Preseason Periscope

Below is my Preseason Periscope. The first of 2017. Thanks for all those who joined in. It is all a work in progress, so I appreciate any feedback and support. Also, let me know what time works for people to join. I tried a noon ET once last year and had a small audience. 10 pm ET seems a bit late. Can and would people watch mid-afternoon like 2:30 ET?

 As for what I discussed, for those who don't have the time to watch:
-- Addazio not naming a starting QB publicly is silly at best and a sign of panic at worst. No one has any significant film of Wade or Brown. Naming one doesn't offer up an advantage to NIU. I know Harbaugh is doing it too, but all these guys are out thinking themselves.
-- The shuffled OL also gives me concern for the similar reasons. When has a rotation worked well?
-- I think our Running Backs will carry the team.
-- I think we go to a low-level bowl.
-- Using more zone coverage will prevent blowouts, but also might lead to fewer sacks.

Preseason Periscope https://t.co/jMqeXmdwOJ

— Bill Maloney (@bcatleagle) August 30, 2017

Once again, I appreciate the support and hope BC has a fun season.

Addazio will pick one QB

Nothing is settled, but it will be. Addazio promises.

I am going to settle on one quarterback. I will announce that later in the week. - Addazio

— BC Football (@BCFootballNews) October 12, 2015

Picking a guy is the right first step. Building a gameplan around that one guy is the second step. Scoring a point is the final step.


The bigger question is will Addazio really ride with one guy if things go wrong?

Addazio's QB hedge better not last long

The old football adage says that "if you have two starting quarterbacks, you don't have one." While the theory has been attributed to John Madden and Bill Parcells, this week it could just as well be Steve Addazio's mindset. Against Northern Illinois, both Jeff Smith and Troy Flutie will play. He hasn't indicated a starter, but that doesn't really matter. According to Addazio, he's not going to ride the hot hand. Each QB will have packages. So even if Flutie starts out 5 for 5 and throws two TDs, Smith will play. And same holds true if Smith runs for 80 yards on the first play. This is a fine approach for the 1st half of the NIU game, but cannot go much beyond that. If it does, BC is in big trouble.

None of us know what either QB can do under pressure. Not even Addazio. He's validated the gossiped consensus that came out of camp (Smith is a brilliant runner, Flutie more of a game manager). But the past is somewhat irrelevant now. What a guy does in a practice or scrimmage in August is very different from playing against other teams. Based on the second hand information and the garbage time against Howard, I want Smith. As Addazio said in his Monday media time, we have so few players who can truly explode, that having Smith sit is a waste of an asset. If Flutie proves that he can consistently pass against elite defenses, then by all means, let him manage the games. But I don't think we have enough talent on the line or at WR for Flutie to be any use. Smith needs to be the guy.

But the hedge and using both all season is what I fear most. If neither guy establishes himself this weekend, then just pick one and let him and the team take their lumps. Why trot out two ineffective guys when giving all the snaps to the one with more upside might be off later this season?

Reading between the headlines: We're screwed if Rettig gets hurt

Vega captured our QB issues in a balanced, informed manner in the Globe. What a blogger like me might have said is "we're f-cked." We all heard the talk out of spring practices and summer workouts: "the new staff loves Rettig", "they are going to let Chase throw", and "we will go as far as Rettig takes us." Depth was discussed but not in specifics when it came to QB. With Addazio publicly saying Bordner and Marscovetra are fighting for the second spot, it is clear that QB is the area where our depth is most alarming.

I am probably not being fair to our two primary backups. Both have put up with a lot and stuck around. Both have also shown glimpses of potential. The revolving door of coordinators and Spaz's haphazard approach to offense impacted them as much as it did Rettig. Neither were truly allowed to develop. But I also think both have limitations and neither are as good as Rettig throwing. Both might be more athletic and better suited for what Addazio would like to run, but we are a passing team this year. A mid-season switch due to injury will likely be a total mess.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. One of Spaz's biggest recruits was Christian Suntrup. However, he is not made for this offense and his development has been a disappointment (so far). James Walsh and Mack Lowrie may be diamonds in the rough, but no one expects a true freshman to come off the bench to great success.

