clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Boston College Football Banter: The Great State of Massachusetts

New, 17 comments
Boston College v Temple Photo by Cody Glenn/Getty Images

Laura: So, what did everyone think of Grosel’s first game as starter?

Will: I know he’s not Jurkovec but he’s got to be better. He’s been around too long

Arthur: I think the problem is that right now the offense is still designed around a quarterback who can make a deep throw on a regular basis, and that isn’t Grosel. I wonder if the progression is such that he is looking for the deep ball as the primary on a number of plays, and that doesn’t make sense. I think that the coaches need to sit down and retool the offense knowing what they’ve got. Grosel is effective on mid range throws, and the offense needs to embrace that.

Curtis: 100% agreed. Especially with this upcoming game against a Mizzou team that is weak against the run. Grosel just needs to be enough of a threat in the mid and short range passing game to give Garwo and the other RBs some room to run. The offense unfortunately can’t open up more than about 15 yards downfield now, but they are still a very capable squad otherwise.

Niraj: We still need to keep a good vertical passing game (and we will) despite the drop-off from Jurkovec to Grosel. He looked frustrated post-game with those two poor deep passes—and they were quite concerning. We have the players to stretch the field and they have to if they expect to keep defenses honest. Looking back at last year’s Virginia game, he connected on a few deep balls, and also got picked off deep just like this past week. It won’t be a regular basis, but they still can open up more than they showed this past week
Agreed though in general — plenty they can do in the quick passing game, and mid-range. Getting Jaelen Gill back would be huge for that

Arthur: There’s also the realistic possibility that Grosel might be shaking off some cobwebs—it’s been a minute since he had taken first team snaps in a game with regularity.
Outside of Grosel what did we think about BC on Saturday? It felt like a tale of two halves.

Grant: Well, one thing I liked — as I mentioned in Key Play this week — was Flowers being involved and looking healthy. He had the injury scare against UMass and I think is in the clear on that.
Not to keep harping on the Grosel topic but Flowers is going to be crucial. His open-space ability gives us a deep play threat even on a short pass.

Curtis: Yeah, the weapons Grosel has at his disposal are still exceptional. If he shakes off some rust like Arthur said, combined with the addition of Jaelen Gill soon, I still have plenty of room for optimism with this offense. The emergence of Garwo as a legit running threat is huge, too.
Also my bad for staying on Grosel! The defense was very impressive this week, even if it was against Temple. It gives me hope that there will be some steady improvement there as the season progresses. Though they’re jumping right into the thick of it with an explosive Mizzou offense coming up right after getting 3 games against meager offenses.

Arthur: The defense is definitely going to get its biggest test of the season. It’s felt bend don’t break-y all year, but that ain’t gonna fly against SEC Pawwwwl.

Grant: It’s interesting that this game is close to a pick-em. I can’t tell if that’s giving us a lot of respect or what - SEC is SEC!

Curtis: I think it has a lot to do with Mizzou’s performance against Kentucky. If you told me in the preseason that we lost Jurkovec, then I’d have said Mizzou is probably a 10-14 point favorite. But their defense looked extremely pedestrian against UK and BC may be able to exploit it. (edited)

Arthur: So the thing about Mizzou is that they’re in a bit of a transition too. Their quarterback may have more starter experience but this is his first year in a pass first offense. Also, yeah, that D leaves a lot to be desired
It’s been a minute since I saw Mizzou up close, and granted they were playing Georgia when I saw them, and BC ain’t Georgia, but I think they’re about as even as can be in terms of skill.

Arthur: So what do we view as a success this week?

Curtis: I’d like to see 3 TDs from the offense and it ending as no more than a 2 possession game. A win is definitely possible, but I’m trying to put myself in full pessimist mode for the rest of the season. (As if I’m not always in full pessimist mode when it comes to BC football.)

Grant: Well, a win is a success haha... Before the season I’d have guessed that 4-0 would get us into the rankings going to Clemson. I don’t think we get there now (perception isn’t high enough sans-Jurkovec), but these close games — now that there are so many of them — are going to have to be wins if we’re going to have a good year. I don’t care how we do it, it can be ugly as all hell, but success is only measured with a W this week.

Arthur: I’ll tell ya what, a W for BC this week would make Drinkwitz really not want to play this game. For whatever it’s worth, New England isn’t a fertile recruiting ground, but the northeast absolutely can be, so that, to me, seems like a dumb take.

Grant: I mean I get where he’s going with that though — who in New England is going to target Missouri as a place to place college football? And that’s not intended to be disrespectful, it’s just not on anyone’s radar up here. And that’s Drinkwitz’ point.

Curtis: We should make sure to link what we’re talking about, not all of our readers are as Terminally Online as us:

Arthur: So, score predictions? Give me 42-35 BC

Curtis: 38-27 Mizzou. I hope the Eags prove me wrong.

Grant: Those scores are a touch too high... I like BC in an exciting game, call it 28-27 Eagles.

Will: 28-20 BC. I think the team as a whole has been getting stronger even with the QB situation and this could be the game Grosel puts it together. I don’t think Mizzou will be very motivated to play.