Haynes King Update: How Do We Feel About Him?

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,553
You and I did not see the same thing.

I’m certainly willing to be corrected but I would love to see a video replay if there is one. All I know is the play clock was running when someone indicated first down, long before the chains moved, and the chain gang looked surprised when they suddenly realized they needed to move and finally did start moving.

I’m not disputing Boston playing this well, I’m just saying their “well played” got a huge boost from all the confusion by the officials. And a good extra 20 seconds to delay substitution.

Again, I don’t mind being wrong, just that in real time I’m wondering why they started the play clock before all the officiating crew was on the same page.

Oh well, Miami was robbed of a safety in the first half with Clemson, so it was far from the worst official screw up of the day. And it certainly made no difference in the Tech game.
All good. Like you, there’s no way I observed everything going on either.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,310
They weren't holding the snap because of the chains. They were holding the snap due to the substitution.

There may have also been something unintentional with the clocks, but the subs are what ultimately led to the timeout. Well done by BC HC Hafley and co. Well coached team.
I've seen more holding the snap and chain gang issues this season than ever before. Is this just due to the running clock? Seems to happen on all plays.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
I've seen more holding the snap and chain gang issues this season than ever before. Is this just due to the running clock? Seems to happen on all plays.


It seems the answer might be on page four under mechanics. But it sounds like the refs have total discretion over whether to restart the play clock or game clock and whether or not they need an administrative time out. In either case they are supposed to give a hand signal it appears.

In the past I’ve seen refs stop the clock because substitutions took too long and I’ve certainly seen them stop the clock to get their own house in order. The rule change this year seems to be weighted in favor of speeding up play and the refs having a little bit of a “too bad, so sad” attitude. Coaches will need to adjust or die to this new reality. Either that or the rules will get tweaked in the off season.

Oddly, with speeded up play, games seem to last the same length of time they always have.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,310

It seems the answer might be on page four under mechanics. But it sounds like the refs have total discretion over whether to restart the play clock or game clock and whether or not they need an administrative time out. In either case they are supposed to give a hand signal it appears.

In the past I’ve seen refs stop the clock because substitutions took too long and I’ve certainly seen them stop the clock to get their own house in order. The rule change this year seems to be weighted in favor of speeding up play and the refs having a little bit of a “too bad, so sad” attitude. Coaches will need to adjust or die to this new reality. Either that or the rules will get tweaked in the off season.

Oddly, with speeded up play, games seem to last the same length of time they always have.
That's because of commercials. It's almost unwatchable now.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,490
Kings problems are nothing that a consistent OL can’t fix.
It’s normal when both the QB and the receivers need to read the defense, but I saw a few plays where King was telling the WR that he expected a different route. Many of us were used to playing in a system that you lined up and had a route instead of route options that change based on what the defense looks like.

Had we won, this thread would be full of gushing about King’s 71 yard TD run.

King has issues to work out, but he seems coachable. Players can fall into several groups
  1. All the talent in the world, mature in their craft, and a coach on the field. (Rare)
  2. All the physical tools, and coachable, but needs to learn
  3. All the tools, but thinks they know it all when they don’t
  4. Not willing to work hard
  5. A million dollar head, but none of the physical gifts
  6. Mid-level guy
King seems like he’s in the second group. It could turn out well, or not. BTW, Joe Hamilton threw a lot of bad picks, and took a while.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,310
It’s normal when both the QB and the receivers need to read the defense, but I saw a few plays where King was telling the WR that he expected a different route. Many of us were used to playing in a system that you lined up and had a route instead of route options that change based on what the defense looks like.

Had we won, this thread would be full of gushing about King’s 71 yard TD run.

King has issues to work out, but he seems coachable. Players can fall into several groups
  1. All the talent in the world, mature in their craft, and a coach on the field. (Rare)
  2. All the physical tools, and coachable, but needs to learn
  3. All the tools, but thinks they know it all when they don’t
  4. Not willing to work hard
  5. A million dollar head, but none of the physical gifts
  6. Mid-level guy
King seems like he’s in the second group. It could turn out well, or not. BTW, Joe Hamilton threw a lot of bad picks, and took a while.
Good post. Yes, Joe Ham tossed a lot of picks in 1996, as a r-FR. He also fumbled a lot, IIRC. He got that straightened out real quick under Fridge.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,041
Anyone who can't see the biggest problem for the offense is poor play by the OL has no clue about football. Did King make 2 bad decisions on throws into double coverage and not seeing a defender right in front of Rutherford, yes he did. Did King have plenty of time in the pocket to make easy throws. No and when he did he put the ball in our guys hands. Leary drops a dime down the left sideline. Leary can't make a play in the EZ out fighting a DB. In fact virtually none of our receivers won any one on one battles for contested balls yesterday! King was moving right or left on most of his throws. He ran extremely well mostly out of necessity!