I am getting excited about this season, so I am trying to ignore that we will certainly be without Rettig in 2014. The only thing keeping me from saying "we're f-cked" then too, is the pipe dream that another season will give Addazio time to develop and/or recruit the perfect QB for his system. Until then, pray for Rettig's continued health.

Shinskie to start

The Herald is reporting Shinskie will start Saturday. With the way things are going I expect multiple QBs to play. More on Shinskie's return on Friday.

Rettig to start

As I said on Twitter last night, Rettig will start this weekend. The coaching staff is remaining coy for a variety of reasons, but I've heard confirmation from some pretty good sources. I don't know if or when Spaz will make the official announcement but barring some unforeseen issue or injury, Chase Rettig will make his BC debut as a Boston College starter this Saturday night.

[Eds note: I don't like "breaking news" like this because of the flack and blowback I get if wrong, but I think this is pretty solid.]

Revisiting QB controversies of the past

I really hate any time BC has a quarterback controversy. It really means one of two things:
1. The talent level is much worse than we ever imagined
2. The coaching staff is lacking perspective and leadership

Neither of those alternatives are good. In this case I think the staff mishandled the QBs. We will find out shortly. Regardless, a change usually provides a breath of fresh air and helps the team progress. Here is a look back on the QB controversies since the Henning era. In most cases, making the change paid off for BC.

1995: Mark Hartsell vs Matt Hasselbeck
The situation: Hartsell was the big armed incumbent. But his problem was never his arm, it was his decision making (sound familiar). He looked lost at times. Hasselbeck was an afterthought. He was the backup while the QB of the future Scott Mutryn redshirted.
What happened: Hartsell was giving games away -- most blatantly against Michigan State -- and Hasselbeck showed promise in a few mop up series. Hartsell missed a start against Army and Hasselbeck got his chance. BC got killed by the Black Knights that day and Hasselbeck didn't look like the QB he would become. Hartsell would take back over, continue to play bad football and BC would have a losing season.
Verdict: Hasselbeck should have played more. As we would soon find out, Matt was a very good QB. He didn't have the pedigree or the biggest arm, so the coaches didn't want him, yet he showed that QB is also about pressure and in game decisions.


1996: Matt Hasselbeck vs Scott Mutryn
The situation: Mutryn was the chosen one and Hasselbeck was the guy who "wasn't as good as Hartsell."
What happened: After a competitive summer camp, Mutryn was named the starter for BC's opener in Hawaii. He struggled and Hasselbeck came off the bench in relief. He led BC to a last minute win and won the job.
Verdict: BC has a terrible year but it wasn't Matt Hasselbeck's fault. He played well and kept us in a few games. In the whole scheme of things Mutryn was a pretty good QB, just not as good as Matt.

2003: Quinton Porter vs Paul Peterson
The situation: Porter was the groomed product of the TOB system. Peterson was a undersized JUCO transfer.
What happened: Porter was the starter, while Peterson got a series or two in the second quarter to get him game experience. To many fans, Peterson looked good in his limited time but he never did anything to set himself apart. Porter injured his hand against WVU and Peterson nearly helped BC steal the game in a comeback. He started the next week and ended up being one of BC's most effective starters.
Verdict: In a way I think this situation is closest to what we have now. The coaching staff had a lot invested in Porter and wanted him to succeed for many reasons. Peterson was new on campus and "not ready" or whatever rationalization they told themselves at the time. Ultimately Peterson's ability to come in and win despite being smaller and not having the arm, show how you can't always measure a QB based on practice.

