The most comprehensive breakdown of the Seminoles anywhere on the net... inside.

Rich at Chantrant has a cool story on a Myron Rolle radio interview.

First, listen to the coaches' press conferences (free):

Mickey Andrews Podcast 11.17 - Free

Of particular concern is this quote from Mickey:

Look at the two touchdowns and they had a pattern on both of them. On the first one there was a 47yard run on the first play, we had a penalty to keep drive alive, a 15yard penalty, so out of that 69-yard drive, only seven were actually earned because we should have made the tackle at the line of scrimmage and didn't. So plays like that, we just need to step up there and make the tackle and line up and play again and you don't know what is going to happen over the course of the game, you can't take plays back, but at the same time you see areas where you just need to dependent and go do your job and do it better than anybody on the field.  On the other touchdown, it was a seven-play, 71yard drive. There was a 57yard pass and another interference penalty, it was only four-yards but it gave them a first down I think at the two (yard line) and then we didn't make a tackle. We had three guys that could have made the tackle, one guy knocked two of them off and he didn't make the tackle. Just go do your job and do it better than anybody on the field. If we had just done that we would have won the football game.

Not taking personal responsibility for the failures of your defense?  Failing to understand what went wrong?  Blaming the players?  Resorting to cheap motivational tactics rather than admitting that you didn't call your best game? 

What's more?  Gene Williams (DotCom), of Warchant.com asks in his blog whether it's time to shake up the defensive coaching staff! !  Never thought I'd see that!

Jimbo Fisher Podcast 11.17 - Free

On the interception in the end zone:

When the receiver had inside leverage, it's his job to press the DB.  The throw was there if we run that right [Carr].  Instead, we don't press it, the DB squeezed the receiver, and then we're out of position. 

This is what I thought.  Carr, who played a bad game, didn't run the route correctly.

Christian Ponder Podcast 11.17 - Free

No individual film breakdown this week.  Instead, I'll comment on things I saw and will take questions on other things. 

Leverage

I We discussed the concept of leverage here last week.  Typically, the idea is to stay out of 2-8+ and 3-5+,  or keep the opposition in those downs. 

Boston College ran 48 plays on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down.  21 were passing downs.  27 were non passing downs.  That's a 56% LEVERAGE PERFORMANCE by the BC offense (or conversely, a 44% LEVERAGE rate by the defense).  That's exceptional performance by BC's.  Another key measurement is the % of passing downs out of total downs faced.  BC faced 26% passing downs (21 of 81).  That is excellent... for Boston College.  The very best offenses face 20% passing downs.  BC's offense is horrible, yet they were able to face only 26% passing downs.  The FSU defense did not play very well.  

Florida State ran 29 2nd/ 3rd/ 4th down plays.  Of those, 19 were passing downs and 10 were non-passing downs, which is good for a 33% leverage rate.  If you read the linked explanation, you'll realize that's terrible.  Teams do not (and should not) expect to regularly succeed on passing downs.  Florida State could not stay ahead of or even on schedule, and they paid dearly.  What were our total passing downs?  35% of FSU's 59 plays were passing downs.

BC achieved incredible leverage, but what did they do with that leverage?

Success Rates

I discussed success rates last week.

Boston College

As discussed above, BC faced 27 NPD's, 21 PD's, and 87 total downs.  Of those, they had success on 37 of the 81, or a 46% overall success rate.  The goal is to limit opponents under 40% success, with 44% being the true tipping point. 

BC's 1st downs

On a down specific basis, Boston College was successful on 8 of 33 1st Downs (26%), which is excellent first down defense by the Noles.  BC did a nice job of gaining at least some yards on 1st down, however, and we'll see that it paid off in later downs as they stayed behind, but somewhat close to schedule. 

BC's 2ND DOWNS

BC found success on16 of 27 2nd downs.  Again, the goal here is under 40%.  BC succeeded 59% of the time.  The defense laid a huge egg here.  Specifically, BC succeeded in 7 of 13 2nd down passing situations (54%), and on 9 of 14 non-passing situations (64%).  NOTE: Those aren't times they threw or ran, they are passing situations (2nd and 8+), or non-passing situations (2nd and 7 or less).  Allowing 59% success on 2nd down is atrocious in its own right, but allowing 54% success in passing situations (situations where the defense is playing with a high amount of leverage) is ridiculous.  Teams can expect to succeed less than 30% of the time on passing downs, and against BC, we should have held them to something in the mid 20's%, not FIFTY FOUR PERCENT!!  There is no way that a solid gameplan and scheme, given our players, should allow something like that to an offense as bad as BC.

BC's 3rd/ & 4th Downs

BC found success on13 of 20 3rd downs.  Again, the goal here is under 40%.  BC succeeded 65% of the time!!  The defense laid an even bigger egg here.  Specifically, BC succeeded in 5 of 8 3rd down passing situations (63%), and on 8 of 12 non-passing situations (66%).  NOTE: Those aren't times they threw or ran, they are passing situations (3rd and 5+), or non-passing situations (3rd and 4 or less).  Allowing 59% success on 3rd down is atrocious in its own right, but allowing 63% success in passing situations (situations where the defense is playing with a high amount of leverage) is ridiculous.  There is no way that a solid gameplan and scheme, given our players, should allow something like that to an offense as bad as BC.  Even in the 3 3rd down passing down situations where FSU "succeeded", one was a false start on BC (where they would pick up 3rd and 12 on the subsequent play), and another was a 3rd and 10 where they proceeded to gain 8 yards and pick up the remaining 2 on a 4th down run.

