Boston College Post Game Thread

[slugboy]

I think you are conflating talent with results. Talent can be present, but not utilized or fulfilled. Darren Waller is an easy example. He's become one of the best TEs in the NFL. He was good at Tech, but never fulfilled his potential (aka his talent) at Tech.

I bring this up to say the lack of good coaching prevented the talent from developing. So, I believe TFG did increase the talent level, but was so bad as a coach that the talent "withered on the vine".

And I agree 100% that better coaching will help. That's literally half of the equation. I also agree that better recruiting will help - that's the other half of the equation. We need to improve both.

For recruiting, let’s add in potential and grit, so there is talent, potential, grit, and results.

Some players go to a school with all the equipment and a program so that almost everyone on your first 22 is better than the other team. It’s easier to look good as a WR when the QB has all day to throw.

Potential comes in again when you look at how old the players are. Some parents hold their kids back a year (or two) so that they’re older and bigger when they go on the field. Some recruits already have as much muscle or speed as they’re capable of—or at least all of the “easy gains”.

There’s also the flip side of measurables. In basketball, being 7’ tall will get you offers even if you can’t move or don’t even like basketball. NBA scouts regularly meet 7’ players from overseas who are just showing up because they can get $$$ for being tall—and that’s not enough to compete at that level.

Likewise, there’s the 4.4 40 WR who can’t catch well or won’t block, who can’t run a good route, but they’re 4*. There are 300 lb players who can’t move.

There are about 2700 FBS recruits a year, and there are transfers. Some of them are at camps all the time getting evaluated. Others aren’t. Some of the ratings are based on who is offering, but coaches don’t want to leak all they know. Are the recruiting services really able to do a thorough job evaluating athletes and keep up with all the news about your favorite school? That’s too much

Ratings are going to be inaccurate. On the field results are a good way to recalibrate. If a team is mid-P5 in the recruiting rankings and bottom third in defense, something is wrong with the ratings.


Additionally, when the portal comes calling, the underrated players or the ones that lived up to their ratings are the ones who’ll get poached. That’s going to bias the “talent composite ratings”.

 

[yeti92]

I think we should take this as an opportunity to review the wins we’re talking about over UNC and Pitt last year.
This article shows how Key’s interim job outperformed our post game win expectancy by 1.5 games. That’s a really high mark over a fraction of the season. I certainly had fun watching these games, but I also felt like we were gifted them just as much (or more) than we earned them by pitt dropping at least 2 ints and Down’s dropping the wide open TD. I know Key has at least another year to prove himself and I’ll give him my full support while he’s here, but there are definitely trends and early signs that are concerning.

Georgia Tech Football: UNC Advanced Stats Review - Offense

Honestly? Not bad!

www.fromtherumbleseat.com

This was my biggest concern with hiring Key. All of his wins last season were pretty much 1 score games. Pitt dropped like 5 ints Sims threw right to them. Duke went to OT. VT was a 1 point win requiring a very late 4th Quarter TD, and UNC was a 4pt win. He also had the inexplicable loss to a very bad UVA, and got blown out by Miami, FSU, and 2nd half UGA. So far this season, we have had 4th quarter meltdowns 3 times, had an inexplicable loss to BG, and got a lot of luck to squeak out a win over Miami. Wake Forest definitely appears to be an outlier in all this, but we need more games like that if we are going to return to respectability. Right now it feels like we have to play really well on both sides of the ball, and have our opponent make some major mistakes to have a chance to eek out a win, we have no ability to just go out and dominate an opponent, even when they play poorly.

Unfortunately CGC set the bar so low that just about any other coach could trip over it. But I look back on 2018 and prior seasons, and while yes some games were close contests, we also regularly had games that were not. 63-17 over BG, 66-31 over Louisville, 49-28 over VT. In 2017, 35-17 over Pitt, 33-7 over UNC, 38-24 over Wake. In 2016, 38-7 over Vandy, 31-17 over UVA, 33-18 over Kentucky.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

For recruiting, let’s add in potential and grit, so there is talent, potential, grit, and results.

Some players go to a school with all the equipment and a program so that almost everyone on your first 22 is better than the other team. It’s easier to look good as a WR when the QB has all day to throw.

Potential comes in again when you look at how old the players are. Some parents hold their kids back a year (or two) so that they’re older and bigger when they go on the field. Some recruits already have as much muscle or speed as they’re capable of—or at least all of the “easy gains”.

There’s also the flip side of measurables. In basketball, being 7’ tall will get you offers even if you can’t move or don’t even like basketball. NBA scouts regularly meet 7’ players from overseas who are just showing up because they can get $$$ for being tall—and that’s not enough to compete at that level.

Likewise, there’s the 4.4 40 WR who can’t catch well or won’t block, who can’t run a good route, but they’re 4*. There are 300 lb players who can’t move.