2005: Matt Ryan vs Quinton Porter
The situation: Porter was the fifth year SR ready for his time. Ryan was just a goofy kid who looked overwhelmed in the Syracuse game the year before.
What happened: Porter looked terrible and got injured against Florida State. Ryan came off the bench and looked good. He also played well in his start against Clemson. Once Porter got healthy, the job was his again. He had a terrible game against Wake Forest. Ryan came off the bench and led a miracle comeback. Porter blew the UNC game the following week. Ryan was named the starter and had a great close to the season.
Verdict: This will always be the biggest mistake of TOB's tenure. If we had won the UNC game we would have gone to the ACC Championship Game. After the Wake game it was clear to the whole world that Ryan was special and better. Yet the staff stuck to their guns. I will give Spaz credit for not making this mistake. It didn't take him two losses to admit Shinskie was not the guy.

2008: Chris Crane vs Dominique Davis
The situation: Crane was the physically talented guy who had waited his turn behind Ryan. Dominique Davis was a flyer recruit that had moved up a very shallow depth chart.
What happened: Crane was pretty bad from the start. When BC lost to Georgia Tech, the staff struggled with every option and elected to roll with Crane. Fans, including this blogger, felt they should have given Davis a chance. Just as Crane was improving he got hurt and Davis took over.
Verdict: Although Davis did enough to get BC into the Championship Game once he played most fans realized the staff was right to stick with Crane.

I wish Spaz had handled this process differently, but I think playing Rettig Saturday will benefit everyone now and in the future. I just hope he plays well enough that we look back on this and say, "we found the right guy."

Why do I seem more upset than our Head Coach?

I know there is much more to being a head coach than emotion and outward appearances. I know that coaches handle things differently and Spaz tends towards the "handle our business behind closed doors" but why is he not more upset after a second consecutive embarrassment game against the Hokies? Last year we had issues at QB and the emotional drain of the Herzy illness. This year there are no built in excuses. This team has potential. Is it good enough to win the division? Maybe not, but we certainly shouldn't be smirking after another shutout. Am I overreacting here?

What a waste

We wasted a great defensive effort today. Especially from Albright, KPL and Herzy. We also wasted a whole half. Shinskie was melting down, but if you are going to bring in Marsco why handcuff him with play calling designed to kill clock not spark a comeback? We also wasted the first two games, because we clearly have a QB issue and we never gave Marscovetra (or Rettig) serious snaps to get them ready for ACC play.

This game and situation reminded me a lot of the 2008 loss to Georgia Tech. In that game we outplayed the Jackets but our QB cost us. We rebounded and road a great defense to the ACC Championship Game. Our D is very good, I just don't know if our coaching staff can "smoke and mirror" enough out of our offense to win games.

Second viewing thoughts and grades will come out late Sunday night.

BC going hard after young CT QB

Although they have to fill their 2011 class, BC isn't wasting any time with the 2012 recruiting class. This weekend BC offered Connecticut QB Casey Cochran. He is a current sophomore. I am a little surprised with this strategy. After getting burned by Boisture only to get a great find in Rettig, you would think that BC would be more selective when recruiting QBs. It will also be interesting to see if BC's early interest in Cochran will attract other programs that don't usually recruit CT QBs.

Thanks to Mike for the link.

Talking through the QB situation Part 3

There are a couple different arguments and counter arguments regarding the QB situation and the need for a change. I'll try to address them in separate posts this week. I don't think anything will change, but I am firmly in the give Davis at least one, first-half series camp. I don't know what the staff is thinking or debating. So based on pure speculation, this is part 3 of the issue.

"Our best offensive playmakers are Gunnell, Momah, Robinson, Purvis and Jarvis. They need someone who can throw the ball all over the field to them. Also, Haden and Harris will be bottled up without a passing threat. Crane has the arm to make the offense go."

The other positions I cannot rationalize. This one I sort of can understand. We are not built for a pound away and win 13-10 team. Our kicking game is too suspect. Our special teams are too suspect. And to win in that sort of scheme, you really need a QB who won't make mistakes. In a low scoring, minimal possession ballgame, one turnover can kill you.

