Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College (/thread-25747.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College (/thread-25747.html)
Pages:
1
2
Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - msqueri - 09-14-2025
1. A fun team win! I can't say it better than Reich in terms of the quality play by each phase and how it took not only team effort but a comeback. Couple that with it being a conference home game and that's awfully fun as far as what we've been able to experience in recent years. When it comes to quality football it's not beating Louisville but where this one has a leg up was that it was early in the schedule before we've been fully beaten down. Subjectively watching on tv, it seemed like the fan energy in the stadium was better than our recent norm. If you pair people hoping against hope that the Luck era saves us with beating a conference opponent before the season is lost, there could be ingredients for better vibes ahead. While we still are a bad team that likely doesn't have a lot of wins ahead, beating a real opponent at home in September (first time since 2019!!!!) at least gives this squad a chance of developing some positive vibes for the faithful going forward.
2. The result is one I would take any time, a conference win against a team that made bowls the last two years. We fared better than Michigan State did last week, beating BC by eight points more and looking more impressive in several other ways (more below). Traveling cross-country is a sight harder than what BC had to do the previous week but I find it encouraging that the Eagles will be at least a month into the season before anybody gives them as hard a time as we did. We gave up half as many points as the Spartans. On the most basic level, yesterday was the most points we've scored this season and the fewest points we've given up, the name of the game. The biggest story of the game was turnovers, both for the profound impact they had on momentum at various junctures and because we capitalized in the form of 21 points off turnovers, the winning margin off turnovers alone. That's both exhilarating and a bit cautionary. It's still too early to put much stock in algorithms but as of now that was a performance befitting a top 40 team - in other words, our best game of the year (obviously) and one of the seven best of the 27 game post-Shaw era.
3. As Reich said, it was a true team win. The offense scored 2.3 points per non-garbage drive, playing like the #56 offense and making a defense SP+ and FEI both peg as in the 67-68 range nationally look like the #77 defense. The defense allowed 1.82 points per non-garbage drive (in real time none of the BC drives felt like garbage time per se but statistically their last drive and our last drive both were), playing like the #52 defense and making an offense SP+ and FEI peg as in the 50-54 range look like the #82 offense. That doesn't even account for the defense having a touchdown, the biggest play a defense can get. If you credit the defense with that touchdown on the ledger their net scoreboard impact was even more stingy, 1.18 points per drive being equivalent to the #26 defense in the nation. On special teams we won the field position battle in the punt phase and accounted for more than the scoring margin with the kicking game. The bottom line is that all phases won their battles and made BC look worse than they're supposed to. The beneficial (for us) combination of turnover fortune (the bounce of fumbles tends to be pure luck and those were good breaks our way) jet lag/body clocks gave us an edge that may not be fully reflective of team quality, but at the end of the game we had almost a yard more per play than they did and won the turnover battle. We deserved to win. The first half tie felt fluky to me but the second half was imposing our will. Maybe that doesn't happen if it's not 10pm their time after cross-country travel but we play with the schedule we have and on this day we were the better team.
4. The story of the game for the offense was finally being competent and for the defense was having numerous turnovers. By our standards, 6.76 yards per play constitutes an offensive explosion. In the last seven years, that's the ninth most explosive we've been in 69 dark ages games, and two of those were against FCS foes. We were 0.82 yards per play better than Michigan State and only one team tore the Eagles up more last year. On defense, the extremely positive turnover margin somewhat obscured that the defense gave up more yards per play than it has yet this season, by almost a yard per play, and more than Boston College has averaged giving up in a season since 2013. That's a warning sign and I think some are overrating the level of defensive play we saw. Nonetheless, they definitely contributed stops and, of course, turnovers.
5. So much of the focus of this season has been on the QB play. This game struck me as a fair crystallization of the limitations in our QB play, the extent to which issues with protection are often the problem more than QB play per se, and the potential (but as we saw from Hawaii and BYU far from assurance) of the offense to overcome those limitations. The passing game was dramatically better than the prior two contests and the third or fourth most prolific FBS game of the two and a quarter years of this offensive staff's era at Stanford. On the other hand, the enemy always has a vote and in this case the enemy may really suck at pass defense - the Michigan State passing attack carved the BC defense up even more badly - but at the very least we can come out of this game with a confidence boost for Gulbranson, who was 64th of 115 in Total QBR this week (Lonergan was 66th). Talk about reversion to the mean - that was the median career Total QBR performance for Gulbranson. Due to how horrible the first two games were he is still mired way down as 128th of 136 on the season, second worst in Power Four, but last night was more like what we expected. Now there will be no doubt he's our QB heading into Virginia and one would expect his national ranking will continue to tick up. He has a long way to go to good but I think those who want him benched will continue to be disappointed. There's no indication the coaches think Brown is better, Gulbranson just had a redemptive game, and the coaches constantly make clear Gulbranson is the fact of the team (now three for three in him coming out for the post-game press conference).
