Boston College Post Game Thread

[TooTall]

Here’s a coach that rarely punts and always on sides kicks. Pulaski High School. Nine state championships. Coach just moved to D1.

Kelley’s approach is completely data driven, as Wetzel wrote:


Kelley believes field position is completely overrated. The more important variable is turnover margin, he believes.

“You win games by winning the turnover value, not field position,” Kelley told Wetzel.

From Wetzel’s 2018 story:

I believe Presbyterian College hired him for this approach. 2-9 and coach fired in the off season. Yeah let's not. Oh that was in the mighty Pioneer league where he went 0-8.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Here’s a coach that rarely punts and always on sides kicks. Pulaski High School. Nine state championships. Coach just moved to D1.

Kelley’s approach is completely data driven, as Wetzel wrote:


Kelley believes field position is completely overrated. The more important variable is turnover margin, he believes.

“You win games by winning the turnover value, not field position,” Kelley told Wetzel.

From Wetzel’s 2018 story:

Fascinating!

Funny how the game has changed. Dodd would use quick kicks and 3rd down punts because he believed field position was the most important part of the game and he also seemed to think every team was going to fumble a couple of times during a game and he wanted it to happen in the other team’s end of the field.

 

[Vespidae]

I believe Presbyterian College hired him for this approach. 2-9 and coach fired in the off season. Yeah let's not. Oh that was in the mighty Pioneer league where he went 0-8.

Maybe. Belichick loved him.

Tech competes with scheme and TOP. Without an edge, it’s talent v talent. We don’t have any.

 

[Randy Carson]

If you attempt an onsides kick EVERY time, your guys get good at it. The other side hardly ever sees an onsides kick.

Additionally, how many times do you see a team make an interception or recover a fumble at midfield and end up punting?

Getting the ball at midfield is no guarantee of giving up a score to your opponent. Recovering an onsides kick would give you an extra chance to score.

 

[Randy Carson]

Fascinating!

Funny how the game has changed. Dodd would use quick kicks and 3rd down punts because he believed field position was the most important part of the game and he also seemed to think every team was going to fumble a couple of times during a game and he wanted it to happen in the other team’s end of the field.

Was this thinking the result of coaching in a run-heavy era of football?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Maybe. Belichick loved him.

Tech competes with scheme and TOP. Without an edge, it’s talent v talent. We don’t have any.

And we have had this conversation a million times but going all the way back to Heisman, and down through the years, Tech’s best teams always relied on innovations and schemes.

I always wonder what scheme is next and does the game have a finite number of innovations.

 

[57jacket]

Clearly we need a few Gotsis (sp?)

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Was this thinking the result of coaching in a run-heavy era of football?

I don’t think so. Dodd was just hyper cautious about things beyond his control and thought other coaches were risking disaster. As oft quoted, Bear Bryant feared Dodd more than any other coach. Dodd’s luck, as it was called, involved playing a style that allowed inferior athletes to punch above their weight.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

And we have had this conversation a million times but going all the way back to Heisman, and down through the years, Tech’s best teams always relied on innovations and schemes.

I always wonder what scheme is next and does the game have a finite number of innovations.

Man, I wish so many of our fans/alums understood this truth.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Perhaps the bye week was not a good time to install wholesale changes to the D. I saw lots of confusion out there yesterday, many missed assignments, and maddening inconsistent play that resulted in over 500 yards of offense allowed.

 

[bobongo]

If you attempt an onsides kick EVERY time, your guys get good at it. The other side hardly ever sees an onsides kick.

Additionally, how many times do you see a team make an interception or recover a fumble at midfield and end up punting?

Getting the ball at midfield is no guarantee of giving up a score to your opponent. Recovering an onsides kick would give you an extra chance to score.

Doing it every time will probably not work, because when they're looking for it, it usually doesn't. But if you got really good at it, who knows?
What does work is onsidesing when they're not looking for it. That actually works a good percentage of the time:

Weighing risk and reward - the surprise onside kick

How effective is it and why don’t more coaches use it?

www.milehighreport.com

"This century there have been 192 surprise onside kicks. Those have been successful 87 times (45.3 percent)."

45% isn't bad at all, considering that in comparison you have only a miniscule chance of getting the ball if you kick off normally.

 

[wvGT11]

Perhaps the bye week was not a good time to install wholesale changes to the D. I saw lots of confusion out there yesterday, many missed assignments, and maddening inconsistent play that resulted in over 500 yards of offense allowed.

That was my thought. Seems like Everytime we "turn the corner" we try to do more and overcomplicate things. Miami was a messy game, but we played a 4qtr game. Almost felt like we tried too many new things yesterday instead of using what worked

 

[Vespidae]

Doing it every time will probably not work, because when they're looking for it, it usually doesn't. But if you got really good at it, who knows?
What does work is onsidesing when they're not looking for it. That actually works a good percentage of the time:

Weighing risk and reward - the surprise onside kick

How effective is it and why don’t more coaches use it?

www.milehighreport.com

"This century there have been 192 surprise onside kicks. Those have been successful 87 times (45.3 percent)."

