Saturday, September 04, 2010

It's a start

A nice day. A nice win. A sloppy, sloppy game. Shinskie looked like bad Dave of 2009. The defense eased up and allowed Weber State too many easy passes. I am telling myself it is only Weber State, but part of me is concerned. They slept walked for long stretches and we cannot do that against quality competition.

The highlight was seeing 94 back on the field.

I'll have second viewing thoughts and grades up late Sunday.


Big Jack Krack said...

Weber State won the second half hands down.

Defense had better learn how to play or it will be a very long year.

Weber St. just showed the world how to beat BC.

mod34b said...

I disagree that this was bad Dave. It was inconsistent Dave.

He had some excellent plays (TD passes), and some duds (3 Inc in a row on overthrown balls). The first interception was a mistake, but the second interception was less of a mistake. I think the wind was an issue.

So I think Dave was pretty good, and was also not good, but he was not good when the whole team fell asleep in 2nd half. (how does Spaz let his team dog it in the first game of the year????)

My biggest concern is that the defense is so porous and there was no pass rush. Weber state used the same M.O. everyone else used last year -- throw underneath, throw to gap btw Safety and CB on sideline, take what BC is oh so willing to give up. Until we get pressure this is going to continue. We need you Scafe, we need you Might Quinn!

Replace Weber St and Higgins (who is really pretty good QB) with FSU and Ponder and we are in big trouble.

We still cannot pressure the QB against an FCS team no less. Not even many blitzes or interesting schemes to get pressure on QB. Maybe McGovern does not want to tip his hand to the ACC crowd

On the OL, not sure, but did Cleary blow a few assignments? Looked like some cohension problesm on OL. Surprised we were not more dominant, although there were a few massive holes at times.

Sterlin ... Yes!!!
Montel ...Yes!!!

It was a decent start. Almost glad there were obvious problems so guys know they all need to work harder and Spaz knows he and the staff have got to work harder on motivational issues (no second half let downs)

Tom G. of the CKC said...

I don't agree it was inconsistent Dave. He was bad, period. Ignoring the first INT (which was a terrible throw, forced into a bad spot):

He held onto the ball far too long, even when receivers got separation. He overthrew Harris out of the backfield a few times. He forced bad passes. He looked like he did last year. 15/15 TD/INT and good for ~190 yards a game. Marscovetra should be given a chance.

The D-line looked like it couldn't pressure the QB and the LB corps (who looked great, by the way) had to contain the WSU RB that kept filtering past. The lack of pressure and the lack of true talent in the secondary are going to make for a tough year against teams that are pass-heavy (FSU and Ponder are scary if we can't develop a stronger rush).

Positives? The skill positions looked good. The linebackers looked better. And the O-line, while not world beaters, looks like it should hold up nicely.

mmason said...

Well, Bill, when you post your thoughts, after Herzy's great start and our BC win vs. a team coached by a very good Coach McBride, the word "nice" may not make the afterthoughts. Yes, it's a big thing for all of us that Mark is back. But all the guys who are back need to be considered fairly. Shinskie, Marsco, Montel, the rookies like Coleman and Phifer, all did good stuff--but the last half was a look at the Eagles as a team revealed and exposed. Positive and negative.

Shinskie can't be blamed for a porous pass defense. Teeing off on Dave as if nothing changed in his act would be lame. Yes, he threw 2 INT's, but the Momah pic is a "who want's it more?" kinda catch, so forget that. Shin bounced back in half#1 and moved the ball downfield--plus, while we're lucky to have Montel and Phifer on the ground, I hope you look more to address our BC coaching during the game. Defensive adjustments vs. Weber's pass/run game? They beat us in the second half in the air, controlled the clock and I'm wondering what you think of how we responded to that. Did we shut Weber down at all in half2? How were we exposed? What do we need to do to beef-up our pass D? And what was..."nice" about this game in half2? Lastly, what do opposing coaches see when they watch the game tapes? Imagine ACC guys looking at this performance... Just wonderin'.

Alex L. said...

I didn't watch the game, so I want to know if I have all the ingredients here:

* Anemic offense
* Undisciplined play-calling
* Allowing a defeated opponent back into the game.
* Inconsistency at QB
* Zero blitzing

We've seen this movie before.

eagleinexile said...

