Evaluating Recruiting Evaluations: Are all 3 Stars created equally?

[gators4224]

They were playing loose coverage for a lot of the second half, and were not rushing the qb except when they blitzed. Once they shut down Taylor which was by the second quarter, they were playing off, and the game was still close then. Because we were inept. Their qb did have the game of his life (which isn't saying a whole hellva a lot) against us. The game was over at when they reached double digits, and we all knew that. To pretend that all the sudden we thought we were going to have an offensive explosion is just revisionist history. We needed overtime to put on 20 points on FAU, and that is ****ing FAU.

I'm not saying the defense didn't play well, because they did. The defense played a magnificent game with what they had to deal with on the other side of the ball. But there was also a reason that FSU ran it 30 times, because they knew all they had to do was run out the clock. If we showed any offense at all, would their game plan have been different?

They played us like they would have played against a Muschamp team, get to double digits and run out the clock.

That was the scariest thing to me watching the team after Grier went down. If I didn't know, I thought Muschamp was coaching based off our putrid offense and barely getting by FAU and Vandy

 

[Ancient Reptile]

Honest question...how does blowing off your bowl game in year one help your success in year three? Especially, when you are trying to rebuild your brand and you want the kids to see a good product even if it is just for recruiting purposes.

Didn't say it was a smart decision. I have a hard time understanding how those practices could be valuable enough to justify the embarrassment. But many other coaches did the same thing. I think that he knew that his fate and the program's fate will be decided in year three, not year one. That is why I am trying to control my optimism for the coming year, although I agree, basically, with south fla.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

They were playing loose coverage for a lot of the second half, and were not rushing the qb except when they blitzed. Once they shut down Taylor which was by the second quarter, they were playing off, and the game was still close then. Because we were inept. Their qb did have the game of his life (which isn't saying a whole hellva a lot) against us. The game was over at when they reached double digits, and we all knew that. To pretend that all the sudden we thought we were going to have an offensive explosion is just revisionist history. We needed overtime to put on 20 points on FAU, and that is ****ing FAU.

I'm not saying the defense didn't play well, because they did. The defense played a magnificent game with what they had to deal with on the other side of the ball. But there was also a reason that FSU ran it 30 times, because they knew all they had to do was run out the clock. If we showed any offense at all, would their game plan have been different?

They played us like they would have played against a Muschamp team, get to double digits and run out the clock.

They didn't shut Taylor down by the second quarter. He had 11 carries for 61 yards in the first half and 13 carries for 75 yards in the second.

They didn't play conservatively until the very end. With about 8 minutes to go in the 4th they had 49 plays for 162 yards compared to our 69 plays for 208 yards. At that point they had thrown the ball on 60% of their plays -- that's not conservative.

With a 13-0 lead and only 8 minutes to go they had a 3rd and 4 at their own 25. Rather than run it or throw a quick safe pass, they opted to drop back and go for a long pass. Their quarterback gets sacked 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage and he fumbles the ball which they recover in the end zone for a safety. That's not conservative at all -- they thought they needed more points (maybe because we had already been in scoring range 3 times at this point).

After the safety we go 3 and out with the last play of that series being the 5th sack of Treon -- they weren't playing prevent and he was running for his life pretty often.

I don't know if that sack was the final straw or if it was the not so conservative 15 yard pass that they threw on the first play of the next series, but our defense quit at that point.

They ran 10 straight times after that for 112 yards and 2 tds. The d wasn't tired, they had only been on the field for 50 plays, they just quit. If we had been able to kick field goals and it was 13-11 instead of 13-2, maybe we keep playing defense and the outcome is different.

I just don't see how you think they were playing conservative. Are you thinking they would have thrown the ball on 80% of their plays instead of 60%?

 

[TheDouglas78]

They didn't shut Taylor down by the second quarter. He had 11 carries for 61 yards in the first half and 13 carries for 75 yards in the second.

