Hail to Jacobs!

[specialisthusky]

I don't believe that we are an Orange Bowl caliber team but I do believe that if we appear to be so completely inept on offense I have a difficult time placing this on the talent.

Yes, the talent doesn't really match what they have attempted but they've been around football (as coaches) since Urban Meyer was in grade school. They should be able to assess the talent and formulate something that would utilize the few strengths we have and work a little better than what we have seen.

Save a QB who most fans despised, a quality TB & FB (along with a competent backup), we brought back almost the entirety of the Fiesta Bowl team for this staff's first season yet they couldn't finish .500.

Per our HC, the problem is Red Zone efficiency (we are @ 40% and he believes a quality team need sto be 55% or better). The way I see it, a bigger problem is the lack of appearances in the Red Zone.

Per our OC, third down is the issue (we aren't executing well enough on third down to sustain drives). I happen to believe that if we had a few more first down plays that gained moer than a yard or two we would have more situations where we got the first down before third down or were in a third and short.

If (as the HC/OC claim and you apparantly agree) the problem is that the players cannot get the job done, what are our options? Do we say "the players aren't very good so if we go 3-9 this year, so be it"? Should we expect the coaches to find a way to alter our approach so that perhaps we can score a few more points per game? Can we expect the coaches to at any time state "we need to do a better job of getting the kids in a position to succeed" or does the "they did not executeir assignments" wash their hands of culpability?

great post

 

[TouchdownHusky]

That's an excellent question. But let's look at one difference between Rutgers and UConn. How many times did Jamison get hit and stay up and get a few extra yards? Now ask yourself that same question about McCombs, Hyppolite, and DeLorenzo.

You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap. And I honestly saw a significantly more talented Rutgers team across the field. I don't like it. And I don't think it absolves the coaches of poor decisions. But all coaches make bad choices from time to time, I think (they're human, after all). But people on this board are acting like this is 100% on Pasqualoni and DeLeone, and I think that's a naive way of looking at it, personally.

Agreed there is a talent gap. The UConn offense has some tremendous athletes and usually coaches can turn this raw potential into effective defenses. Kind of like lock down defenders in hoops. Don't let defenders get into your body, run hard, read your keys and take care of your assignment, swarm to the ball and arrive there in a bad mood. Oh and take no plays off.

On offense, there is an element of "being blessed" with special talents. Dean Smith had Michael Jordan . . . how much coaching was involved with him. Jordan was always a scorer and talent extraodinare (Smith actually held in back in the Carolina scheme). Point? Need playmakers on offense. Speed, hands, instinct (Max D's missed cut against Rutgers?), arm strength,etc. All the things that NFL scouts look for at the next level.

Bottom line is UConn is not getting their share of talent (Not the BCS kind). Thats not to say they're getting none. There are and have been some excellent players on the Huskies roster over the years. Just not enough.

And that take us back to coaching. HCPP has got to get it done in February as well as in the fall. I, for one, just am not seeing it. Bad hire, needs to go.

 

[Stinger92860]

The difference between Carder and Whitmer is significant. And maybe Whitmer can grow into it -- he's only a RS Soph.

Whitmer did not face Carder.

Carder played against our D which is NOT lacking in talent.

Whitmer faced a defense ranked 93 out of 120!

Note to self: The coaches were the primary reason we lost to WMU this year.

 

[Husky25]

...But the coaches are not putting them in the best position to succeed (on offense)...

Game, set, and match. Don't have to go any further than this. I also wrote in other threads about this, most recently in response to anoter poster as follows:

weyuo said: Have you guys ever stopped to think that just maybe it's the talent that needs to catch up to the coaching and not the other way around?​

Me: Not for a second. It's not about the Xs and Os. It's about the Jimmys and Joes.​

​

As coaches, I would expect them to put their players in the best possible position to succeed. You can shave just so much off the corners of a square peg to fit into a round hole, but at the end of the day it still won't fit properly.​

​

I liken it to the movie, We Are Marshall? Instead of making his undersized, under-talented team stand toe-to-toe with their opponents, he installed a Veer (Triple Option. Think: Eric Crouch era Nebraska) to help minimize mismatches.​

​

Don't misunderstand me. I don't think UConn should have revamped their entire offense in either the spring of 2011, or 2012. I do think the coaches' schemes (especially in college) should be flexible enough to take advantage of their teams' abilities in any givien year.​

 

[ruskin]

Again, I'm not saying the coaches are without blame.

