combination of inexperience and last year's lackluster results, I have to rate this as a below-average football team.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Harsh but fair
I’d give the secondary a higher grade because I feel like they would perform better if we had any resemblence of a pass rush. Same with QBs… they’d be at least in the C range with a decent line in front of them last year.
I’m excited to see how things pan out after the game Saturday.
Shit happens when you win championships
No rating for coaching/coaches?
I don’t think they should get off that easy………
"No time for questions. No time for games. Start kickin' ass and takin' down the names." - Dave Mustaine.
good call
I had intended to do that and forgot. I wrote this last night after having an hour and a half of dental work done, so I’m surprised this even turned out readable. Coaching grades will be included in the weekly gradecards.
No touching!
by PenHawk on Aug 30, 2011 12:15 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Nicely done
It’s good work for one, but secondly, I honestly can’t disagree with a single thing you wrote. The closest thing I have to a nitpick is knocking the LBs down some (B- or C+), simply since they’re unproven. Right now, it’s all conjecture. But I agree that they seem to be at Bish level.
by hiphopopotamus on Aug 30, 2011 11:37 AM CDT reply actions
C is a bowl team
Would it also be reasonable to say that each grade step (C to C+) is worth a win? It makes a convenient metric. One win is a failing grade, and 13/NC is an A+.
Also, is there no benefit of the doubt/development at QB because there are no new personnel vs. other groups because of new personnel? Otherwise, I’m questioning whether any group has shown themselves to be Bowl caliber. I believe we are better, and am excited for the season, but if C/bowl eligible is the standard, I’m questioning whether any group has performed to that level.
do we want the overall metric
based upon W/L? If it were as simple as assigning a letter grade to wins and losses we wouldn’t really need a metric right?
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
?
Assigning a letter grade to wins and losses is a metric, right?
Isn’t that the way assignments are graded in school? You need so many right to get an A. If you get more wrong it’s a B. Too many wrong and its a C, D, or F? Or am I just being too objective?
I don't want to make it too complicated
And I’m not sure how one could precisely differentiate between, say, 10 win linebacker play and 9 win linebacker play. This is just a nice way to rate the pieces of the team as I see them.
No touching!
by PenHawk on Aug 30, 2011 4:00 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Seemed to make it easier IMO
Thought that was essentially what you were doing in the second paragraph:
1. Winning a BCS bowl game with one loss on the season is an A.
2. Reesing’s play was better than average for the team, therefore he gets an A+
3. Talib, Harris, Stuckey, ? – Definite strong group for the team + A+
4. There would be other player groups that would have been relatively weaker, and would have been a grade (2?) lower.
too many variables in w/l
some sort of subjective/arbitrary letter grades is probably the best bet, though the real value in these things are found in the qualitative assessment that comes with the write up.
anyways, i think the safeties on this team (terry, mcdougald, smith) will be too strong to give the secondary a D, i’d bump them a letter grade despite questions at corner
next level performer
SOS factor
would seem to be the one deviation from the metric IMO. All the other variables are just factors of how the group/team was playing. Well maybe an injury factor, tho it didn’t seem that most eople qualified the play of the OL or DB’s based on the number of injuries.
Definitely agree that the discussion is what makes it interesting, but do you really want to give an arbitrary/random letter grade? That sounds a lot like the lady that won the office pool when she picked teams based on the color of their uni’s.
There is no way to quantitatively determine the exact “win level” of a particular unit on a football team, and assign a corresponding letter or number. No matter what, they’re going to be somewhat arbitrary. Again, the grades are not a statistic, they’re just a way to give you a general idea of how high or low I’m rating each unit.
No touching!

by 


















