Ex-UConn coach Edsall a national punching bag - CT Post

[noeynox]

I told myself I wouldn't chime in on the Randy Edsall thing, so naturally, here's a "chime"...


Much of the venom people are sending his way now is due to the hypocritical and hurtful manner in which he left the program, and I feel what you feel. and I hope Coach PP beats the hell out of him when we play Maryland....

I could care less about the way he left. I was glad he left for another job, because he was never going to lose his job here. I just once thought we had a special coach on our hands but as time went on, I realized we didn't. I feel his conservative nature cost us a few games where we were the better team

 

[sdhusky]

Basically this is the point. If we win the two winnable games and stroll in to the Fiesta at 10-2, does it change the outcome against OK? No, but it changes the perception of the program. If you believe, like I do, that those losses were more on Edsall than on the personnel on the field, your a "hater". It really isn't about knocking the accomplishments of the kids, but somehow, its been made it into that. To say nothing of the fact that former coach was a jerk to media and called out fans, while being super sensitive to any type of criticism. Whatever, I don't have the energy anymore. I'm glad he's gone, that is all. I will try to resist the temptation to post in anymore Edsall threads.

We need the spring game.

We also won some very losable games.

It not like we beat USF, Pitt or WVU by dominating scores. We could have easily been 5-7 that year too.

 

[UConnDan97]

I just once thought we had a special coach on our hands but as time went on, I realized we didn't. I feel his conservative nature cost us a few games where we were the better team

Was that before or after we entered our first BCS game against Oklahoma? (I'm guessing the week before that game, you weren't very vocal about his lack of coaching ability). Or maybe it was when we upset WVU along the way? Or maybe it was the time we beat South Carolina at a neutral site? Or maybe before that when we beat Notre Dame at ND?

His conservative nature may have cost us some games where we were the more athletic team, but it also won us some games when we clearly were not....

...again, I'm not going to build a statue for him. But I'm not going to act like he accomplished nothing here, either.

 

[sdhusky]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[[/quote]

 

[huskysupporter]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[

[/quote]

How do you know what a coaches peak is, if he is still coaching?

 

[UConnDan97]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[

I haven't made a mistake; we got to the Fiesta Bowl because we won the Big East. Winning the Big East happens ONLY through on field excellence! If it was so easy, WVU would have been our representative every year!

We ran into a buzzsaw in Oklahoma, a team with more NFL players on the roster than almost any other team in the nation. Are you telling me that we should have been their equal? Are you telling me that it was Edsall's fault that we didn't win?? Not only were we the underdog, but we were still competitive even through the third quarter in a game where two separate balls bounced off of our receiver's chest and got returned for a pick-6. We were out-gunned and the ball bounced funny to make matters worse.

And did you say "a normal BCS team"??? A normal BCS team is riddled with 4 and 5 star recruits, and has been at it for about 100 years. For more on that, see LSU / Bama / Oregon / OSU / Texas / OU / USC / etc. Even the much heralded Notre Dame and Michigan are not "normal BCS teams" anymore...

 

[UConnDan97]

And let me beat you to the "Michigan won a BCS game last year" punch. They won an at-large BCS game against another voted-in team....from the ACC! The ACC: the home of BCS losers for a decade...

 

[sdhusky]

we got to the Fiesta Bowl because we won the Big East. Winning the Big East happens ONLY through on field excellence!

If you consider 8-5 & top 35 to be excellence, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I somehow feel excellence means more than being ranked in the 50th percentile of BCS teams that year.

 

[metsfan2323]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

quote]

I think the win over South Carolina in 2009 was the peak, and IMO that peak is only marginally higher than the team that took the field in 2003 and beat Indiana.

2003 is really the forgotton dream season, a solid team that is forgotton only because we were unfairly excluded from the meaningless bowl system. Only three losses that year, at Virginia Tech (when Caulley goes down), at NC state (Phillip Rivers), and home against BC in a very competitive game (still IMO the most energized crowd ever at the Rent). Edsall did a tremendous job getting us to that level in 2003.

