I'm as frustrated as anyone about that loss. Brutal. But let's keep it in perspective and take a breath.
Responding to various comments about the game and play calling:
-- I also hated the game in Ireland idea from the get go. We need win's, not diplomacy, at this point.
-- Going for the fourth and 1 or trying the FG: Either decision makes arguable sense and we picked the one that failed (maybe both would have). At that decision point, who knew our kicker was a total head case? It was a freakin chip shot. Get points on the board. Addazio wanted to go for a first down. Other coaches didn't. He listened. We lost the bet.
-- I hated the three runs selected near game end -- right up the gut -- but again, running the ball three times is something lots of other good coaches would have done. But couldn't we have picked three other runs -- mixed it up a bit? Per Addazio's quote that is getting pounded. The issue isn't wanting to give GT the ball per. The issue is WILLING to give GT the ball and drive the length of the field against our great defense AND minimize the risk of a costly turnover by not throwing a pass. Personally, I would have loved to have seen a short pass for a first down at some point in that series, but I'm not sure I'd have called that pass. It isn't crazy to make the decision Addazio did: don't turn it over (e.g .don't risk a pass) and let our VERY GOOD defense (dominating GT in the second half) stop them (of course, they didn't).
-- The decision I disagreed with was the three man rush (esp w/o our best pass rusher) on fourth and 20. I think we had 3 LB's in the game, and dropped 8. I hate that concept. My preference because our LB's are fast: blitz two LB's, rush three DL; drop six (DB's). The decision to rush three means no pass rush and no pass rush dramatically increases the probability of success (I think) of gaining 20 yards. I think we also had two or three other third downs where we gave up first downs AND didn't blitz (on a couple of them). Let's end that prevent defense stuff. Now.
There is good news. We have good to very good talent on this team. Position by position this roster is better than last year's team by a significant margin: a QB who is probably pretty good and may be very good and from all accounts, is a natural leader. Lots of recruits are growing up and looking good. Finally, legit WR's. Callahan's a player. Jeff Smith can run and catch, Walker is scratching the surface of his potential. Good WR depth (e.g Glines et al). TE's can play (catch and block). Quality RB's galore of all styles and D. Jones promises to make an impact soon. An OL that will get better and held up pretty well yesterday and young ones starting and on the roster that have tons of promise. A very good to great front 7 on D -- and we know our DB's are very good -albeit a few glitches yesterday. Plus--youth all over the place (Except at QB -but Wade can play and who knows who we might get next year?). What BC team of the past has as much talent as this one? (Factor out the Matt Ryan impact). (Some past teams -- but not many). (Weak link: FG kicker: not looking good--fingers crossed one will emerge).
So we lost a heart breaker. That happens. Our coaches make a few controversial calls. But I'm not willing to call those decisions all wrong by any means, and the same coaches also called a game that shut down a very good option attack and the offense woke up and dominated the second half -- until the end.
I still see 7 or even 8 wins.
Responding to various comments about the game and play calling:
-- I also hated the game in Ireland idea from the get go. We need win's, not diplomacy, at this point.
-- Going for the fourth and 1 or trying the FG: Either decision makes arguable sense and we picked the one that failed (maybe both would have). At that decision point, who knew our kicker was a total head case? It was a freakin chip shot. Get points on the board. Addazio wanted to go for a first down. Other coaches didn't. He listened. We lost the bet.
-- I hated the three runs selected near game end -- right up the gut -- but again, running the ball three times is something lots of other good coaches would have done. But couldn't we have picked three other runs -- mixed it up a bit? Per Addazio's quote that is getting pounded. The issue isn't wanting to give GT the ball per. The issue is WILLING to give GT the ball and drive the length of the field against our great defense AND minimize the risk of a costly turnover by not throwing a pass. Personally, I would have loved to have seen a short pass for a first down at some point in that series, but I'm not sure I'd have called that pass. It isn't crazy to make the decision Addazio did: don't turn it over (e.g .don't risk a pass) and let our VERY GOOD defense (dominating GT in the second half) stop them (of course, they didn't).
-- The decision I disagreed with was the three man rush (esp w/o our best pass rusher) on fourth and 20. I think we had 3 LB's in the game, and dropped 8. I hate that concept. My preference because our LB's are fast: blitz two LB's, rush three DL; drop six (DB's). The decision to rush three means no pass rush and no pass rush dramatically increases the probability of success (I think) of gaining 20 yards. I think we also had two or three other third downs where we gave up first downs AND didn't blitz (on a couple of them). Let's end that prevent defense stuff. Now.
There is good news. We have good to very good talent on this team. Position by position this roster is better than last year's team by a significant margin: a QB who is probably pretty good and may be very good and from all accounts, is a natural leader. Lots of recruits are growing up and looking good. Finally, legit WR's. Callahan's a player. Jeff Smith can run and catch, Walker is scratching the surface of his potential. Good WR depth (e.g Glines et al). TE's can play (catch and block). Quality RB's galore of all styles and D. Jones promises to make an impact soon. An OL that will get better and held up pretty well yesterday and young ones starting and on the roster that have tons of promise. A very good to great front 7 on D -- and we know our DB's are very good -albeit a few glitches yesterday. Plus--youth all over the place (Except at QB -but Wade can play and who knows who we might get next year?). What BC team of the past has as much talent as this one? (Factor out the Matt Ryan impact). (Some past teams -- but not many). (Weak link: FG kicker: not looking good--fingers crossed one will emerge).
So we lost a heart breaker. That happens. Our coaches make a few controversial calls. But I'm not willing to call those decisions all wrong by any means, and the same coaches also called a game that shut down a very good option attack and the offense woke up and dominated the second half -- until the end.
I still see 7 or even 8 wins.
