Boston College Post Game Thread

[Techster]

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.

Seems like we're disagreeing about different sides of the same coin. You seem to think we're talent poor, which is fine. I think we have enough talent to win if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

Miami recruits close to an elite level...and no one on this board has ever said GT recruits at that level. That seems to be the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, based on ACTUAL results, we beat Miami, and lost to BC. It leaves us right where I said multiple times: GT is talented enough to beat good teams, but not talented enough to just show up and expect to win. That's pretty much been the case for most of my GT fanhood.

 

[Root4GT]

Seems like we're disagreeing about different sides of the same coin. You seem to think we're talent poor, which is fine. I think we have enough talent to win if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

Miami recruits close to an elite level...and no one on this board has ever said GT recruits at that level. That seems to be the argument you're trying to make.

Yes, based on ACTUAL results, we beat Miami, and lost to BC. It leaves us right where I said multiple times: GT is talented enough to beat good teams, but not talented enough to just show up and expect to win. That's pretty much been the case for most of my GT fanhood.

Same is true for BC. They are talented enough to beat good teams but on off days they can easily lose. That is true for UVA, Syracuse and all the ACC Teams except FSU, Clemson,Miami and UNC. They need to play poorly to lose, not just average whereas the rest of the ACC teams must play well to win. There are zero teams in the the ACC where GT simply is superior with talented players across the board. There are 4 ACC teams where if you go position the opponent would be better ar 75-90% of the positions.

As you say that’s how it’s been at GT most of our ACC Tenure except when Duke and Waje were awful teams.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

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!!!

Probably not hard.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Same is true for BC. They are talented enough to beat good teams but on off days they can easily lose. That is true for UVA, Syracuse and all the ACC Teams except FSU, Clemson,Miami and UNC. They need to play poorly to lose, not just average whereas the rest of the ACC teams must play well to win. There are zero teams in the the ACC where GT simply is superior with talented players across the board. There are 4 ACC teams where if you go position the opponent would be better ar 75-90% of the positions.

As you say that’s how it’s been at GT most of our ACC Tenure except when Duke and Waje were awful teams.

We were told better recruiting would fix this which is why I don’t think our recruiting was as good under Collins as the ratings indicated or people claimed. Even CPJ used to repeat all the time that scheme alone would never beat anybody and that you had to have good players who were good at running the scheme.

 

[stinger78]

All about the Jimmys and Joes....

 

[g0lftime]

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.

Happened several years ago when a Duke grad was at Tech in grad school. Back then they sat in upper East. Stole the signs and gave them to Duke staff.

 

[RamblinRed]

I think a number of posters are correct that talent is largely a tier issue.
Most teams that GT plays are going to be close enough in talent that you are not going to win simply by throwing more talent on the field. Player development and in-game coaching are going to become the difference makers there.

In the ACC there are probably 4 teams that are simply recruiting tiers above the others. Though notice that didn't save UNC last Saturday.
Nationally there are probably less than 10 teams that are recruiting at a level where they can simply out talent most of the teams in college football. Of course those teams are the ones that tend to show up in the CFP alot.

To me it is a 3-legged stool. Talent acquisition. Player development, game planning & in-game coaching. All three are important. For the vast majority of college football teams that are not consistent Top 10 recruiting juggernauts - the second and third legs may be more important and where you are able to differentiate yourself.

I thought this B1G article this morning was interesting. It talks about JJ McCarthy and why he is a legitimate Heisman contender this year. It says it is due to him being developed over time at Michigan (even as he was a 5* recruit in HS). The article bemoans the idea that alot of college players enter better than they ever have before, but that after 3-4 years alot of them are no different other than adding 10-15 pounds of muscle and that is due to a failure of coaches to develop talent.

Big Ten takes, picks: Michigan developing J.J. McCarthy has Wolverines with Heisman frontrunner leading charge

Michigan tried this crazy strategy with McCarthy: it made him a better player instead of fitting him into a system

www.cbssports.com

"One of my million pet peeves about modern college football is that we see QBs come to campus more polished than ever before. Thanks to personal coaches and camps, the 18-year-old walking into the dorm for the first time has a better grasp on playing the position than guys did even a decade ago. The problem is we also have a lot of offensive gurus in the sport who then take these kids and put them into a system that doesn't help them improve."

"It legitimately bothers me to see ultra-talented kids arrive as freshmen, show a ton of promise and then leave college three seasons later as the same player they were when they showed up. All they've really done is added 10-15 pounds of lean muscle.'

 

[stinger78]

True player development, true like leadership development, involves a lot of hands-on mentoring, consistent practice, and meaningful real-time experience.

 

[CuseJacket]

We were told better recruiting would fix this which is why I don’t think our recruiting was as good under Collins as the ratings indicated or people claimed. Even CPJ used to repeat all the time that scheme alone would never beat anybody and that you had to have good players who were good at running the scheme.