How effective were those yards... were they effective yards? Had a 20 yard run in the first quarter, drive ended gaining a total of 15 yards. In 4th he had a carry of 22 yards on a 23 yard drive. He had some 8, 9, back to back 6 yard runs, that ended up being 12, 13 etc.. yard series.

They didn't play conservatively until the very end. With about 8 minutes to go in the 4th they had 49 plays for 162 yards compared to our 69 plays for 208 yards. At that point they had thrown the ball on 60% of their plays -- that's not conservative.

1st Quarter 7 pass plays 4 running plays
2nd Quarter 11 pass plays 6 running plays
3rd Quarter 7 pass plays 5 running plays
4th Quarter 5 pass plays 12 running plays

only 28 actual attempts by McGuire

With a 13-0 lead and only 8 minutes to go they had a 3rd and 4 at their own 25. Rather than run it or throw a quick safe pass, they opted to drop back and go for a long pass. Their quarterback gets sacked 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage and he fumbles the ball which we recover in the end zone for a safety. That's not conservative at all -- they thought they needed more points (maybe because we had already been in scoring range 3 times at this point).

So a short pass isn't considered conservative after two Cook runs (6 yards, 0 yards)... I know not to Muschamp it isn't... but on 3rd and 4 against an offense that hasn't done anything... it's pretty conservative. You make it sound like they were going for the long bomb. And if their defense the next play was another short pass that ended up being a 15 yard gain.

After the safety we go 3 and out with the last play of that series being the 5th sack of Treon -- they weren't playing prevent and he was running for his life pretty often.

I don't know if that sack was the final straw or if it was the not conservative 30 yard pass that they threw on the first play of the next series, but our defense quit at that point.

They ran 10 straight times after that for 112 yards and 2 tds. The d wasn't tired, they had only been on the field for 50 plays, they just quit. If we had been able to kick field goal and it was 13-11 instead of 13-0, maybe we keep playing defense and the outcome is different.

Maybe they throw it more. Who knows.

I just don't see how you think they were playing conservative. Are you thinking they would have thrown the ball on 80% of their plays instead of 60%?

there are different kinds of throws. They weren't asking McGuire to bomb the ball... short conservative throws. It's not that hard of a concept especially being the rules are offense geared. After McGuire's last pass which was for 15 yards after the sack, they ran 9 more times. You can see the complete shift in offensive play calling in the play by play outside of the drive at the 9:55 mark in the 3rd where they had two different 3rd and medium to long... it was run centric. Unless you think you should run on 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 14 against a team with little to no offensive firepower.

 

[T REX]

We had more offensive yards and first downs total for the game until late in the 4th quarter. They weren't playing prevent.

I hate FSU but they were in control the whole game. Anyone who thinks that game was close is not dealing with reality. Bama could have beaten us by 50 if they wanted.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

How effective were those yards... were they effective yards? Had a 20 yard run in the first quarter, drive ended gaining a total of 15 yards. In 4th he had a carry of 22 yards on a 23 yard drive. He had some 8, 9, back to back 6 yard runs, that ended up being 12, 13 etc.. yard series.

So now you've changed your mind and agree that they didn't shut Taylor down by the 2nd quarter and you want to change your position to something else?

1st Quarter 7 pass plays 4 running plays
2nd Quarter 11 pass plays 6 running plays
3rd Quarter 7 pass plays 5 running plays
4th Quarter 5 pass plays 12 running plays

So you also agree that they were pass heavy until the fourth quarter. You are missing a couple of pass plays here. Sacks are passing plays.

So a short pass isn't considered conservative after two Cook

You don't get sacked 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage on a short conservative throw.

You can see the complete shift in offensive play calling in the play by play outside of the drive at the 9:55 mark in the 3rd

All I see is consistent 60/40 pass/run ratio until the second half of the 4th where they rattled off 10 consecutive runs.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

I hate FSU but they were in control the whole game. Anyone who thinks that game was close is not dealing with reality. Bama could have beaten us by 50 if they wanted.

I agree that Bama was in control (though 50 is not close to accurate) the whole game, but I think we would have been competitive with FSU if we had a kicker.