But let's look at some of these. For one, let's look at Western Michigan. With their senior QB. Who time and time again eluded pressure and made accurate throws on the run. Good decisions. The difference between Carder and Whitmer is significant. And maybe Whitmer can grow into it -- he's only a RS Soph. Whitmer made a great throw on a rollout to Ryan Griffin for a big gain on the first drive of that and we never saw that play again. That play - with play action off it - should be one of our bread-and-butter plays with our senior tight ends. It's not

Sure, the 51 yard FG wasn't great, but again, as I said, all coaches mess up. It's the nature of the game. It wasn't an isolated brain fart. The failure to use ANY timeouts on that possession goes well beyond "messing up"

As far as Buffalo goes, okay, yeah, should we have been so conservative and taken our foot off the gas? Probably not. But we did win. Wins count for something, ugly or not. Usually agree with sentiment in last sentence that but it was a blown chance to give the offense confidence going into BE opener

Again -- I'm not implying that the coaches are without blame. But people act like we have some sort of Orange Bowl-caliber team talent-wise, and I just don't believe that's the case. True, but we do have an Orange Bowl-caliber defense and an offense that has been shackled by the coaches Is the OL unable to block because of schemes or simply because we don't have the talent/mass? Our schemes are easy to prepare for; perhaps talent is somewhat down; don't think 'mass' an issue, Martin one of top strength coaches in nation Is our running game sad because of the OL or because we don't have a great RB? Sad because counters/misdirects never used Is Whitmer making bad decisions because it's always 3rd and long or because our receivers get no separation or because he's just not that experienced and makes bad decisions? A little bit of all three

These are complex questions and I refuse to believe the answer is always "DeLeone's fault." That's all. I am not trying to be an apologist. I am trying to be a realist with realistic expectations for this team and what it's capable of.

Loop, I appreciate the fact you're willing to take a stand and come back and state your position. But my feeling is "the people who write the checks deserve better". If people want to stick with P/GDL and continue subsidizing them after this season, they are more than welcome to. I won't be. Our family will continue to support UConn no matter what, but in other ways besides the football ticket seat donation.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm going to try not to go into a player by player breakdown around here. We're not playing division 1-A football with a standard division 1-A tailback, I expect that as soon as the coachign staff can chagne that, they will. This isn't news. Since about, oh 2004 through 2011, we had stellar play out of the fullback position - two players that moved on to the NFL to be starters. Our 2012 fullbacks, are not going to raise the eyebrows of NFL scouts, with the contact they're generating with their blocking assignments. I think Osiecki got his bell rung at some point, and if not for that, I really thought he'd be a starter this week. He's still on the depth chart, so we'll see how that position shakes out the rest of the way.

THose are two very important positions, when it comes to a power running game. Our best lead blocker to date in 2012, out of the backfield, has been the same guy that is our #1 tailback, when he's not actually carrying the pig, and that makes me angry. Yes, I'm calling out some players that need to get a job done on the field.

Our right side of the offensive line, is powerful, especially with a TE in close, and when we run our sets that have the receivers cracking down on the edge. When we can pull the LG in behind them, and actually get a successful lead block - we have been quite successful runnign the ball.

Our left side of the line, has frankly - if you want to be blunt - been soft, but they're getting more and more game experience, and getting a little bit more physical.

The key to our offense success this year, that I thought it would be, way back in teh srping - the center, has been replaced, with a guy, that I think was leading the pack through the spring until he got knocked out with an injury,and I guy that worked right behind Petrus in practices for a long time.

I think we're setting up well to play out the second half of this season. The wildcard - is up in the ducking booth. If that guy, can simply get these guys practicing, and confident in playign to their strengths, and then put them in position toplay to their strengths on game day, I think we're in good shape.

We have not had a timing oriented, passing offense that works, on top of a successful running game at any point in Big East conference play, in our history. I expect that to change the rest of the way this season.