BC tried to make Crane a game manager and play dink and dunk. It led to the Georgia Tech loss and the the first half struggles against UCF. Once they opened the offense things started clicking. Crane keeps making mistakes, but we have seen some upside.

Davis might be able to operate in a ultra-conservative offense, but I think the best scheme is one that opens this up and uses all our pieces.

What's next?

I don't want to have a Part 4 of this series, but Friday's articles makes me think the story is not over. Check out these quotes:

"It's not like you have a waiver wire," said Jagodzinski, who said his use of Crane will be as much about "feel" as anything else.

If the offense is functioning smoothly, Crane will stay in the game. If it sputters or the rash of turnovers continues, the Eagles could very well go back to Davis. But there are no guarantees.

And this one:

“I’ll tell you this. I won’t change for the sake of change, to appease people,” Jagodzinski said.

Does this sound over?

Talking through the QB situation Part 2

There are a couple different arguments and counter arguments regarding the QB situation and the need for a change. I'll try to address them in separate posts this week. I don't think anything will change, but I am firmly in the give Davis at least one, first-half series camp. I don't know what the staff is thinking or debating. So based on pure speculation, this is part 2 of the issue.

"Crane can't be bad every game. Look at the NC State performance. He's not going to throw three interceptions every week. He's due for a good game. He's got great upside."

When teaching statistics, instructors often use the example of a coin flip to explain independent events. The lesson usually goes something like this:

"If I flip a coin and get heads, what are the odds that I get tails on the next flip?"

The newbies try to work it out or wonder if it is a trick question. Eventually someone answers correctly "50/50."

The instructor then asks "what if I flip a coin 99 times and get heads each time. What are the odds I will get tails on the 100th flip?"

The smarties answer "50/50."

The point is that even if the results defy odds and averages (in this case if you flipped a coin twice you would expect one head and one tails or in the larger sample 50 heads and 50 tails) the odds don't not change on the next flip. It is independent of the previous flips. Now sporting events are not as truly independent as a simple coin flip. There are numerous variables from proceeding games that impact results (injuries, adjustments, etc.) But if you have come down to it, previous results don't change the probability of a good or bad performance.

Bringing this tangent back to Chris Crane...you cannot start him on the idea that he is "due" or that he has gotten the turnovers out of his system or that he is highly unlikely to cough up the ball that many times again. He not due. No one is truly due. If due were probability, then he is just as due for another three INT day.

Think of Crane as a coin flip. One side is multiple turnovers. The other is an NC State performance. Sure the upside is there, but the downside isn't going away.

Now every player has their highs and lows. If we increase his sample of snaps Dominique Davis's stats could be loaded with problems or bad indicators. But we are at the point where we know what Crane's statistical range is. Hedging on him to avoid pitfalls or betting that it will all be great from here on out ignores his stats and the rules of statistics. Taking a few baby steps with Davis at least changes all they dynamics a bit and allows BC to explore alternatives. To close with a clumsy analogy, mixing in Davis is like BC going from its risky Crane coin flip to rolling a six-sided die. It mixes things up. Let's roll.

Later in the week I'll get into the offensive limitations argument.

Talking through the QB situation Part 1

There are a couple different arguments and counter arguments regarding QB situation and the need for a change. I'll try to address them in separate posts this week. I don't think anything will change, but I am firmly in the give Davis at least one, first-half series camp. I don't know what the staff is thinking or debating. So based on pure speculation, this is part 1 of the issue.

"Davis is not playing well in practice and is not ready for the toughest part of the schedule."

Ultimately it could be as simple as this. None of us are in practice. Davis might be hitting guys in their shoelaces or floating passes ten feet over their heads. He may have poor practice habits. He might not be learning. He might be a disaster ten times worse than Crane. But, he's all we have. The staff has deemed him the next best option after Crane. They want to keep Tuggle's redshirt. Crane's play dictates that you try something else.