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - msqueri - 09-14-2025
6. As much talk as there has been about quarterback, the run game was a bigger story yesterday (notwithstanding several big passing plays, which Gulbranson should get some credit for). We had run game explosions against NC State and Clemson last year so this wasn't shocking, but it was nice. I love that it was a yard and half better than Michigan State did. The Spartans are not a good team but they are the kind of mediocre Power Four team we are currently aspiring to be and it's great to see all these categories we did better on against a common opponent. The individual to tout, of course, is Micah Ford. That's the most rushing yards in a game since Bryce Love in 2017. Ford now has 100 yard rushing games in two of our first three games, is the first Stanford player to have multiple 100 yard rushing games in a season since Austin Jones in 2020, and so far this season is third in the ACC in rushing and seventh in yards from scrimmage. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Ford (5), Farrell (3), Roush (2), Altahir (2), High, Tabb, Gulbranson] Elsewhere on offense, we also got very positive contributions from Farrell for another week and it's really nice to see him stepping up in a challenged room. I'm not yet sold on Roush being worth the hype but boy was that a big touchdown. The offensive line struck me as doing admirably with Pale and then Fattig (such a bummer for him) out but showing the perils of having a junior varsity line out there. I don't get as excited as some do about guys like House, Ugorji, and Yamauchi not falling all over themselves because it's still not a level of play where we are winning in the trenches against an extraordinarily mediocre team like Boston College (jet lagged to boot), in the transfer era we have to fight to keep them each year much less long-term, and since we burn their redshirts so cavalierly there is diminished prospect of "long-term" even being an option. That said, I love that we got ourselves in a position to end the game with an old school drive breaking a legitimate opponent's spirit and draining the clock, exactly the kind of physical identity, consistency, and competence we are hoping to establish and then build on throughout the year and into the future. I think there is a chance we have the pieces to have a better line going forward and that will be one of the big things to watch going forward (both their level of play and whether we can keep the guys we like out of the portal.
7. On defense, I wanted to see if the green shoots of optimism for the pass defense were validated and whether we could reverse apparent decline in run defense. Yesterday was the most our pass defense has been challenged on the young season but considerably better than Michigan State did (1.1 fewer yards per attempt, three fewer passing touchdowns, over 40 points better in defensive passer rating). I don't think our pass defense is good but we have a few data points that it might not be bad. After a concerning first couple of games relative to the April defense of the last two years, the defense bowed up yesterday. That was the lowest number of rushing yards we've allowed in the last 12 games and only once in that span did we give up fewer yards per carry. Like the passing game on offense, this is an instance of getting right against sorry competition and should not be viewed as proof we've turned the corner in a phase that has been troubling us. BC hasn't been above a hundred yards rushing or 2.7 yards per carry yet this season and their opponents have been Fordham and Michigan State, so it appears they really suck at rushing. But a program like Stanford needs to taste success and build confidence and, as with the passing performance on offense, I won't complain that we got an opportunity to have some success. Nonetheless, this would be my nomination for fool's gold of the week. Boston College has the #132 yards per carry offense and Virginia has #11, so next week is when the defense really has to prove itself.