 

[UConnDan97]

If you consider 8-5 & top 35 to be excellence, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I somehow feel excellence means more than being ranked in the 50th percentile of BCS teams that year.

Your comment was that we won the big east through "legalities" and not "on field excellence." Yes, that is definitely where we disagree. 5-2 in the Big East is not a legality. It was all done on the field, and in most people's opinions, with inferior talent than all the other Big East teams, save perhaps Syracuse...

 

[sportsart]

I haven't made a mistake; we got to the Fiesta Bowl because we won the Big East. Winning the Big East happens ONLY through on field excellence! If it was so easy, WVU would have been our representative every year!

We ran into a buzzsaw in Oklahoma, a team with more NFL players on the roster than almost any other team in the nation. Are you telling me that we should have been their equal? Are you telling me that it was Edsall's fault that we didn't win?? Not only were we the underdog, but we were still competitive even through the third quarter in a game where two separate balls bounced off of our receiver's chest and got returned for a pick-6. We were out-gunned and the ball bounced funny to make matters worse.

And did you say "a normal BCS team"??? A normal BCS team is riddled with 4 and 5 star recruits, and has been at it for about 100 years. For more on that, see LSU / Bama / Oregon / OSU / Texas / OU / USC / etc. Even the much heralded Notre Dame and Michigan are not "normal BCS teams" anymore...

Let me help you save time in your life you'll never get back. Whatever went wrong was Randy's fault and whatever went right was because the Big East was weak. He won more games due to being conservative with limited talent but when he loses a few games due to being conservative he's a bad coach.

Even though the ACC has lost like 9 out of 10 BCS Bowl games the coaches of the losing teams couldn't be as bad as Randy right? Yes I know that has not been posted on here but it might as well be.

 

[UConnDan97]

Thanks, sportsart. You've probably saved me at least 2 hours of typing and an additional 4 hours of reading insanity. I should be prepping myself for the UConn - Cuse game tonight, since I am chomping like a Husky at the bit!! Instead, I find myself in the oddest place; defending a school's sports history from its own fanbase! I should have read the words of wisdom in my signature line that Butchy provided me...

 

[businesslawyer]

Have you played a team sport at a competitive level?

While I wasn't good, I lettered in college (wrestling). If I wrestled well, I made the coach look good. If I werestled poorly, I made the coach look bad. Even if he coached the same either way.

Is that really relevant to anything?

 

[businesslawyer]

Good post bizlaw. You probably won't read this, I'm pretty sure I posted in this thread (think it was this thread) that if given time, Edsall will deliver 7-8, wins consistently at UMD, he is not an incompetent idiot, when it comes to game of football (smarmy jerk, different story). I just believe his conservative approach to offensive and defensive football has a ceiling and is somewhat outdated in this era where high powered offenses are the norm. I disagree that coaches don't make a difference. Brian Kelly led Cincy to an undefeated regular season. We lost to that Cincy team by 2 points. You saw the difference in talent between Cincy and Florida in their bowl game. Long story short, the talent between our team and Cincy was a lot closer than it was between Florida and Cincy. The difference IMO, comes down to coaching, game planning, and scheming. I believe Edsall left a couple of wins on the field his last few years here, and I have a hard time time thinking of any one game, where I thought our coaching got us that win. Early in his tenure, against Navy, Wake Forest, Iowa State, I thought we had potentially a special coach on our hands, but at least for me, the feeling faded.

Edsall's inability to have a consistent passing attack that even got near to average leads to those questions. I understand that. Personally, I think the failure had more to do with recruiting than schemes, but time will (or won't) tell. There is no question Edsall's schemes are more white bread than P's. But, with limited practice time, more focus on fewer plays is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, we'll see what happens going forward, but I'm much more concerned about what we learn about UConn post Edsall than MD with Edsall.

 

[Adios]

I though Edsall was cleaning the place up? Did anyone mention this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...on-jeremy-lin/2012/02/24/gIQABlslXR_blog.html

 

[businesslawyer]

I think the win over South Carolina in 2009 was the peak, and IMO that peak is only marginally higher than the team that took the field in 2003 and beat Indiana.