45% isn't bad at all, considering that in comparison you have only a miniscule chance of getting the ball if you kick off normally.

I spoke to an onside kick specialist who played on that team. He said they had seven different types onsides kicks. Very interesting in how they thought about the game. But it worked for them.

 

[GTJake]

After a night to sleep on it, I'm even more convinced that our problems are primarily culture related. I like CBK and still support the hire, but there was a lot of wisdom in the fonts that wanted to clean house and start fresh.

At this point, the only option is to wait for player turnover to happen. Despite the poor game by Haynes King today, he has been the face of the offensive turnaround. Sadly, that has happened because of transfers and freshmen - i.e player turnover.

On defense, we have zero depth. We lack impact players, especially at DL and LB. The only option we have is to wait for player turnover.

It was fool's gold to think we would be anything resembling good this year. I think BC is likely better than the perceptions about them, but we had our chances and we **** the bed. Missed throws, dropped balls, blown assignments...like I said, we need some turnover.

That's the new challenge, establishing some form of team chemistry with the transfer portal basically a revolving door every year ...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Again, fascinating. So a team would obviously game prep each for a particular opponent each week even with onside kicks. Probably had audibles too depending on how receiving teams lined up.

That's the new challenge, establishing some form of team chemistry with the transfer portal basically a revolving door every year ..

Seems like in the future a lot of teams might capture lightning in a bottle for a one year dynasty.

 

[stinger78]

Two thoughts having time to consider what I saw on a couple of examples yesterday:
1. We got no pressure on the QB all day long - 2 TFL. He's a fast and shifty QB, so you have to be careful, but you have to pressure the guy, or he picks you apart. I only saw a small handful of blitzes yesterday, and they weren't executed well and easily picked up. You give that guy time and he eats you alive. It looked like the plan was to just try to contain him, not attack him. That seems like a bad plan to me.
2. One of our CB (cannot recall which) actually turned on a receiver to go back, from the LOS, instead of backpedaling until the WR got 3 yards away. You backpedal early to be able to stop and break on the play/ball if he curls in front of you, and you turn to run with him as he approaches you. It requires loose hips and speed to do this. The WR simply curled in, caught the ball, and had 10-yards of open field. Very poor technique. In fact, I'd say our CB was so concerned he'd be outrun his plan was to keep the play in front at all costs. He did, but it was another BC first down.

These two examples were, sadly, all too emblematic of our defensive play yesterday.

The question is why this was happening. I surely don't know, but our plan appears to cover for skill deficits. If not, it seems like either poor coaching or poor execution. My expectation coming into this season was that we covered most of our talent gaps via the portal. Maybe not, and we just have some real gaps in talent. This doesn't explain how we play better every other week though.

I'm scratching my head.

 

[PAJacket31]

I just watched post game interview of players. This whole put the ball down, next play mentality is not how these players need to be coached. Football is a game of inches and one play can cost you the game. They need to understand that they are no longer playing little league and this a business. They should be afraid to make mistakes. If you don’t make mistakes in the first place then they don’t have to worry about being good under pressure/adversity on the next play. Do you think Nick Saban preaches this nonsense. No. His players understand that mistakes aren’t tolerated and they will be yanked.

 

[57jacket]

Good read. When King ransfered, my primary concern was the number of picks he threw at A&M. Then,i n early season, I thought maybe he had corrected his problems ( poor reads, throwing into coverage, etc.) Apparently I was wrong. Of course it could be that we can't get our WRs open. I can't tell with the TV views. Is someone open on those bad throws? Someone at the game see anything like that?? Please enlighten me.
our DL is simply not up to the task. Large, heavy, slow guys is not the answer. Need help from the portal (and NIL) here.

5 things learned from Georgia Tech’s loss to Boston College

The Yellow Jackets need to win three of their final five games to become eligible for a trip to a bowl game.

www.ajc.com

 

[stinger78]

Good read. When King ransfered, my primary concern was the number of picks he threw at A&M. Then,i n early season, I thought maybe he had corrected his problems ( poor reads, throwing into coverage, etc.) Apparently I was wrong. Of course it could be that we can't get our WRs open. I can't tell with the TV views. Is someone open on those bad throws? Someone at the game see anything like that?? Please enlighten me.
our DL is simply not up to the task. Large, heavy, slow guys is not the answer. Need help from the portal (and NIL) here.

5 things learned from Georgia Tech’s loss to Boston College

The Yellow Jackets need to win three of their final five games to become eligible for a trip to a bowl game.

www.ajc.com

One of the picks was pure luck and ended up a BC TD. King had two TD passes dropped. That would have flipped those stats right side up... not to mention be a 21-point swing.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Singleton was sick

I don't blame him a bit. The whole team was "sick" and fans are "sick" of losing to mediocre teams. Sick, Sick, Sick. It's the Corona virus version of sorry football.