8. For all the yards per play the defense gave up, they got off the field and made turnovers and put points on the board. For a perennially irrelevant program at the bottom of Power Four, they continue to show up each week and play feisty ball and I think the vast majority of fans who are more affectionate about the defense than the offense have every right to be. It reminds me, as I've said, of the Teevens defenses. Now that obvious baller Wright has apparently been joined by guys like Rose and Patterson as dudes (to use Steve Addazio's parlance, though I think his bar may be lower than mine), the comparison rings even truer to the defenses in my college years when we were never good but the defenses had talent better than fans realized at the time. For me this is mostly interesting when it comes to prospects for games the rest of this season and for players we may return for next season more than it is to trying to validate our defensive coaches, who I assume we'll want to replace with a new coaching staff. Looking at how players did against Boston College, it wasn't a lot of guys evidently showing up, with only seven of those having multiple positive box score plays and a few of those relying on garbage time (Rose, Johnson, Patterson, Edwards, Barth, Green, Franklin, with the latter two needing a garbage time play to get there). What jumped out to me was, of course, Wright's mother f'n pick six (what a play, what an impact) - and the fact that he didn't have another big play in the box score shows the limitations of my heuristic, as my eyes and the PFF grades suggest that the reason for that was that he shut down BC receiving weapons quite well - and then all the needle-moving plays Rose and Patterson made validating my statement from last week that they are our MVPs so far this year. Rose had five plays I tracked as positive impact, including two tackles to force punts as well as the big six yard tackle for loss sniffing out the gadget. Patterson can contend with Wright's pick six as impacting the game like none other, as Patterson had the fumble recovery on which he got penetration on the play that happened to be an errant snap Lonergan couldn't corral and was the turning point of the game as well as the goal line fourth down stand where I wish he was credited with a forced fumble (he wasn't....he had three positive box score plays even without that). It soured the performance big-time that Johnson got beat on the long RB receiving touchdown but I continue to love the plays he's making, in this case multiple run stuffs, more goal line action (in this case a hurry), a pass breakup, and a sack.
9. I did some handwringing on special teams the last two weeks but this week it was an advantage. Kenney made field goals of 23, 35, and 26 - nothing hard, but he's reliable and that's brobdingnagian for a team like us, or really any team. [We have struggled so much on offense that I was happy and relieved with red zone field goals, however the red zone efficacy is an indication of an anemic offense. We are dead last 135th in America in red zone touchdown conversion. Ummm, that's bad.] Flintoft had net punts of 52 to the 27 (great), 53 to the 26 (great), 48 to the 15 (very good), and and 23 to the 35 (quite bad), a massively better contribution to field position than his poor Boston College counterpart. I have to give one of them my game ball, but I'm jazzed to see Charlie Eckhardt get two nice kick coverage tackles, one very nice to pin the bad guys at the 17. I also need to shout out Mattingly getting a punt coverage tackle, which was an annoyingly long return but could have been worse without Mattingly's big stick. I don't see us getting a lot out of the return game yet - in this one it was a three yard punt return for Thorpe and Tabb giving up eight cumulative yards on the two kick returns he decided to take back - but I need to remind myself to be patient and only harshly judge calamity/leave room for the possibility of a big return at some point.
10. Game balls: Micah Ford, Clay Patterson, Aidan Flintoft, Frank Reich
11. The Virginia game becomes a lot more fun to look forward to coming off a great home win. Playing another fairly mediocre opponent will raise hopes that we can replicate last year's mid-September of back-to-back wins including an East Coast roadie ACC win. On the other hand, those roadies when we're not coming off a bye have been brutal in our short ACC history so far. I just want to see us be competitive. Don't get me wrong, there is a path to a win and I'd love to see it. It's just that it shapes up more difficultly for us than what we just enjoyed and, in the big picture, what I really want to see is Stanford playing like a program that belongs on the field against legitimate opposition, even on the road. Of course, if that means we go out there and win that's even better. Ok, yeah, let's just go out there and do that!
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - JJJ - 09-14-2025
Putting this here because, why not?
10+ minute recap
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - qwerty49 - 09-14-2025
Thanks for the analysis, Matt.
I guess I come back to “it’s better to be lucky than good.” Looking back, I think the turning point was with BC on our 17 yd line and leading 17-6, and Patterson got that strip/sack/fumble (not sure how that play was scored).
I’m really glad we were able to take advantage of those gigantic turnovers. And it was great to see various members of our D rise up to support Rose, Wright and Patterson, who brought their typical A-games.
I know this win really set a fire in our locker room and I hope the team can ride the good energy the rest of the way.
IIRC Tabb started at RB and I was wondering if Ford was hurt. Silly me.
SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-14-2025
Always look forward to this Sunday analysis
Regarding Gulbranson, yes I think he obviously earned the start for Virginia game
Not sure it was really at risk for him, but regardless, I think even a skeptic would agree he earned next start
I really don’t think he looked great
More like good enough
I think his most important praise is he didn’t make any terrible mistakes, none that I saw anyway.
As Coach put it: he managed the game well
Which kind of implies that others did the more spectacular things
But in the end he did enough
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - BigJohn043 - 09-14-2025
For a team like us, any win is a good win. I have heard from multiple sources that the feel in the locker room is much better this year. I think we saw that on the field last night. I don't think we have the horses but at least we have a good attitude!