The OL breaks down very quickly. Compare the time our opponents QB has with a clean pocket compared to King having a clean pocket and you will quickly see the heart of our problems.

Very bad OL and DL play. My question is it a lack of talent on the oL and DL, bad coaching on the OL and DL or a combination of both talent and coaching.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
Good post. Yes, Joe Ham tossed a lot of picks in 1996, as a r-FR. He also fumbled a lot, IIRC. He got that straightened out real quick under Fridge.
Oh, how we miss F.

Reintroduced option plays to offensive football and showed that a running quarterback was the wave of the future. All while being able to run a sophisticated passing attack.

Funny how it took the rest of college football decades to catch up.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,310
Anyone who can't see the biggest problem for the offense is poor play by the OL has no clue about football. Did King make 2 bad decisions on throws into double coverage and not seeing a defender right in front of Rutherford, yes he did. Did King have plenty of time in the pocket to make easy throws. No and when he did he put the ball in our guys hands. Leary drops a dime down the left sideline. Leary can't make a play in the EZ out fighting a DB. In fact virtually none of our receivers won any one on one battles for contested balls yesterday! King was moving right or left on most of his throws. He ran extremely well mostly out of necessity!

The OL breaks down very quickly. Compare the time our opponents QB has with a clean pocket compared to King having a clean pocket and you will quickly see the heart of our problems.

Very bad OL and DL play. My question is it a lack of talent on the oL and DL, bad coaching on the OL and DL or a combination of both talent and coaching.
Given the pedigrees of those guys, I'd have to start with talent. However, the OL is still young and they have improved. Recall that we used many OL transfers in TFG's tenure, and our young guys never played much. McKinney is a t-FR, Fusile is a r-SO, Franklin is a JR, Scaglione is transfer SR, and Leftwich is a r-SO. That's a FR, two SO, and a JR and SR. There's improvement, but still much is needed.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,863
Location
Albany Georgia
Anyone who can't see the biggest problem for the offense is poor play by the OL has no clue about football. Did King make 2 bad decisions on throws into double coverage and not seeing a defender right in front of Rutherford, yes he did. Did King have plenty of time in the pocket to make easy throws. No and when he did he put the ball in our guys hands. Leary drops a dime down the left sideline. Leary can't make a play in the EZ out fighting a DB. In fact virtually none of our receivers won any one on one battles for contested balls yesterday! King was moving right or left on most of his throws. He ran extremely well mostly out of necessity!

The OL breaks down very quickly. Compare the time our opponents QB has with a clean pocket compared to King having a clean pocket and you will quickly see the heart of our problems.

Very bad OL and DL play. My question is it a lack of talent on the oL and DL, bad coaching on the OL and DL or a combination of both talent and coaching.
Interesting question regarding the line play. Is it coaching, lack of talent, or a combination? If I had to guess, I think it is more a lack of talent and in the case of the defensive line conditioning is also a factor. Some of those guys, are just too slow and fat to boot.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,863
Location
Albany Georgia
It’s normal when both the QB and the receivers need to read the defense, but I saw a few plays where King was telling the WR that he expected a different route. Many of us were used to playing in a system that you lined up and had a route instead of route options that change based on what the defense looks like.

Had we won, this thread would be full of gushing about King’s 71 yard TD run.

King has issues to work out, but he seems coachable. Players can fall into several groups
  1. All the talent in the world, mature in their craft, and a coach on the field. (Rare)
  2. All the physical tools, and coachable, but needs to learn
  3. All the tools, but thinks they know it all when they don’t
  4. Not willing to work hard
  5. A million dollar head, but none of the physical gifts
  6. Mid-level guy
King seems like he’s in the second group. It could turn out well, or not. BTW, Joe Hamilton threw a lot of bad picks, and took a while.
Haynes runs well and teams seem to underestimate his speed for some reason. Who could have guessed that the "run first" BC quarterback would have more yards passing and the passing quarterback King would have more yards rushing? Strange times indeed.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,597
You and I did not see the same thing.