 

[CGgater]

...but I think we would have been competitive with FSU if we had a QB.

FIFY.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

FIFY.

I would go kicker, o line, qb in that order.

The good news is we've improved all 3.

 

[TheDouglas78]

So now you've changed your mind and agree that they didn't shut Taylor down by the 2nd quarter and you want to change your position to something else?

He ran for yards, didn't mean they were effective yards. there is a difference.

So you also agree that they were pass heavy until the fourth quarter. You are missing a couple of pass plays here. Sacks are passing plays.

30 passing plays but 28 attempts... math is your friend. I register 30 passing plays, add them up... then said on 28 attempts.

You don't get sacked 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage on a short conservative throw.

if you are running from a DE or a DL you do... do you have a replay of that play?

All I see is consistent 60/40 pass/run ratio until the second half of the 4th where they rattled off 10 consecutive runs.

statistically until the end of the 3rd (not the second half of the 4th, play chart doesn't even agree with that), you could say that... but the long drive in the third obviously attempting to run, but due to down and distance having to pass. Rewatch that game, I've watched it 3 times, felt worse each time I saw it.

If we had even the talent we had the previous year at OL, QB, and Kicker we are in that game. From the point they go up by 10, that game was over.

 

[T REX]

Last year's defense was pretty darn good. Muschamp recruited a lot of talent on that side of the ball. Defense will keep you in games and that is what happened for most of the season. Mac, the wizard, couldn't come up with anything for Treon at the end. We really had zero chance of beating Bama, FSU or Mich. Hanging with a team for a bit before getting your doors blown off is still getting your doors blown off. What if? Sorry but that's a bunch of non-sense.

 

[soflagator]

I hate FSU but they were in control the whole game. Anyone who thinks that game was close is not dealing with reality. Bama could have beaten us by 50 if they wanted.

With a FG kicker, it's a 13-11 game with 9 minutes to go in the 4th, and we have the ball. Not debatable. For that matter, if one of our defenders lands on the ball and scores instead of the safety, we take the lead at that point. No one's arguing that they didn't have our offense in check for most of the game. That's both true and understandable given our QB situation. But the fact remains that if we have a kicker, our defense had played well enough to win the game, which was my original point. It may have resembled a WM-style of game, but it wasn't a blowout. And it wasn't as if Fisher didn't want to crush us. He was running misdirection plays with his starting RB inside of a minute to go.

Teams lose games that they "controlled" all time. They don't have 11 point leads late in the 4th in a blowout.

 

[TheDouglas78]

With a FG kicker, it's a 13-11 game with 9 minutes to go in the 4th, and we have the ball. Not debatable. For that matter, if one of our defenders lands on the ball and scores instead of the safety, we take the lead at that point. No one's arguing that they didn't have our offense in check for most of the game. That's both true and understandable given our QB situation. But the fact remains that if we have a kicker, our defense had played well enough to win the game, which was my original point. It may have resembled a WM-style of game, but it wasn't a blowout. And it wasn't as if Fisher didn't want to crush us. He was running misdirection plays with his starting RB inside of a minute to go.

Actually it is debatable, because would FSU play as loosely against us as they did if we did have the opportunity to score. Would they have taken more chances with the quarterback, who was playing a really safe game. The defense did play well enough to win the game, but we didn't have an offense to do anything and FSU knew it. Why push their quarterback further than they had to, against a defensive backfield that could make him pay.

[

Teams lose games that they "controlled" all time. They don't have 11 point leads late in the 4th in a blowout.

Fully agree that teams lose games they have controlled all game long, see our game against Tennessee the last two years. And no one said it was a blowout, just we weren't in the game. Just because we weren't in the game, doesn't mean it was a blowout. Kentucky wasn't going to beat us last year, and we controlled the game, but we won by 5. Same type of situation... FSU had the game, but it wasn't a blowout.

