Sunday, May 02, 2010

Herzy at Lift for Life and other links

He's not in pads, but you've got to feel good about Herzy's prospects after watching this.


The Chiefs bloggers like Gunnell's chances of contributing.


Not a good weekend for the BC baseball team. With the latest loss, they now fall to .500 in ACC play.

Labels: , ,

15 Comments:

At 11:10 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

Any thoughts on how good or bad our defense will be next year?

Now that the Spring Game is over, I think we know the offense will be pretty mediocre, at best. In other words, we will be fortunate to put up 21 points a game.

We will have a very good running game(but very predictable too), very predictable short passing, with the occasional long pass to drop'em-when-they-count Lamont. the O will not be very exciting. Shinskie will not be carrying the team with any Matty Ice moments and Harris already has a huge target on his back.

So, whether we can win 5 or 6 ACC games will turn largely on how good our defense performs. The D issue seems to boil down to how good the D-line is.

Our LBs -- with or without Herzy -- are very good and our secondary should be decent, IF, we get some QB pressure and do not have to keep resorting to the soft pass defense. Will Christian Ponder have a field day with BC's soft defense?

Any insights out there about the BC 2010 defense?

 
At 12:08 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

Last Year's ACC Football team stats are interesting.

In 2009, BC was essentially tied for last in team pass defense, but #2 in run defense.

 
At 4:35 PM, Blogger Erik said...

I got the BC Athletics survey. I took my time and laid it all out there.
- Weber State
- Tailgate time
- Tailgate cost
- Only playing Army at home robs our fans of a driveable road game
- Please don't ever play UConn
- BC Ticket office is evil
- BC holding tix to desirable opponents but offering crappy teams because someone more important may come along
- Made everyone feel like they were doing us a favor by letting people apply for consideration for bball season tix after early decade success which drove everyone away
- 16 Team Conferences are stupid

I hope my long answers weren't cut off by a survey character limitation.

And, I was more than happy to sign my name & email at the end of it.

I also said lots of nice things, for the areas that it applied.

I doubt my Dad gets this email, but I'd love for him to do this and discuss GDF being a politician and how Fenway Sports Group is ruining the college football experience.

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Big Jack Krack said...

Good for you, Erik - I just did the same thing.

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger DustBowl said...

ESPN's HD did a preview of the ACC's 2010 out-of-conference games.

HD thoughtfully reviewed all the 2010 ACC OOC games -- oh, all games for the 11 teams that matter in the ACC and left out good old BC. Just plain left us off the list of ACC teams.

She realy sucks as a blogger. As for BC, she keeps recyling the Herzy story. Only BC story she knows about.

But, on the other hand, maybe once HD saw that BC was playing Weber State, she simply stopped looking at our OOC schedule. (e.g., ND game).

ACC OOC list also highlights how the rest of ACC goes after quality OOC games and does not settle for patsies like GDF does.

 
At 6:37 PM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

Dustbowl-
"ACC OOC list also highlights how the rest of ACC goes after quality OOC games and does not settle for patsies like GDF does."

Here are some of the OOC teams other ACC teams are playing this fall:
Presbyterian
Florida A&M
North Texas
Elon
Samford
South Carolina State
Western Carolina
Richmond
Presbyterian (again)
Morgan State
James Madison
Florida International
VMI
Middle Tennessee
Eastern Michigan
William & Mary

You were saying...?

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger eagleboston said...

Mod,

I think the defense is going to carry this team. There just are not any playmakers on offense outside of Harris. You need someone to make plays in pressure situations and that is usually the quarterback. I think we have decent qb's but nothing special. I also think we are going to be forced to play 3-4 freshmen on offense. Should help the offense a couple years down the road, but will make for nervous stomachs this fall.

The defense, though, has potential for greatness. I think the linebackers will be terrific and we should have great depth with the defensive backs. I like that LeGrande is back at safety. If BC can generate a pass rush and pressure the qb, teams will struggle to score against this defense.

Of course, injuries can make all of these predictions a moot point. On the positive side, if a quarterback does emerge, that is a tremendous bonus for the offense.

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger DustBowl said...

BC Double --

Nice list of patsies, but beside the point.

Most ACC teams play 2-3 quality OOC opponents, not 1, as is the case with BC (we play ND) . Are you happy with the crap GDF gets on the schedule? Weber St, Kent St.. etc. c'mon now, don't defend the nonsense GDF serves up.