Even if Davis is the worst practice player ever with a thin understanding of the offense, you take a shot. Some players perform differently when it is game time. Some rise to the occasion. Plus getting him out there forces the other team to adjust and prepare for two QBs. Even if the staff thinks he is terrible, Clemson, Notre Dame and Maryland don't know that. They just see another tall athletic QB across the line.

If Davis gets out there and looks terrible or turns the ball over, you put him back on the bench. One turnover is not going to be anything worse than the mistakes that Crane has made.

Later in the week I'll get into the Crane upside argument.

How does Chris Crane compare to other "rookie" QBs?

Chris Crane has now started seven games. Jags and Logan will tell anyone listening that Crane is a rookie. This explains some of his struggles but not all. As a comparison, just look at BC last four QBs and their first seven games.

QB	W-L	Attempts	Comp Pct	Yards	Passing TDs	INTs	Rushing TDs
Brian St. Pierre	6-1	180	55%	1,186	15	6	0
Quinton Porter	4-3	182	59%	1,293	14	5	1
Paul Peterson	6-1	194	61%	1,496	13	6	0
Matt Ryan	6-1	246	59%	1,621	9	7	5
Chris Crane	6-1	200	57%	1,249	6	10	9

A few words on the context of the stats
Let me address a few things, before we get into the results.
-- W-Ls are most important and I think we all acknowledge that defense and scheduling play factor into the hot starts of most of our recent QBs.
-- I only counted games started, which hurts Crane and Porter. Both of them came into their starting run with much less playing time than St. Pierre, Peterson and Ryan.
-- Crane is operating out of a different offense and a different offensive philosophy than the previous four QBs.
With that out of the way…

Conclusion
Crane is clearly the most reckless (or error prone) QB to see the field in nearly a decade. He offsets some of the carelessness and poor decisions with his running ability in the red zone. His accuracy and productivity chart closer to our lower performing QBs rather than our top guys. He’s a rookie, but the upside is probably not where we want it to be. Excusing his poor play due to his inexperience makes for good spin. It is not the sole reason for his struggles.

Regardless, Crane is supported by the best group of receivers we’ve had in this time period. He’s also got a better D and better offensive coordinator than his predecessors. He’s good enough to get us to Tampa. We just need him to be slightly better than he has been.

Crane's comfort level: where does he work best?

When talking to the media since the Georgia Tech game, Jags mentioned focusing on what Crane does well. Give the result through two games, most BC fans probably wonder: what does Crane do well? Now that I’ve cooled off and have a little perspective on things, I went back to the GT game. I watched and logged just Crane’s pass attempts to get a better feel for what worked and what didn’t.

As a reminder, this was Crane’s stat line from Saturday: 18-35 (51.4%), 142 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 1 fumble, 1 safety.

This is how things broke down upon closer inspection:

Shotgun (with a short or no drop) and staying in the pocket
25 attempts. 14 completions. 1 INT and 1 touchdown

This was our standard offense on Saturday. Crane was at his best when he would get the snap take a few quick steps and fire a short out to the flats. Georgia Tech was playing off the receivers, so this was an easy completion. However, the challenge with this style of attack is that our receivers are not game breakers. If they catch a short pass in the flats, they are unlikely to turn it into a big play. But pocket passing was not foolproof. Crane struggled from the same formation and progression when trying to make throws across the field. His timing was off or his throws were off or he was releasing too low and getting tipped. Also, his fundamentals went out the window as the game wore on.

Under Center (with five step drops)
4 attempts. 2 Completions. 1 INT
Crane was rarely under center in this game. Two plays were great and two were terrible. What did the terrible have in common? Play action. On both play action attempts, Crane rushed. One resulted in badly overthrown ball. The other…an INT. Yet the straight dropbacks from center were very good plays.
*Crane did fumble one time from under center. However, Jeff Smith missed his block.