2003 is really the forgotton dream season, a solid team that is forgotton only because we were unfairly excluded from the meaningless bowl system. Only three losses that year, at Virginia Tech (when Caulley goes down), at NC state (Phillip Rivers), and home against BC in a very competitive game (still IMO the most energized crowd ever at the Rent). Edsall did a tremendous job getting us to that level in 2003.

Look at how and what we beat in '03 versus Edsall's last 4 years. '03 was a great ride, and my hat will forever be off to that team for speeding up our path to success, but struggling to beat the Duke and RU teams we beat that year doesn't lead me to think that team would have done what 07 to 10 did.

 

[jpm25]

While I wasn't good, I lettered in college (wrestling). If I wrestled well, I made the coach look good. If I werestled poorly, I made the coach look bad. Even if he coached the same either way.

Is that really relevant to anything?

it is only relevant to the context in bother to reply to your post about players losing or winning games and coaches being responsible at the end of the season.

 

[JaYnYcE]

I was glad he left for another job, because he was never going to lose his job here. I just once thought we had a special coach on our hands but as time went on, I realized we didn't. I feel his conservative nature cost us a few games where we were the better team

I Totally agree



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sdhusky]

Your comment was that we won the big east through "legalities" and not "on field excellence." Yes, that is definitely where we disagree. 5-2 in the Big East is not a legality. It was all done on the field, and in most people's opinions, with inferior talent than all the other Big East teams, save perhaps Syracuse...

again, being in the 50th percentile of BCS schools might be excellence for you. We just have to agree to disagree.

To me, its the definition of mediocre. And that what Esdall was - mediocre. Which is better than my worst fear - becoming Temple or Rutgers - but its not excellence.

Randy is mediocre as a coach. At UCONN, mediocre met the expectations.

 

[UConnDan97]

again, being in the 50th percentile of BCS schools might be excellence for you..

Wow. In an earlier quote, you had UConn as a "top 35", and now they are in the 50th percentile (#60 / 120)??? If these posts keep going, you might have them down to #90 before Sunday comes! But I can't think about that for 2 reasons:

1) Sportsart told me not to, and he's right, because it's bad for my health and sanity.
2) UConn just lost a heartbreaker to that team from the badlands of New York, and I'm going to go throw up now.

Enjoy...

 

[UConnDan97]

Oh, I see, my fault. You were saying 50th percentile of BCS schools, so I guess you were saying they were still 35th. Weird, because I'm sure that there were non-BCS schools ranked in the top 25 that year, and I'm pretty sure we were ranked before the OU game.....

....again, I have to stop and go throw up now...

 

[sdhusky]

Oh, I see, my fault. You were saying 50th percentile of BCS schools, so I guess you were saying they were still 35th. Weird, because I'm sure that there were non-BCS schools ranked in the top 25 that year, and I'm pretty sure we were ranked before the OU game.....

....again, I have to stop and go throw up now...

You want to quibble? How about in the top 45th percentile of BCS school?

I don't consider that excellence.

 

[UConnDan97]

Let me help you save time in your life you'll never get back. Whatever went wrong was Randy's fault and whatever went right was because the Big East was weak. He won more games due to being conservative with limited talent but when he loses a few games due to being conservative he's a bad coach.

^^ What he said...

 

[sdhusky]

[quote="He won more games due to being conservative with limited talent but when he loses a few games due to being conservative he's a bad coach.[/quote]

I think his inability to win against top 25 teams and his ability to finish in the top 35 was because he was a terrible recruiter. If I had to pick a BE coach to win a game against a MAC school, I would pick Randy.

After a decade in the program, if there is limited talent, it's the coaches fault.

 

[UConnDan97]

=
After a decade in the program, if there is limited talent, it's the coaches fault.

I agree. Mack Brown's Texas team went 8-5 this year. They must have had limited talent. Since he's been there for about a decade or more, Mack Brown sucks. Let's start a new post that says, "Mack Brown Sucks." Wait, what's that, you say? Texas had a lot of talent?? So then Mack Brown must REALLY SUCK!! And this whole time, we've been focusing on Randy! Can you believe it?? Silly us!! [/quote]