There are about 2700 FBS recruits a year, and there are transfers. Some of them are at camps all the time getting evaluated. Others aren’t. Some of the ratings are based on who is offering, but coaches don’t want to leak all they know. Are the recruiting services really able to do a thorough job evaluating athletes and keep up with all the news about your favorite school? That’s too much

Ratings are going to be inaccurate. On the field results are a good way to recalibrate. If a team is mid-P5 in the recruiting rankings and bottom third in defense, something is wrong with the ratings.


Additionally, when the portal comes calling, the underrated players or the ones that lived up to their ratings are the ones who’ll get poached. That’s going to bias the “talent composite ratings”.

Thank you. You have fleshed out the details of what I’ve been trying to say.

So, my growing concern, which people can have an honest disagreement with, is that in the case of Tech in recent years our recruiting rankings may have been misleading. To simply say “we had the 45th ranked recruiting class in the nation” may not tell you how good or bad a recruiting class it was. On field evidence is the final calibration for me. And to repeat my argument with someone else, if our recruiting was as good as people claimed, then winning five games should come easier even with a mediocre coach.

 

[tmhunter52]

Last game I will be wasting my time on this year.

Hail Southern

There is no question that our erratic, underwhelming play is hurting attendance. If you win it, they will come

 

[Techster]

Sure. I get what you are saying. It’s a good argument.

But, and lots of people on this site would disagree with me on this, I don’t think talent rankings are always accurate. That’s really all I’m saying. Collins improved the “ratings” but I’m just doubting that there was a massive increase in the actual talent. I didn’t always think this and I’ve been slow to come around to it.

If CPJ’s last team won 7 games and then the 3 subsequent seasons we barely won 3 each year that’s a significant fall off. At the time we said things like “transitioning from the option…blah, blah, blah” and came up with lots of other excuses.

There are so many factors and parts of this that have been argued endlessly during the CPJ vs CGC debates I have no appetite for rehashing them.

So much could be said but I doubt we’ll get anywhere. I just have my doubts that CGC was actually recruiting as well as we thought at the time. He was hired for two reasons, not counting a shortage of bargain basement candidates, he had a good record as coach and supposedly he could recruit. In my opinion he crashed and burned on both counts which has had a dramatic impact on the program that we are still trying to recover from.

Good coaching will help. But that also will require better recruiting in the long run.

I 100% agree that recruiting ratings aren't accurate. That's why I always say teams within 2 recruiting tiers have similar talent levels. For example, Miami has a composite ranking of #12 versus GT's #36. They are definitely more talented than us, but not so talented that their coach can make terrible decisions and their team can just show up. Remember, they had one of the top offenses in the country when we played them, and our defense humbled them that night. On the otherside, BC's talent composite is in the 50's, which is within the 2 tier band. As we saw, our coaching and execution was not very good, and we deservedly lost.

The point I'm making is GT is definitely talented, enough to beat good teams, BUT we're not talented enough where we can show up and our coaches can make continuous bad decisions on gameday and expect to win.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I 100% agree that recruiting ratings aren't accurate. That's why I always say teams within 2 recruiting tiers have similar talent levels. For example, Miami has a composite ranking of #12 versus GT's #36. They are definitely more talented than us, but not so talented that their coach can make terrible decisions and their team can just show up. Remember, they had one of the top offenses in the country when we played them, and our defense humbled them that night. On the otherside, BC's talent composite is in the 50's, which is within the 2 tier band. As we saw, our coaching and execution was not very good, and we deservedly lost.

The point I'm making is GT is definitely talented, enough to beat good teams, BUT we're not talented enough where we can show up and our coaches can make continuous bad decisions on gameday and expect to win.

Yes, I get it.

But I bet Miami can win five games this year even with the coach making historically bad decisions. That’s the talent gap I’m referring to.

Put another way, which is more likely, that we are equal to Miami in talent or that we are equal to Boston College in talent?

Based on results I know where I would put my money.

That doesn’t make you wrong, it just means I think more than one thing can be true at the same time.

 

[LargeFO]

Did that one chart really say we are 9-21 in our last 30 at Dodd?

 

[AugustaSwarm]

Darren Waller is a strange example to use to illustrate your point. He helped us win some big games at Tech and I always thought he was good. Some of his “late bloomer” attributes we now know were off the field personal struggles. Matthew Stafford at uga has similar struggles but seems to be “evolving” in the opposite direction.

Is it strange? When Waller was at Tech, he showed flashes of greatness, but also went stretches where you didn't even know he was on the field. The talent was there, but because of his own demons, he never achieved the greatness at Tech that he's achieving in the NFL. His story perfectly illustrates my point of there being a difference in talent and results. He was extremely talented, but his results didn't show his full potential.