Here is the list of the quality opponents other ACC have scheduled:

Auburn, South Carolina, Alabama, Army, Navy, BYU, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, WVU, Ohio State, Pitt, LSU, Rutgers, Cincinnati, USC, Boise State, Stanford

I wish BC would aim higher for its OOC games

 
At 9:06 PM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

Dustbowl-
"Most ACC teams play 2-3 quality OOC opponents"

I'm looking at the other ACC schools' OOC schedules and they look pretty similar to BC's: a 1-AA team, a 1-A non-BCS team, and a couple BCS teams. If you can really find at least seven ACC teams ("most ACC teams") that play at least two quality OOC opponents, I'd love to know who they are and who those opponents are.

 
At 9:36 PM, Blogger DustBowl said...

Just look at the link i provided – Wake, UNC, Clemson, Duke, FSU, Gtech, Miami, Maryland, and V’Tech – all have 2 quality OOC opponents.

Well, I guess you could say Syracuse, BC's #2 OOC, is a quality OOC, but I would not agree with that.

BC has the weakest schedule in all of major college football (something like #109 out of all 120 D-1 teams). Look it up and you will see.

 
At 9:42 PM, Blogger DustBowl said...

Just for you BCDoubleEagle

 
At 10:28 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

EB-- i guess the question is "can [BC] generate a pass rush and pressure the qb?"

Answer seems to be that we still do not have a solid DL.

Ramsey and Scafe, the incumbent DTs, aint too good for QB pressure. good run guys. Momah can be an edge rusher on set pass plays, but probably will get pushed around on run plays. same deal for Hollaway, i guess....Albright brittle? Mighty Quinn -- maybe?? Murray??

of course, I have no clue. Would love to hear from someone with some inside knowledge.

 
At 9:08 AM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

Dustbowl-
The Steele article is not helpful for our discussion because it includes conference games. Part of the reason BC is so low on his list is because we play Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Wake, and NCSU, all of which finished with losing records last year. (Duke and UVa were actually the worst two teams in the Coastal last year.)

Since we are only talking about OOC games, let's apply Steele's formula to the OOC games -- and only the OOC games. Our 2010 OOC opponents finished a combined 22-26 (.458) in 2009. I'll tell you right off the bat that the 2010 OOC opponents of 8 other ACC schools finished with better combined records in 2009. So in that sense we're looking pretty weak. On the other hand, UVa's opponents finished .449, Wake's were .400, and Clemson's were a dismal .347. So we're far from the worst in the ACC.

Again, BC's 2010 OOC schedule is very similar to other ACC schools: a 1-AA, a non-BCS team, and 2 BCS teams. Wake, Clemson, FSU and GT all have that setup for their 2010 OOC schedules. Four ACC schools only play one BCS team in 2010: NCSU, Maryland, UVa and Duke. Virginia Tech doesn't play any BCS teams. So if you define a "quality" opponent as a BCS conference (or ND) opponent, we're right in the middle of the pack.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger DustBowl said...

BCDoubleEagle -- Soar, my Eagle friend, soar, aspire, hope. Don't be an apologist for crap. Anyone can twist the statistics to make BC look "ok."

Of all the ACC teams, BC should be taking the biggest OOC risks. Unless we win the ACC and go to the Orange Bowl, BC is going to a lesser bowl. Our bowl upside is limited by our travel rep, not by our record. BC should be taking more risks and seeking out more interesting, reputation-rewarding and program-building OOC games. Games that might be worth putting on TV

Why not play TCU, Boise State, Nebraska, Texas. Indeed, you could argue that BC's game against Texas in the early 1970 really helped propel the football program to new "heights." Maybe our USC game in a few years will help

We should be playing at least 2, if not 3, quality OOC games every year. No more Weber St., Kent State, Northeastern, Maine

Get this, we are actually playing UNH in a few years. UNH! How low can you go.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

Dustbowl-
Well now you're talking my language. Although I obviously disagree with your initial argument that BC's OOC schedule is worst in the ACC (far from it), I actually agree that BC could only benefit from scheduling more big-name opponents. But in Gene's defense, keep in mind that these deals are signed years in advance. He had no way of knowing that ND was heading into a decade of mediocrity, and I don't think anyone could have foreseen Syracuse's consistent awfulness. Heck, even USC is starting to come back down to earth -- who'd have guessed?

Also, keep in mind that Gene can't just pick and choose our opponents -- they actually have to want to play us. For example, some big SEC schools simply don't play northern programs. Nothing Gene can do about that.

I guess my bottom line is this: yes, it would be a blast to play Florida, Texas, USC and Ohio State every year, but it ain't gonna happen. No one (in the ACC or elsewhere) does anything like that. And if ND actually "returned to glory" as scheduled at some point in the last ten years and Syracuse didn't completely disintegrate, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home