The control in the experiment of Collins failed. The premise going in is that he would amp up recruiting to an A or B, and we would get a C gameday coach (and maybe C player development).

I think we saw the A and B in recruiting the first couple of years. But unfortunately we got an F on gameday, and who knows what in player development. And that in turn led to recruiting progress to go downhill.

Who knows what would have happened if we got a C on gameday? I suspect something closer to bowl appearances, but it’s just a guess.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The control in the experiment of Collins failed. The premise going in is that he would amp up recruiting to an A or B, and we would get a C gameday coach (and maybe C player development).

I think we saw the A and B in recruiting the first couple of years. But unfortunately we got an F on gameday, and who knows what in player development. And that in turn led to recruiting progress to go downhill.

Who knows what would have happened if we got a C on gameday? I suspect something closer to bowl appearances, but it’s just a guess.

That makes sense, and fits my bias.

The control group was thrown off by another anomaly, which many on this site were happy to repeat, which was that he coached fine at Temple. I could account for that different ways, ie, he didn’t establish the culture at Temple, he had less influence on established players, and there was a coaching staff that had been working together successfully.

But still…..

 

[Techster]

Same is true for BC. They are talented enough to beat good teams but on off days they can easily lose. That is true for UVA, Syracuse and all the ACC Teams except FSU, Clemson,Miami and UNC. They need to play poorly to lose, not just average whereas the rest of the ACC teams must play well to win. There are zero teams in the the ACC where GT simply is superior with talented players across the board. There are 4 ACC teams where if you go position the opponent would be better ar 75-90% of the positions.

As you say that’s how it’s been at GT most of our ACC Tenure except when Duke and Waje were awful teams.

100%. What you're saying is largely the point I was making. GT is talented enough to beat anyone (even Clemson), but we simply aren't talented enough to shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly and still expect to win. Miami, close to being an elite recruiting team, had multiple turnovers and boneheaded coaching, which basically shot themselves in the foot against us. Even at their level of recruiting, they're not immune to that truth.

The overall talent tiers in the ACC is pretty close. As I stated earlier, most teams are within 2 tiers of each other...which, as both of us pointed out, means most ACC teams have a chance to beat each other on any given day.

Simply put, GT has very small margin for error in ACC play...and that's something we've seen play out for decades with GT.

 

[roadkill]

If a team is mid-P5 in the recruiting rankings and bottom third in defense, something is wrong with the ratings.

Of course I considered coaching.

@slugboy, I have great respect and appreciation for your posts on this board. But I’m going to pick apart your last post because, well, it’s an easy target.

Although you wouldn’t know it from reading many of the posts on this board, I suspect we both know that coaching, execution, scheme, strength of schedule, talent, and to some degree, luck, all influence on-field success. There are likely other factors that I’ve left out. So I am also repeating your prior statement (emphasis yours) to make the point that, if you know this, this blanket conclusion in your post above did a poor job of expressing your knowledge. You must be aware that your conclusion does not logically follow as long as there are other important factors.

The justification for the talent composite is the idea that the largest factor in on field performance is talent.

Do you have a link that supports this statement? I’ve always thought of the talent composite as an important component, especially at the highest tier, but not one that is clearly the primary factor.

If you’re going to say the largest factor is coaching, then that means the recruiting ratings aren’t that important.

Where did I say this? I cited what I thought CBK would say for GT specifically if you asked. And while perhaps I didn’t make it clear, I wasn’t referring to a Press Conference conversation, since I don’t think you are in those (are you?). Besides, your conclusion disregards the fact that both coaching and talent can be important factors. And you know this.

You then doubled down by providing examples of teams with lower talent composites outperforming teams with higher talent rankings. Rather than further undermine talent rankings, wouldn’t you agree that these examples could reinforce the fact that there are many other factors involved besides talent? Also, nice cherry-picking. Take a look at the AP top ten and their respective talent rankings. FSU and Washington are outliers at 20 and 26 talent rankings. Everyone else is at least within the top 14, with several teams ranked within 2-3 spots of their talent ranking. Seems like a pretty decent correlation, and we are only about halfway through the season.

I do think as you get further from the top 20 rankings, the distribution of blue-chip talent across a given team’s roster becomes increasingly uneven. That can lead to greater disparity between the ranking and on-field results, especially between teams within one or two talent tiers. I also agree with @Techster's and @RamblinRed's take on this.

 

[Lotta Booze]

 

[slugboy]

@slugboy, I have great respect and appreciation for your posts on this board. But I’m going to pick apart your last post because, well, it’s an easy target.

Although you wouldn’t know it from reading many of the posts on this board, I suspect we both know that coaching, execution, scheme, strength of schedule, talent, and to some degree, luck, all influence on-field success. There are likely other factors that I’ve left out. So I am also repeating your prior statement (emphasis yours) to make the point that, if you know this, this blanket conclusion in your post above did a poor job of expressing your knowledge. You must be aware that your conclusion does not logically follow as long as there are other important factors.