 

[IronJacket7]

Did that one chart really say we are 9-21 in our last 30 at Dodd?

Make it stop

 

[Dottie1145]

Jamey Chadwell looking to be 8-0 after tonight. But, we didn’t want his defensive staff…. Give me a break.

 

[RamblinRed]

Did that one chart really say we are 9-21 in our last 30 at Dodd?

That's not accurate.
I have it at 8-19 (with 3 of the wins coming over FCS teams - so 5-19 against FBS opponents the last 5 years)

 

[yeti92]

There is no question that our erratic, underwhelming play is hurting attendance. If you win it, they will come

100%. I have a coworker that went to Tech and had season tickets until covid, but hasn't been to a game since. Last week he was planning to buy 6 tickets for homecoming - him, his 3 kids, and his parents. After last week's loss, he changed his mind and said maybe next year.

 

[GT33]

Is it strange? When Waller was at Tech, he showed flashes of greatness, but also went stretches where you didn't even know he was on the field. The talent was there, but because of his own demons, he never achieved the greatness at Tech that he's achieving in the NFL. His story perfectly illustrates my point of there being a difference in talent and results. He was extremely talented, but his results didn't show his full potential.

Waller admitted he was occasionally drunk, stoned and sometimes both for our games. Not sure which combo or sober was the best.

 

[stinger78]

Waller admitted he was occasionally drunk, stoned and sometimes both for our games. Not sure which combo or sober was the best.

At least he wasn't drunk, fat, and stupid. That's a bad way to go through life.

Seriously, I'm so glad he seems to have gotten his life straightened out. He's a fabulous football player. Just wish he would acknowledge GA Tech sometime. We gave him his shot.

 

[roadkill]

Ratings are going to be inaccurate. On the field results are a good way to recalibrate. If a team is mid-P5 in the recruiting rankings and bottom third in defense, something is wrong with the ratings.

This statement is an oversimplification. Did you not consider the variables of coaching and its subset, execution?

The talent composite has been shown to strongly correlate with team performance, and if not exactly, at least at a tier level. I think one aspect of the disconnect is that even an entire season is a relatively small sample size to gauge a given team's talent vs. on-the-field performance. If you asked CBK what amount of our on-field performance was attributable to talent, vs. coaching and execution, I suspect he'd say the majority was not talent, but failures in coaching and execution.

 

[Jacket20]

The defense is still practicing against the triple option in practice.

I believe with all this sign stealing in the news lately I think all of our opponents have stolen every dadgum one of our defensive signs!!!

 

[g0lftime]

Is it strange? When Waller was at Tech, he showed flashes of greatness, but also went stretches where you didn't even know he was on the field. The talent was there, but because of his own demons, he never achieved the greatness at Tech that he's achieving in the NFL. His story perfectly illustrates my point of there being a difference in talent and results. He was extremely talented, but his results didn't show his full potential.

If memory is correct he got his chance when Smelter (sp?) got hurt who had been the target receiver in an O that didn’t pass much. He also was dealing with some abuse problems while in school. Happy for him that he seems to have turned that part of his life around and enjoying success in the NFL.

 

[ibeattetris]

I believe with all this sign stealing in the news lately I think all of our opponents have stolen every dadgum one of our defensive signs!!!

It for sure happened when we lost to MTSU.

I’ve mentioned multiple times I felt like we were somehow tipping when we ran zone blitz, maybe the sign was just really easy to steal.

 

[slugboy]

This statement is an oversimplification. Did you not consider the variables of coaching and its subset, execution?

The talent composite has been shown to strongly correlate with team performance, and if not exactly, at least at a tier level. I think one aspect of the disconnect is that even an entire season is a relatively small sample size to gauge a given team's talent vs. on-the-field performance. If you asked CBK what amount of our on-field performance was attributable to talent, vs. coaching and execution, I suspect he'd say the majority was not talent, but failures in coaching and execution.

Of course I considered coaching.

The justification for the talent composite is the idea that the largest factor in on field performance is talent. If you’re going to say the largest factor is coaching, then that means the recruiting ratings aren’t that important.

Also, a coach at a press conference is going to say “it’s the coaching”. He won’t necessarily give the same answer to his best friend or his fellow coaches.

Here’s a few entries from the 2023 talent composite
35. Colorado
36. Georgia Tech
37. Stanford
38. NCST
39. Pitt

41. Iowa
54 BC
67 Duke
71 Tulane
111. Bowling Green

Results are all over the place. Are they really that strongly correlated to the talent composite?

Are we out recruiting Iowa?

How do we have about the same rating as NCST and much better than Duke and BC, but nowhere near the number of all-ACC players?

 

[4shotB]

At least he wasn't drunk, fat, and stupid. That's a bad way to go through life.

Dean Wormer was wrong about that! It's time for this stereotype to die.