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - GK3 - 09-15-2025
(09-14-2025, 05:49 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote: For a team like us, any win is a good win. I have heard from multiple sources that the feel in the locker room is much better this year. I think we saw that on the field last night. I don't think we have the horses but at least we have a good attitude!
I loved the Reich locker room speech after the game. He really congratulated all phases of the team play and had them ready to go out and play again. That was a lot like Harbaugh's EUTM. I thought the kids on both sides of the ball never quit and Bobby April's guys really got after it.
I would at Rose to the list of defensive guys who played all out.
This leaves me with one question I hope someone can answer. Who takes the biggest hit on these transcontinental trips? Seems to me that if I play at 7:30 East Coast Time that is more or less practice time out here, not so bad? If you have to play a 1 PM game on the EC it is a different deal. For the teams going the other way. Starting a game out here at 10:30 PM their time would seem far more difficult.
Whose choice is it to set the game times? I presume the league.
When I was working and had to make frequent trips on Sunday to the East Coast for meetings, I could never decide whether I preferred flying a red eye or leaving Sunday AM and spending the night in a hotel and staggering out of bed at 3 AM my time so I could be at an 8 AM meeting with some sense of sanity.
When do we leave? Wednesday? No one gives us a chance it seems so I hope we bring out A game and Kick A**
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - fullmetal - 09-15-2025
In my eyes, Gulbranson lost the starting job after the first two games. This game, I think the coaches have finally started calling enough run plays to take the heat off Gulbranson a bit (QBR 55.4). I still think his consistent mistakes are a liability...but starting this game, they might not lose games. It irks me that the first two games of the season seem to have been thrown away by the coaching staff as they tried to find out what this team and this staff are all about. Every game counts.
In my less-informed opinion, the game came down to a couple of factors: timezone difference, BC's unforced errors (and Stanford's ability to take advantage of the unforced errors), and the newfound reliance on the run game. Running the ball with commitment against a team whose bodies are taking punishment at 1:00AM or so is indeed a great way to win, and I was pleased to see the commitment to wearing down that BC run defense.
Patterson did an amazing job knifing through the BC OL to pick up Lonergan's fumble. Truly superlative work.
Roush did a great job with the TD reception. I do think the BC defender took a terrible angle in pass defense and could have pushed Roush out of bounds or even break up the pass, but the defender was too slow by a hair on both counts. Roush caught the ball and watched the defender sail out of bounds as he spun around up field and turned on the jets. That defender gambled, lost, and gave up the TD.
Lonergan's INT was just completely boneheaded. It wasn't a very long pass, and the receiver was tightly bracketed by Stanford defenders. I'm just glad Stanford didn't drop that gift! The resulting TD was an amazing momentum shift.
Do I remember correctly that someone on the Stanford defense broke up another likely interception by another Stanford defender? Sigh...
Ford might not have the jets that a previous #20 had (all love to Love), but he ran through tackles and broke into the open field enough times to really tip the balance of the game toward Stanford. BUILT FORD TOUGH. He needs a massive NIL deal. Surely someone in Ford Motor Company's leadership has a Stanford connection...
On the flip side, the Stanford defense definitely whiffed on too many tackles and allowed a lot of YAC. But they did enough, and toward the end of the game, they put the hurt on that OL and got to Lonergan. Maybe body clock, maybe not. They nullified the strength of the BC offense, holding BC scoreless during the entire second half. In fact, the only points BC scored (all 20) were in the second quarter. Quite a unique performance.
In fact, a total of 34 points were scored in that second quarter...part of it was a lot of really short possessions (three and punt, or quick scores). What a crazy quarter.
It is what it is. Stanford finally seized on all the chances going our way and got a solid, first win. No reason to change anything right now except to improve the tackling and improve the run blocking. Oh, and the defense needs to know that if a DL/LB on the edge gets an unimpeded path to the QB, the alert receiver is probably right behind them and needs to be covered.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - Hurlburt88 - 09-15-2025
any sense out there of Fattig's injury? I have not watched the game yet . . .