Let's not freak out just yet, however, I like everyone else was under-whelmed.

The start was excellent. The offense was completing big plays on the ground and through the air, as it should against an FCS team.

Then, the play calling dried up and the defense sagged. BC did not need to give these guys the usual big cushion, they could have played man to man or bump and jump routes, but Spaz is thinking several games ahead of us. He wants the guys to stick to the system so that when we play FSU, they are trained to the big cushion.

Ball control was huge, Weber State was terrified of our offense, so they chewed clock, all day. They also could not afford to their let their defense get tired if they wanted to have a prayer. Very well coached by them.


Montel looks good, big year ahead.

Phifer is a capable backup.

Shinskie looked better than I remembered, he will be a game manager and probably good at it.

Coleman is a legit deep threat, and we did not need to showcase our playbook today getting him 200 yds, but we could have.

The receiving core looked good, not as many dropped balls.

The bend, but don't break defense will frustrate most fans (including this one) all year. Nothing we can do except keep the faith and root our Eagles to victory!

Chuck said...

Someone better tell Gene to call Under Armour and let them know that you can't read the players numbers from the stands. Maybe we should be getting a rebate on that new contract. Pretty sad when you can't tell 85 from 35. As a member of class of 89- can only imagine what some of the "Golden Eagle Alumns" were going thru in the stands. At least with the Reebok uniforms you could tell who was who on the field!!

Chuck said...

Nice to have #94 back on the field.

A win is a win BUT there is a lot to work on.

The one stat that worries me the most was Time of Possession in 2nd Half.

Weber State: 21 minutes 16 seconds

Boston College: 8 minutes 44 seconds.

What happens when VTech and ND come to town? If Weber State can dominate on the line of scrimmage like that what happens when we play the big boys??

Greg said...

I have to disagree on the Momah interception. You have a tall receiver in the back of the endzone. It should be his, or no one's. That was a bad pass.

Some good and some bad with Dave, but I was hoping to see more progress from last season.

emil!!! said...

How DID Herzy look? Everyone's glad he played, but no one's commented on how he actually performed..

Dustbowl said...

Herzy only played a handful of downs. He looked ok, nothing bad, nothing great. Just good to see him back playing smashmouth football.

One thing has changed: his all black, batman-like, "face mask" is gone. He only had minimal black lines under his eyes.

blist said...

With the opening delay of game and then lining up behind the wrong O-lineman and then the pick, I had visions of ATL's worst case scenario coming true. But things improved, Shinskie did look better, but not great, especially considering the D he'll be facing. but it's the first game and Weber was a lot better than Northeastern last year. Montel look great, Coleman looked good, The D looked iffy. You have to discount the second half somewhat, after all it was clear the game was ours. I looked at everything in the 2nd half as being prep for pressure situations, form the cushion D to going for it on 4th down.
I do think Shinskie would benefit greatly from some creative visualization before the game, but that's probably too touchy feely for football folks.

eagleboston said...

Herzy was flying all over the field. He looked great and made at least 3 tackles that I saw. He got a little over-excited and over-pursued on a couple pass plays but that is to be expected when he has not played in so long.

Shinskie only went 10-20. That's not going to cut it in the ACC. Montel and Sterlin looked absolutely great and I loved that they tossed a couple passes their way to get them in space. Coleman and Momah were pleasant surprises and the tight ends were great.

Defense needs to improve fast but they always seem to start slow and then buckle down as we get close to October. The game kind of reminds me of the ho-hum first game of 2008 when Crane made his first start. I'm not going to get too concerned yet, but I think it is clear this team is nowhere near close to ACCCG performance yet.

Patrick said...

I'm hoping that they went very vanilla on D so as to not show our future opponents anything. Again, i'm hoping that's what it was.

Lefty0526 said...

Chuck, as a member of the Class of 66 I guess I am one of those "Golden Eagles" and I cannot agree with you more. During the game I commented to my buddy about it asserting that the admin should make it a mandatory criteria in selecting football uniform styles that someone with eyeglasses sits 20 rows or more back in the stands and determines if they can read the jersey numbers from about 40 yards, seems reasonable, clearly. Obviously no one did anything like that. Gene should change the style immediately. Block numerals would probably do the trick. I have never been a fan of the italics.