BC did a decent job of gaining at least some yards on 1st down, and proceeded to absolutely destroy FSU in 2nd and especially 3rd down.  While it is expected that they'll do a 'lil better than 44% in non-passing down and distance, 65% (17 of 26) is complete garbage. Further, in the situation that offers the greatest advantage to the defense  (passing down and distance), Boston college succeeded 57% of the time (12 of 21).

This was a schematic failure.  It was also a teaching failure, as some of our guys clearly have not received proper instruction on technique.  This coaching staff did not set these guys up for success, both during the season, and before this game.

Florida State

I discussed success rates last week.

As discussed above, FSU  faced 10 NPD's, 19 PD's, and 55 total downs.  Of those, they had success on 23 of the 55, or a 42% overall success rate.  The goal is to be above 44%, so we just missed.  Let's go deeper.

FSU's 1st Down's

On a down specific basis, Florida State was successful on 14 of 26 1st Downs (54%), which is excellent.  Interestingly, it seemed like FSU either had a big gain or a loss of yards on 1st down, something I discussed in [insert link discussing concerns over boom or bust running game] . 

FSU's 2nd Downs

FSU found success on 6 of 17 2nd downs.  Again, the goal here is over 44%.  FSU succeeded 35% of the time.  The offense did not perform well on 2nd down.  Specifically, FSU succeeded in 3 of 10 2nd down passing situations (30%), and on 3 of 7 non-passing situations (43%).  NOTE: Those aren't times they threw or ran, they are passing situations (2nd and 8+), or non-passing situations (2nd and 7 or less).  The 30% in passing down and distance isn't good, but it's not horrendous.  One of the non-successes was a dropped pass.  If Antone can catch it, we're at 40%.  We want to hit about 35% in passing situations, or at least that is my goal.  The 43% in running situations backs up the idea that our line got dominated.  Ponder was the only one to have success in 2nd down.  He ran 2 draws for 1st downs.  The runs by other players?  -1, 5, -1, -2.  The offensive line gave no time in passing situations, on the whole, and it's pretty evident that they failed in run blocking as well.  That shows up in the quarterback scramble numbers.  In watching the tape, you can see that Ponder got extremely gunshy and did not trust his wideouts to run the correct patterns; for good reason, as they ran poor routes on 2 of the 3 interceptions.  More on that later.

FSU's 3rd downs.

FSU found success on 3 of 12 2nd downs.  Again, the goal here is over 44%.  FSU succeeded 25% of the time.  The offense did not perform well on 3nd down at all.  Specifically, FSU succeeded in 1 of 9 3rd down passing situations (11%), and on 2 of 3 non-passing situations (66%).  NOTE: Those aren't times they threw or ran, they are passing situations (3rd and 5+), or non-passing situations (3rd and 4 or less).  The 11% in passing down and distance is bad.  We want to hit about 35% in passing situations, or at least that is my goal.  I think we saw some of the mistrust from Ponder here.  3rd and short against a zone basically requires guys to find the hole and sit down.  They did a poor job of that, and Ponder did a poor job of anticipating their moves.  He was also under a lot of pressure.  I was really disappointed in our wide receiver's willingness to be rerouted.  Everyone in this facet needs to get better.  Some of this will come with time.  

The 66% in running situations is quite good, but FSU only had 3 instances of 3rd and 4 or less. 

Florida State did a decent job on 1st down, but when they failed on 1st down they failed badly.  FSU was below goal in 2nd and especially 3rd down.  It is expected that they'll do a 'lil better than 44% in non-passing down and distance, and 50% (5 of 10) is acceptable.  The problem is that FSU did not have enough of those opportunities.  They did however, face many a situation that offers the greatest advantage to the defense  (passing down and distance), and succeeded only 21% of the time (4 of 19).  When FSU was forced to pass, BC's front pinned their ears back, the pocket was destroyed, Ponder had to escape, and BC rolled coverage.

Continuing Weasie's question:

You can tell sometimes when a QB throws a ball one way and the receiver breaks the other or when there is no one around. Will we abandon downfield route schemes in these next two games to protect against teams sitting back on us? It seems like we don’t have time to do it anyway unless we roll the pocket and when you do that you’re limiting yourself to one side of the field most of the time.

I won’t ever question Jimbo’s play calling because I have no clue what I’m talking about half the time, but it didn’t look like we were opening anything up against B.C. I think he tried to say that he wasn’t able to build anything because we didn’t have the ball alot. I guess I’ll wait for your play analysis later in the week, but I dont understand why we just didnt do the same thing to them that they were doing to us. Run the same plays that work until they adjust to stop them. The little dump throws and bubbles seemed to be there for a good 4-6 yards each time. I understand the necessity for getting big chunks of yards when you’re down, but I think it was apparent that they were trying to make sure we had the ball as little as possible. Why were we throwing anything dangerous. I was having flashbacks to the Wake game.

I'll look at this today and answer it in the context of Fisher's comments and my film thoughts.