Addazio and close losses

With the loss to Louisville, Addazio's record in one score games (8 points or less) fell to 12-18 at BC and 14-21 in his career. Obviously that is not good. But is it unlucky? Maybe. Given a large enough sample size a coach's record in close games should be around .500. The idea is that the close games are almost like coin flips and for everything that goes against BC, there should be some things that go for BC. Has Addazio screwed up games? Sure, but so have our opponents. In his most frustrating close loss (Wake 2015), he and Clawson took turns screwing up the game. I don't think Addazio is a good game manager, but I don't think the close losses are the bigger problem. I think the main issue is like TOB when he was at BC, too often Addazio doesn't press his advantage (i.e. keep his foot on the gas). By keeping it close or letting up, you let the other team back in and invite the game to become a coin flip. Prime examples of this in his BC tenure include Colorado State, Georgia Tech in Ireland and Florida State last year.

I am now reading and hearing a few BC true believers say that luck will even out this year and BC will get some close wins. That may happen, but like a coin flip, each game is an independent event. He could lose all his close games this year too. The key for Addazio is going to be not keeping it close.

A new look at over and under achieving coaches

When I wasn't tweeting out banal political tweets the other day, I retweeted this article from Football Study Hall on over and underachieving college football coaches. You can read the full article, but the gist is that over a period of time, some coaches continue to outperform the stats related to winning and losing. From Bill Connelly:

You can potentially distill coaching into two things: building a team that produces great stats and figuring out how to maneuver in tight games when neither team has a statistical advantage. The former matters above all (Nick Saban and Steve Kragthorpe, after all, are nearly even on this list ... and on no other list in existence), but if nothing else, this list might help us to understand which teams/coaches are good or bad at the latter.

I am interpreting Connelly's maneuvering quote as "game management." His list goes starts at 2005 and captures coaches with four or more years as a head coach. Of note:

-- TOB: Diff/Wins per year = 0.66; Percentile among coaches = 93.8%
-- Spaz: Diff/Wins per year = -0.01; Percentile among coaches = 52.8%
-- Addazio: Diff/Wins per year = -0.41; Percentile among coaches = 20.6%

A few notes of clarification. Since they started tracking in 2005, most of TOB's data is from NC State. (I can't speak to how he managed games there.) It also includes Addazio's time at Temple. It also doesn't factor in the huge issue of talent and recruiting. By this simple measurement Spaz is a better coach than Addazio, however, Spaz's mismanagement of multiple aspects of the program left him winning fewer games each year. I also don't think TOB is some sort of Bill Walsh genius who was never appreciated. I think he was ultra conservative and rarely beat himself, but also never took risks when he had to (at least at BC).

Does this mean Addazio can't improve or can't win big? No. Talent overwhelms at a certain point (see Nick Saban). But I do think it validates us when we are scratching our heads at some of Addazio's decisions. I also worry about Addazio's sounding boards in-game. Who will replace Pasqualoni as the voice in his ear about adjustments and decisions? (It should be noted that Pasqualoni's numbers are close to Addazio's.) I just hope the coach is doing something to adapt, so this factor starts breaking BC's way.

Rehashing Addazio's decisions

I am going to try to let this go after this post, but I want to rebut Addazio's press conference logic. He said that attempting the field goal was the right call as was killing clock with six minutes. He also seems to put most of the blame on the D for allowing the 4 and 19 conversion. In my opinion, he's wrong on all counts.

Kicking vs going for it on 4th down

Prior to this season, Lichtenberg had only made 50% of his field goal attempts. His first attempt Saturday was blocked. It was drizzling and the field was slippery. Apply any logic you want, but given the kicker's history and the circumstances, it wasn't a high percentage play. However, in college football, 4th and 1 is (look at this or this). And who are the best conversion teams? Teams with strong running games and big OLines like Navy or Pitt or Stanford. And they tend to convert at a high percentage, or at least higher than Lichtenberg's career percentage. Addazio referenced the play as 4th and 2, not 4th and 1, but that still doesn't change the argument. The better play is going for it. And it has been studied to death by the analytics community, yet Addazio doesn't want to stray from his old school mentality.

Wanting the D on the field

Hoffses already picked this apart, but what is Addazio talking about when he says he wanted to get the ball back to Georgia Tech so his defense would be on the field? If your D is on the field, the other team's chance of scoring is high. You don't want them on the field scoring. You want to be on the field scoring. Forget statistics. That's just basic common sense. I think in an effort to defend how it played out, Addazio is twisting his argument. I don't really think he wanted to put it all on the Defense. I just think he trusted his D to do it.

4th and 19

I am actually not worked up about that play. It wasn't a strategic mistake. It was an execution issue. And I've watched a lot of Paul Johnson football over the years. Because you are so focused on the run, these sorts of plays happen (regardless of down and distance). It contributed to the loss, but it was out of Addazio's control. The other issues were all on him.