Joe Gravellese said...

I'm 22 and I couldn't tell what number was what from section GG.

That needs to be fixed next year.

Erik said...

If you're doing an in-depth analysis, see if you can keep a log of which True Freshman got in and therefor won't be eligible for redshirting (not saying that is a bad thing). I know we saw KPL & Andre Williams.

Alex L. said...

blist, here's ATL's prediction for the Weber St game under the worst-case scenario:

"Weber State. Win. Hurricane weather soaks the opener. BC wins, but it is a messy, boring day."

Other than the hurricane, this is exactly what happened.

Look, I'm not trying to be a debbie-downer and I admit I didn't watch the game, but many folks (ATL included) who know a lot more about how BC football works than me seem to think that this season has a real chance to be special. With the same weak offense, sloppiness at QB and poor game management in the 2nd half that we've seen for OVER A DECADE (save for the Jags years), I don't see how this season can be special.

I was one of the first people to come out in disagreement with ATL over the whole Jags firing thing. Jags turned out to be a flake and Gene was right to fire him. Having said that, this coaching staff is falling well short in delivering the kind of excitement (both on and off the field) that was in abundance during the Jags years.

This coaching staff better turn things up several notches by next week, weak opponent or not. No amount of lucky breaks in the schedule will replace boring, predictable, "we-are-what-we-are" coaching.

Michael said...

Shinskie was not as bad as ATL indicated. Yes, he held the ball too long a few times and he missed some wide open throws. Lining up behind the guard (Claiborne?) before throwing that first interception was embarrasing. The interception to Momah is his fault but Momah has to make sure the defense doesn't get that ball.

As written many times, Coleman (2nd year playing football), Phifer, Williams, Harris, & Keuchly all played well.

I'm positive BC played "vanilla" on offense and defense, however you really have to expect our D to make some big plays by themselves. They really didn't.

This is going to be a good year and we will have our opps to make it special.

They better. ND looked better yesterday and I'm sure our conference opponents have improved.

Go BC!

eagleboston said...

Notre Dame looked a lot better. They didn't buckle when Purdue rallied (something the Weiss teams would have done). Their QB Crist was very efficient and he still has plenty of skill players. Their defense looked downright scary. Coach Kelly will run circles around the BC staff, so our talent on the field absolutely must hit on all cylinders.

Dan said...

Notre Dame looked better but I wasn't exactly scared. They started strong under Weiss and Willingham and we know how that ended.

Let's see what they do with Michigan's offense next week before we go getting worked up.

All things considered, our offense did quite well putting up 38 even with an INT in the endzone and Weber having the ball for 15 more minutes than us.

Eddierock said...

I don't understand what the coaches see in Shinskie. 50% completion rate, 2 TD's and 2 pics is what you are going to see every week. That won't cut it in the ACC. Pics highlighted everything lacking in Shinskie: a) on the first, a tight end cutting shallow across the middle, probably the ONLY defensive player Shinskei had to account for was the inside linebacker. He said he never saw him, threw it right to him. Hard to believe. b) second pic, good decision, crappy pass. He under throws it, pretty much the only bad outcome available. So, no judgement and inaccurate arm. I say give the others a try.

eagleboston said...

Dominique Davis just threw a "Hail Flutie" pass as time expired to lead Eastern Carolina to victory over Tulsa.

ChrisB said...

It's a start....I agree. Things I liked: the linebacker play and WR play and Marscovetra's play. Dislikes: Shinskie's play, the lack of a pass rush and the unreadable (from section cc) numbers...I'm happy the season's started

Michael said...

I forgot to say earlier, Shinkse wasn't as bad as ATL may have indicated, but there's no reason not to give Marco the job next week to see what he can do. At worst, it's the same performance is my guess.

mod34b said...

The throw-Shinskie- under-the-bus crowd, might consider the views of the ESPN3 commentor, Curt Warner (the all American RB from Penn State not QB Kurt Warner) who covered the game.

Warner was very conservative in his remarks and very knowledgable guy.

Warner observed at the end of the game that although Shinskie's numbers were not impressive he thought Shinskie played well and showed solid play.

I do agree that I would liked to have seen Marsco get some more time. He had a great TD pass, a really bad pass and an ok pass.

we need to see more than that to have any clue about who is the best BC QB