 

[T REX]

With a FG kicker, it's a 13-11 game with 9 minutes to go in the 4th, and we have the ball. Not debatable. For that matter, if one of our defenders lands on the ball and scores instead of the safety, we take the lead at that point. No one's arguing that they didn't have our offense in check for most of the game. That's both true and understandable given our QB situation. But the fact remains that if we have a kicker, our defense had played well enough to win the game, which was my original point. It may have resembled a WM-style of game, but it wasn't a blowout. And it wasn't as if Fisher didn't want to crush us. He was running misdirection plays with his starting RB inside of a minute to go.

Teams lose games that they "controlled" all time. They don't have 11 point leads late in the 4th in a blowout.

It is debatable. FSU didn't have to try to score much. They went conservative because they could and did. It sucks to say it but they had their way with us.

 

[soflagator]

Actually it is debatable, because would FSU play as loosely against us as they did if we did have the opportunity to score. Would they have taken more chances with with quarterback, who was playing a really safe game. The defense did play well enough to win the game, but we didn't have an offense to do anything and FSU knew it. Why push their quarterback further than they had to, against a defensive backfield that could make him pay.

[

Fully agree that teams lose games they have controlled all game long, see our game against Tennessee the last two years. And no one said it was a blowout, just we weren't in the game. Just because we weren't in the game, doesn't mean it was a blowout. Kentucky wasn't going to beat us last year, and we controlled the game, but we won by 5. Same type of situation... FSU had the game, but it wasn't a blowout.

BMF said it was a blowout. See my original response to him.

All the other points about them playing a little more conservative out of respect for our D, all fall under the same umbrella. We were down the whole game, but close enough that they weren't going to take many chances and give us the game. That simply doesn't equal a blowout.

 

[TheDouglas78]

BMF said it was a blowout. See my original response to him.

All the other points about them playing a little more conservative out of respect for our D, all fall under the same umbrella. We were down the whole game, but close enough that they weren't going to take many chances and give us the game. That simply doesn't equal a blowout.

Must have missed that. I just don't think we win this game even with a kicker, our defense played very well. All the lack of kicker did was allow them to play more conservative than they would have previously.

 

[Rentmoneygawd]

Last year's defense was pretty darn good. Muschamp recruited a lot of talent on that side of the ball. Defense will keep you in games and that is what happened for most of the season. Mac, the wizard, couldn't come up with anything for Treon at the end. We really had zero chance of beating Bama, FSU or Mich. Hanging with a team for a bit before getting your doors blown off is still getting your doors blown off. What if? Sorry but that's a bunch of non-sense.

Inaccurate as usual my friend...Receivers were open...cant blame Mac for Treon not being able to hit a 6 yard slant or a 5 yard out. The easy throws were there Treon just missed. Nice try to throw the new coach under the bus for Treon being inept.

 

[soflagator]

It is debatable. FSU didn't have to try to score much. They went conservative because they could and did. It sucks to say it but they had their way with us.

I wasn't aware that math and a the time left on a clock were debatable. I stand down, as this changes everything.

I guess there's no reason to point out the fact that in McGuire's first 4 starts, he averaged 27 pass attempts. Against us, Fisher had him throw it 28 times.

"Bedroom deficiencies" aside, Fisher is a fairly bright head coach. There's zero chance he's purposely sitting on a 10 point lead on the road against a rival. While I agree he wasn't trying to score 50, he also wasn't completely shutting it down. We were competitive for most of the game.

 

[Bernardo de la Paz]

do you have a replay of that play?

Here's the play:

http://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2015-11-28/fbs-highlight-florida-state-florida-safety

They went with the shotgun and sent 5 guys out to receive a pass leaving no extra blockers to pick up the blitz. Only one guy ran a short route... That's the guy the qb tried to check down to, but that wasn't the first option and he was too late.

If you want to call that conservative, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[CGgater]

I would go kicker, o line, qb in that order.

The good news is we've improved all 3.

True

I say QB because if Harris hits a wide freakin open Callaway, we score 7-14 points the easy way and f$u has to respect the pass, opening our running game before the turds are able to wear down our D.