Second viewing thoughts and grade report: Clemson

Watching the game back was encouraging and frustrating at the same time. Our defense is solid. Sure Clemson didn't play their best, but our D was a real source of frustration for them. Plus the D as a whole is getting better every week. In my review it may come off like I am defending Rettig. That is not my intention. We needed him to have a great game and he didn't. But watching it back did make me realize that many of his late game issues were the result of successes he had early.

Like Addazio, I am not happy with the loss. We had a chance to win and blew it. And that is reflected in the overall grade. But I do feel like we are actually building towards something.

Offense: C

Early in the game Rettig made multiple plays by scrambling or moving in the pocket to keep plays alive and keep drives alive. Later in the game it obviously came back to haunt him. The fumble was really bad. He's also got to avoid sacks. He's still a little too hesitant to make throws in tight coverage. Our guys aren't getting "open" but there are plays there. Rettig needs to get rid of the ball faster. I don't know the dynamics huddling late. I don't know if he is following orders, but Addazio was admonishing him to move faster and he didn't. It was a good start for his day and a bad end. He needs to play better.

I thought Williams ran hard. He was their key and they loaded the box, yet he was still getting positive yardage. There were no explosive plays but it was solid. Willis' TD was a great run on his part. He made a good cut, outran people and stayed inbounds. He was bottled up on most of the other plays. There was an option play where he got a late pitch, held on and got pounded. He's tough. Sinkovec looked good on his pass.

Amidon had the big game I hoped for. He caught tough passes and ran away when he got the chance. I wish we were forcing it to him more. The Tight Ends were fine. Spiffy looked good and the holding call on him late was borderline.

This was somewhat typical of this Oline. The run blocking was good and the pass blocking wasn't. Vardaro played the best. Gallik probably had the roughest day. He let guys dart by him and also got pushed around a bit. Patchan struggled a bit on the pass coverage. White was fine. Williams was good.

I am okay with the play calling. It is conservative, but we do build on plays like the play action, the counter and the bootlegs. I liked getting the ball to Amidon on runs (you have to get it to your playmakers). My biggest problem is how we approached the 4th quarter. Regardless of where the blame falls (Day, Rettig, Addazio, all of the above), we didn't execute a good "two-minute drill." That's on the OC.

Defense: B+

Ramsey had a good game. Gutapfel made a play. Edabali was good and looks so much better now that he's allowed to move around. Wujciak played well and was able to get consistent penetration.

KPL had a nice day and made big plays all over the field. Daniels looks so, so much better than he did in the beginning of the year. He's a solid tackler, hard hitter and in position make plenty of plays. Divitto was fine.

The DBs as a group are played well and are much improved. Sylvia's bit hit caused a fumble. Asprilla made some solid tackles. Bryce Jones looked really good. Williams was good. Rositano -- who I've been tough on -- broke up a pass. ALJ was the guy who got picked on a bit, but he was going up against the best.

Brown called a good game. As I've said before calling a game is a bit like Rock-Paper-Scissors, but what I appreciate about Brown is that we are showing different looks and keeping them guessing. We didn't blitz much early and then did later. Plus we got pressure in the backfield naturally. We got beat a few times by their skill guys but I feel like our players have a good understanding of what they should do and are making good plays.

Special Teams: B

Freese was good on kicks and punts. We missed one key opportunity to pin them but it didn't mean much in the scheme of the game. Spiffy and Willis both did well on their respective returns but didn't break anything big. At least they were aggressive.

Overall: C+

Clearly Addazio had the team prepared. The early gameplan worked well and the team seemed confident and willing to fight. The play I was most proud of was the Amidon TD. Clemson scored and we answered quickly. It was a huge moment and had me believing we would win. Good teams answer scores. But it wasn't enough.

The bigger issue was Addazio's use of the timeouts and clock management. As Austin Tedesco pointed out, Addazio's actions show that he's not concerned with preserving timeouts.

Found while working on a BC football piece during layover: BC has only entered last 5 minutes of one half this season w/ all 3 TOs left.
— Austin Tedesco (@TedescoHeights) October 13, 2013

There are two schools of thoughts on timeouts. One is to use them whenever they are needed. The idea is that execution of a current play is more important than preserving time later. The other philosophy -- especially in a close game -- is that you don't burn them and only use TOs later in the game to maximize your possessions. Despite our scores yesterday, we are not a quick strike offense. Our current approach is to grind it out. With that mindset, sustaining drives becomes critical, so you can rationalize using them. If it becomes a trend with Addazio and costs us games, then I will readdress it.

The other game management issue was the lack of hurry up and the punting. This is another case where I will give Addazio the benefit of the doubt. Clemson is not a clock killing team, so punting and playing for possession when you are still within two scores makes sense. And as far as hurry up vs huddling, it wasn't a good idea, but I also think it can be explained by trying to execute rather than rush, just to save clock. If Spiffy's not called for a hold, Amidon's end around puts us just outside of the red zone with three minutes and down ten. Score and then try the onsides.

Overall, the game was a loss so I cannot give a great grade. But I remain encouraged.