Do you have a link that supports this statement? I’ve always thought of the talent composite as an important component, especially at the highest tier, but not one that is clearly the primary factor.


Where did I say this? I cited what I thought CBK would say for GT specifically if you asked. And while perhaps I didn’t make it clear, I wasn’t referring to a Press Conference conversation, since I don’t think you are in those (are you?). Besides, your conclusion disregards the fact that both coaching and talent can be important factors. And you know this.

You then doubled down by providing examples of teams with lower talent composites outperforming teams with higher talent rankings. Rather than further undermine talent rankings, wouldn’t you agree that these examples could reinforce the fact that there are many other factors involved besides talent? Also, nice cherry-picking. Take a look at the AP top ten and their respective talent rankings. FSU and Washington are outliers at 20 and 26 talent rankings. Everyone else is at least within the top 14, with several teams ranked within 2-3 spots of their talent ranking. Seems like a pretty decent correlation, and we are only about halfway through the season.

I do think as you get further from the top 20 rankings, the distribution of blue-chip talent across a given team’s roster becomes increasingly uneven. That can lead to greater disparity between the ranking and on-field results, especially between teams within one or two talent tiers. I also agree with @Techster's and @RamblinRed's take on this.

I’ll come back to this when I have more time

My argument is that, for a team in the “top 40” of talent (#36) to have an offense ranked somewhere in the 60’s overall, a defense ranked below 85 somewhere (possibly much lower, depending on what ranking) and special teams in the same range, and fewer all conference players than less talented teams, then either the talent composite is overrated in predicting performance or our ranking is too high.

I think both are true.

Nothing about that means I don’t think coaching is important.

The more predictive talent is of performance then the less predictive coaching is. It’s a zero sum game. If one argues that coaching overcomes a talent difference, then coaching was more important.

I’ll come back when I have more time and we can debate the factors in a less vague way.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I’ll come back to this when I have more time

My argument is that, for a team in the “top 40” of talent (#36) to have an offense ranked somewhere in the 60’s overall, a defense ranked below 85 somewhere (possibly much lower, depending on what ranking) and special teams in the same range, and fewer all conference players than less talented teams, then either the talent composite is overrated in predicting performance or our ranking is too high.

I think both are true.

Nothing about that means I don’t think coaching is important.

The more predictive talent is of performance then the less predictive coaching is. It’s a zero sum game. If one argues that coaching overcomes a talent difference, then coaching was more important.

I’ll come back when I have more time and we can debate the factors in a less vague way.

That talent rating does not account for how long someone has been in the program, whether the talent on the team is complementary or redundant, or whether we have developed that talent any further.

 

[Vespidae]

I’ll come back to this when I have more time

My argument is that, for a team in the “top 40” of talent (#36) to have an offense ranked somewhere in the 60’s overall, a defense ranked below 85 somewhere (possibly much lower, depending on what ranking) and special teams in the same range, and fewer all conference players than less talented teams, then either the talent composite is overrated in predicting performance or our ranking is too high.

I think both are true.

Nothing about that means I don’t think coaching is important.

The more predictive talent is of performance then the less predictive coaching is. It’s a zero sum game. If one argues that coaching overcomes a talent difference, then coaching was more important.

I’ll come back when I have more time and we can debate the factors in a less vague way.

Isn't this just an Ichikawa diagram?

Instead of results being a function of Managment, Methods, Manpower, Materials, Machinery ... It's Coaching, Scheme, Talent, Facilities, Resources. Same idea ... there's no magic bullet.

 

[slugboy]

Isn't this just an Ichikawa diagram?

Instead of results being a function of Managment, Methods, Manpower, Materials, Machinery ... It's Coaching, Scheme, Talent, Facilities, Resources. Same idea ... there's no magic bullet.

Going fishbone on me, huh?

 

[AugustaSwarm]

That talent rating does not account for how long someone has been in the program, whether the talent on the team is complementary or redundant, or whether we have developed that talent any further.

Those are completely separate the things. The talent rating can't account for those things. That's like saying that someone's age also tells you their weight. They are separate things...

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Those are completely separate the things. The talent rating can't account for those things. That's like saying that someone's age also tells you their weight. They are separate things...

Yes, I know, but that is my point. Talent rating only tells part of the story. It is an indicator but there are other inputs that factor into results. Suggesting that the talent ratings are incorrect because of the results on the field is illogical conclusions.

 

[ibeattetris]

Suggesting that the talent ratings are incorrect because of the results on the field is illogical conclusions.

I think you bring up good points, but my only concern is around everyone's word choice. So I think anyone using "incorrect" might not be precise enough. What I would be interested in is "are talent composite ratings a predictive measurement for a team's season." I think this is where people saying they are "incorrect" might be (or maybe it's "are talent composites predictive of "all acc players"). I think there is obvious correlation between the top and rankings, but I am not so sure about the 35 composite and beyond.