Is April a potential HC candidate? I would think a long-shot, but curious for more informed thoughts
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - Goose - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 12:22 AM)GK3 Wrote: When I was working and had to make frequent trips on Sunday to the East Coast for meetings, I could never decide whether I preferred flying a red eye or leaving Sunday AM and spending the night in a hotel and staggering out of bed at 3 AM my time so I could be at an 8 AM meeting with some sense of sanity.For me that is easy. Take the red eye. I sleep real well on airplanes, maybe better than I do in a bed :-). Of course, I have many years of practice doing that. I am not sure this would transfer to physical activity however. Being sharp for a meeting is a lot different than playing football for hours. Unfortunately, I think it is so individual that no team choice can be ideal for all the players. The one thing I can say is do NOT go out two days early. Day three is always the "crash" day for time zone changes. You can get by on adrenaline for two days, but after that your body needs to reset on the new time.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - fullmetal - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 10:48 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: Is April a potential HC candidate? I would think a long-shot, but curious for more informed thoughts
If so, I don't understand why he wasn't immediately elevated after TT was let go. It would have done wonders for hiring coaching staff replacements and recruiting. I certainly think he's done wonders for the defense.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - qwerty49 - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-15-2025, 12:22 AM)GK3 Wrote: When I was working and had to make frequent trips on Sunday to the East Coast for meetings, I could never decide whether I preferred flying a red eye or leaving Sunday AM and spending the night in a hotel and staggering out of bed at 3 AM my time so I could be at an 8 AM meeting with some sense of sanity.For me that is easy. Take the red eye. I sleep real well on airplanes, maybe better than I do in a bed :-). Of course, I have many years of practice doing that. I am not sure this would transfer to physical activity however. Being sharp for a meeting is a lot different than playing football for hours. Unfortunately, I think it is so individual that no team choice can be ideal for all the players. The one thing I can say is do NOT go out two days early. Day three is always the "crash" day for time zone changes. You can get by on adrenaline for two days, but after that your body needs to reset on the new time.
I tried just about every option. When I was younger, single and had little control over my work schedule, I would just take the noon plane on Sunday. And back then I would sometimes stay the weekend if the two extra hotel nights were less than the return airfare, especially when the assignment was somewhere cool like NYC.
For me, going east was always much tougher than going west. I tried Melatonin for the jet lag, but it didn’t work — until I doubled the dose, LOL.
As I got older I also got more control over my schedule, so I flew out on Mondays and back Thursday nights, working on the plane Monday, at home on Friday, and at least having some semblance of a weekend with my family.
On one long-term gig (Atlanta) I just said “no mas” to the hotel room and actually bought a nearby brand-new condo. Rented it out after the assignment ended, sold it a year later and managed to break even. (I foolishly thought that all real estate markets were as good as Calif)
It did look like BC suffered from some jet lag in the second half, but we all know at that age there’s a lot of adrenaline going on, so who knows for sure.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - fullmetal - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 11:50 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: It did look like BC suffered from some jet lag in the second half, but we all know at that age there’s a lot of adrenaline going on, so who knows for sure.
Adrenaline only works for so long. I had a feeling that they were going to be hurting coming out of halftime, and I think that was the case. Once you sit down, so to speak, it gets a little harder to get up when fatigue is setting in like that. If BC was taking exogenous adrenaline...if we think body clock wasn't a factor...then this Stanford team might be much better than expected now. But after that Northwestern game almost a decade ago, I think we all know that everything, including biology, affects sports performance.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - SkiBum80 - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 11:50 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:Still flying coast to coast often.(09-15-2025, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-15-2025, 12:22 AM)GK3 Wrote: When I was working and had to make frequent trips on Sunday to the East Coast for meetings, I could never decide whether I preferred flying a red eye or leaving Sunday AM and spending the night in a hotel and staggering out of bed at 3 AM my time so I could be at an 8 AM meeting with some sense of sanity.For me that is easy. Take the red eye. I sleep real well on airplanes, maybe better than I do in a bed :-). Of course, I have many years of practice doing that. I am not sure this would transfer to physical activity however. Being sharp for a meeting is a lot different than playing football for hours. Unfortunately, I think it is so individual that no team choice can be ideal for all the players. The one thing I can say is do NOT go out two days early. Day three is always the "crash" day for time zone changes. You can get by on adrenaline for two days, but after that your body needs to reset on the new time.
I tried just about every option. When I was younger, single and had little control over my work schedule, I would just take the noon plane on Sunday. And back then I would sometimes stay the weekend if the two extra hotel nights were less than the return airfare, especially when the assignment was somewhere cool like NYC.
For me, going east was always much tougher than going west. I tried Melatonin for the jet lag, but it didn’t work — until I doubled the dose, LOL.
As I got older I also got more control over my schedule, so I flew out on Mondays and back Thursday nights, working on the plane Monday, at home on Friday, and at least having some semblance of a weekend with my family.