Moving up in the pocket
1 play. 0 completions.
This was the shovel pass to McCluskey. It had a very rushed feel. Even the announcers said Crane would have been better running it.

Rollouts, Moved pockets
3 attempts. 0 completions.
These were some of Crane’s worst throws. On two he didn’t set his feet. On the other he floated the deep post.

Broken plays
2 attempts. 0 completions.
Unlike recent BC QBs like Matt Ryan or Paul Peterson, Crane is not a natural improviser. When the plays broke down he looked hurried and blew both throws. I hope that going forward he follows his first instinct and just runs when the play falls apart.

Conclusion
Crane was at his best when he didn’t have time to think and didn’t have to scan the field. Quick throws, mostly to the first read worked best. The more he dropped back, or moved or was asked to play fake, things started to get messy.

If Logan and Jags play to his strengths and comfort level they will have him dink and dunk it down the field. However, Central Florida will see the same things I did. Look for them to crowd the WRs and put more pressure on Crane than GT did. Will he adjust? That is the question keeping the staff and the fans up at night.

Revisiting QB controversies past

BC has been playing since 1893 so there have been hundreds of position challenges over the years. Jags issue with Chris Crane is not the first time a BC coach has faced a tough decision. Since enrolling in BC in the fall of 1994, I've witnessed a handful of QB controversies. Eventually they sorted themselves out yet the always leave the fanbase exhausted and a team with an underachieving record. Take a look at the BC QB issues since the start of the Henning era. Also, feel free to add any QB controversies that were before my time in the comments section.

1995
What happened? Mark Hartsell returned as the starter but regressed badly. He was making terrible in-game decisions and just looked lost in Dan Henning's offense. Uber recruit Scott Mutryn was redshirting after playing as a true freshman in 1994. Hartsell's backup was the less heralded, but very poised Matt Hasselbeck.
Rock bottom: Hartsell had a full meltdown in a game against Michigan State. Like the Georgia Tech loss, the rest of the team did everything they could and should have won the game.
How did it play out: Hartsell's poor play and nagging injuries opened the door for Hasselbeck to start. He showed a spark that was lacking yet BC continued to pile up losses. Henning gave a healthy Hartsell the nod later in the year.
Final record: 4-8

1996
What happened? Scott Mutryn won the starting job over the more popular and experienced Hasselbeck.
Rock bottom: BC had trouble early as Mutryn struggled in the opener at Hawaii.
How did it play out: The team never gelled. Hasselbeck became the starter yet Mutryn was still getting playing time. The team was split along the two QB clicks. While that wasn't the reason for the later gambling scandal, the atmosphere and lack of direction from Henning certainly contributed to the program floundering.
Final record: 5-7

2003
What happened? Quinton Porter won the starting job over JUCO transfer Paul Peterson.
Rock bottom: Losing three out of four including three straight Big East games. At this point Peterson was getting a series or two and always looked much better than Porter.
How did it play out: Porter hurt his hand against West Virginia. Peterson entered the game and nearly rallied BC to victory. He started the next week and never looked back. Peterson finished 2003 3-0 as a starter and went onto to an impressive 12-2 run when starting.
Final record: 8-5

2005
What happened? After redshirting the 2004 season, Porter was reinserted as the starter over Matt Ryan.
Rock bottom: A midseason Porter slump left everyone wondering why TOB was sticking with the Maine product when Ryan had showed so much promise during Porter's absence. The rock bottom came during a game in North Carolina. Porter struggled against a bad UNC team and during the game Tar Heels coach John Bunting even told a sideline reporter he was surprised that TOB hadn't gone with Ryan.
How did it play out: Ryan got the call the following week against NC State. The offense showed a spark and aggressiveness that would become the trademark of the Ryan era.
Final record: 9-3

Unless Chris Crane suddenly flips a switch and becomes a great QB, I think we are headed towards another controversy. The coaches will hopefully find a solution that leads to a winning season, but the looming controversy almost guarantees and under achieving record.