I’m certainly willing to be corrected but I would love to see a video replay if there is one. All I know is the play clock was running when someone indicated first down, long before the chains moved, and the chain gang looked surprised when they suddenly realized they needed to move and finally did start moving.

I’m not disputing Boston playing this well, I’m just saying their “well played” got a huge boost from all the confusion by the officials. And a good extra 20 seconds to delay substitution.

Again, I don’t mind being wrong, just that in real time I’m wondering why they started the play clock before all the officiating crew was on the same page.

Oh well, Miami was robbed of a safety in the first half with Clemson, so it was far from the worst official screw up of the day. And it certainly made no difference in the Tech game.
What I saw (and you may have prompted me to go back to the tape later) was that the official spotted the ball and gave NO SIGNAL at all. The play clock was running and I think it had started from 40 when the play ended. All indication was that the runner was down, in bounds, short of the first down.
The chains did not move and I think Tech was trying to figure out down and distance.
When the signal clearly came that it was first down (the chains started moving with under 20 seconds on the play clock), Tech ran on their first down package and BC was given time to react, which they did VERY slowly. Smart by BC, but the whole thing was set in motion by the lack of a clear signal from the officials.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,041
Given the pedigrees of those guys, I'd have to start with talent. However, the OL is still young and they have improved. Recall that we used many OL transfers in TFG's tenure, and our young guys never played much. McKinney is a t-FR, Fusile is a r-SO, Franklin is a JR, Scaglione is transfer SR, and Leftwich is a r-SO. That's a FR, two SO, and a JR and SR. There's improvement, but still much is needed.
Two actually young guys, two very experienced guys and two not young nor old. Bottom line is we lose our starters at RG and RT this season. So next year is more of the same cycle.
Franklin - is a true sophomore - 2nd year starter
Fusile - 3rd year and 2nd year starter
Mackenny - a true freshmen
Scaglione - 5th year Gra transfer
Williams (starter) - 4th year player and 4th year starter
Leftwich - (backup) - 3rd year player
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,597
What I saw (and you may have prompted me to go back to the tape later) was that the official spotted the ball and gave NO SIGNAL at all. The play clock was running and I think it had started from 40 when the play ended. All indication was that the runner was down, in bounds, short of the first down.
The chains did not move and I think Tech was trying to figure out down and distance.
When the signal clearly came that it was first down (the chains started moving with under 20 seconds on the play clock), Tech ran on their first down package and BC was given time to react, which they did VERY slowly. Smart by BC, but the whole thing was set in motion by the lack of a clear signal from the officials.
What’s even more strange is that looking through the play by play, I can’t find where we burnt a time out in that scenario on first down…. There’s a good chance that we still don’t know what happened officially! :D
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,597
What’s even more strange is that looking through the play by play, I can’t find where we burnt a time out in that scenario on first down…. There’s a good chance that we still don’t know what happened officially! :D
Just upping my post count replying to myself….

So there is a bunch of weird clock stuff in the ESPN play by play on that series. We ran five plays with 10:24 on the clock apparently….
IMG_7420.jpeg


The time out was actually taken after Copley’s 3rd down run. On the play….
It was 3rd and 1, we ran Cooley to right side. He was tackled right at the line. He actually looked short.
The clock never stopped and the play clock started at 40. No signal was given by the official. We made a substitution with about 27 seconds on the clock and a couple seconds later the chains started to move.
The chains were set with 19 seconds on the play clock and then the play clock jumped to 25 (as it should on first down).
BC then took a wholesale substitution around 15 seconds. The TV was on Key, who was arguing with the official so I could not see if we also subbed between the 25 second reset and BC’s massive platoon change around 15 seconds.
At any rate, BC took their time and the officials held the snap.

Since the play clock actually reset at 25 when the chains moved, it was not as egregious as I first thought, but the game clock never stopped running at all.
The right thing would’ve been for the official to reset the game clock and start 25 seconds on ready for play.
The scenario played out such that they stole a time out from us but it was the 2nd quarter and ultimately was not critical. Unfortunate it happened to us though…
 
Top