On one long-term gig (Atlanta) I just said “no mas” to the hotel room and actually bought a nearby brand-new condo. Rented it out after the assignment ended, sold it a year later and managed to break even. (I foolishly thought that all real estate markets were as good as Calif)
It did look like BC suffered from some jet lag in the second half, but we all know at that age there’s a lot of adrenaline going on, so who knows for sure.
My preference flying east is to avoid the red eye like the plague. A red eye will likely mess me up for days.
Unless you are flying in a fully reclining seat, which is a different ballgame than most travelers.
Also avoid really early morning departure, like 7 am, which in some cases, depending on how far to airport, might mean being up at 3 am.
After maybe being up late the night before, packing and trip prep, really early morn departure is no bueno.
Sweet spot is something like mid morning departure, arrive evening but not super late, try to go to bed before midnight local time.
Next day usually not that bad. Multiple coffees helps.
Flying west usually not that bad.
Yes jet lag a thing.
But we talking about young 20 somethings.
Some of em think being up til 1 or 2 am and then only sleep 4 hours, is a normal routine.
I think for our Boston college game, in the 4th quarter, our ball control, OLine energy, and repeated punishing runs by Micah Ford and the rest of our talented RB committee, keeping their DLine on the field for a long stretch so they wore down, was the main reason for our good ground game.
Not their jet lag.
But of course the next game(s) will tell more so.
Also the effect of the travel depends a lot on the connections, not just the total distance.
A 2500 mile non-stop flight with not too bad ground travel to and from the airports,
is a lot easier trip than a 1500 mile trip with 1 or 2 connections and tedious ground travel also included.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - Mick - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 12:01 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(09-15-2025, 11:50 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: It did look like BC suffered from some jet lag in the second half, but we all know at that age there’s a lot of adrenaline going on, so who knows for sure.
Adrenaline only works for so long. I had a feeling that they were going to be hurting coming out of halftime, and I think that was the case. Once you sit down, so to speak, it gets a little harder to get up when fatigue is setting in like that. If BC was taking exogenous adrenaline...if we think body clock wasn't a factor...then this Stanford team might be much better than expected now. But after that Northwestern game almost a decade ago, I think we all know that everything, including biology, affects sports performance.
For me, it was Texas vs. Stanford at Texas. Kickoff was 11:11 a.m. local time, or 9:11 body clock time. Our players were still quite tired, they likely had to be up at 7 a.m. local time, or 5 a.m. body clock time. Result was a 69-17 loss.
The next season, Texas visited Stanford. Kickoff was 7:25 local time, 9:25 p.m. body clock time for the Longhorns. Game ended at 11 p.m., or 1:00 a.m., body clock time for the Texas players. Stanford won, 27-24. 55 point turnaround.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - CowboyIndian - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 11:45 AM)fullmetal Wrote: I certainly think he's done wonders for the defense.
I'm reading that the defensive calls are being made by the new co-DC from Sac State (Andy Thompson?). He's on the sideline and I assume April is in the booth. Not sure how to assign blame or praise for the D.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - cctop - 09-15-2025
Stanford @ Northwestern in 2015.
9am body clock kickoff.
16-6 loss in the first game of the season likely though not certainly kept us out of our best shot at the CFB playoffs.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - fullmetal - 09-15-2025
(09-15-2025, 03:32 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote: I'm reading that the defensive calls are being made by the new co-DC from Sac State (Andy Thompson?). He's on the sideline and I assume April is in the booth. Not sure how to assign blame or praise for the D.
April was the defensive coordinator last year who did a great job, so I have no reason to believe he isn't continuing to make things tick on that side of the ball. If Thompson is a defensive savant, it didn't show at Sac State last year, where his squad went 3-9, giving up a lot of points. But your sources could be right.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - msqueri - 09-16-2025
It’s become clear via Frank Reich comments, including in yesterday’s press conference, and other data points (such as in-game commentary from announcers who get production meetings with the coaches) that Thompson is the primary defensive coordinator. Certainly the play caller. After the Sacramento State history it’s not the decision I would have made, but I think it’s fair to say April was demoted.
RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Boston College - fullmetal - 09-16-2025
I'll take your analysis. I feel bad for April, but the results seem to show no substantial drop-off. Whether Thompson's status as primary-DC-in-practice was Reich's idea or whether that was a TT decision that didn't get overturned is of interest since they're both listed as co-DCs.