 

[junglehusky]

You can see here how it would be difficult for Dez Connor to write a piece that's motivated by the fanbase's reactions / frustrations with the coaching staff, but Jeff Jacobs can. Jacobs made a point that folks can judge the mood of the hardcore fans from message boards (i.e. the boneyard) and social media but it's harder to judge the casual fans. Well I bet you can look at the empty seats of late arrivers in the 4th quarter and early leavers in the 4th for a pretty good metric, along with season ticket sales.

Other random thoughts... uconnfan68 vs Husky68 fight! Were you guys ex-roommates back in the day or something? Maybe one was shipping out to "Nam while the other was protesting and doing sit-ins.

I'll be the first to admit - I had to look Katahdin on wikipedia. Before that I was scratching my head saying "Why are the referencing the furniture store in New Haven?" (And - I had assumed that the furniture store was spelled Katahdian, owned by Persians who branched out from the rug business into the furniture business. So I learned two things from that.)

 

[uconnfan68]

We have immature fans and players. But yet no comment on the coaches? Are they not part of this, you have no critique?

Why support a coach who can't even manage time outs?

You are pretty immature for calling questions about PP/GD performance wailing and gnashing teeth. PP is just an employee of Uconn, has a job to do, and is doing it very, very poorly. Not only that he is doing it poorly and enjoying it (per his words, not the poorly part), which makes him doubly clueless.

So where are all the injuries - "on defense" so stop wailing and gnashing your teeth about injuries. Offense has no significant injuries and is # 112 in country. You saying you need 4 and 5 star recruits to have a better offense than that, stop wailing and gnashing you teeth about recruiting. This is poor coaching of Krathorpean proportions.

#1. Why do I need to criticize coaches too? Is that mandatory?
#2. I am a little upset by booing of players... college players. I would consider that immaturity.
#3. I'm a little upset some players feel the need to publicly criticize their coaches and teammates. I would consider that immaturity.
# That you consider me immature for pointing out things like that... well, I consider the source. You're probably just a senile old man, as evidenced by the number in your handle.

 

[BugsyCT]

We don't have Orange Bowl level talent, but at least lower-level if not at best mid-level bowl talent(our D definitely does), and the way things are going it's gonna be a dogfight the rest of the way just to get bowl-eligible. Good coaching staffs know how to take the talent they have and put their players in the best position to succeed. And we're just not seeing that translate on the field every week.

 

[ZooCougar]

We at least have Beef O'Brady's Bowl talent.

 

[Waquoit]

How dare you present rational thought when the rest of us are in a emotional disarray and lynch mob frenzy?

I don't believe that wanting this coaching staff gone is irrational thought.

 

[HomeKing93]

We certainly have Jimmys and Joes with enough talent to be better than 112th in total offense so far this year. Last year we were 109th in total offense, so the trend is not encouraging.

 

[WestHartHusk]

... You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap...

Assuming your are right then what is the excuse for the talent gap? Some people on this site think that the talent gap inherent and by nature. It is not. Recruiting is part of his job, for which he is paid extremely well, and yet we have seen no indication that the talent gap is going to close in the foreseeable future.

 

[huskymedic]

I don't believe that wanting this coaching staff gone is irrational thought.

Clearly not irrational... just unrealistic at this point in time.

 

[Husky25]

We certainly have Jimmys and Joes with enough talent to be better than 112th in total offense so far this year. Last year we were 109th in total offense, so the trend is not encouraging.

Correct. But the scheme is not flexible enough to put these kids' talents to better use or in the best position to win.

 

[freescooter]

I can't fault Pasquoloni on the recruiting end. He came late in the recruiting season in 2011 and basically kept together an Edsall recruiting class that turned out to have few if any offensive players of note. maybe some linemen. Then we have the current class. Since most have seen limited or no action, it really is difficult to evaluate them at this point. Look, I have no problem criticizing the coaching staff for their play calling, schemes, preparation and so forth, but there really is no justification to criticize recruiting. Unlike basketball where freshmen step right in, football recruits rarely do that, it takes at least 1 and sometimes more years before a recruit is going to see significant playing time. It really is impossible to critique Pasqualoni's recruiting since he has had 1 class and they for the most part arrived on campus in August. A couple will show up on the 2 deep now, but most won't until next year.

 

[J187Money]

Whitmer did not face Carder.

Carder played against our D which is NOT lacking in talent.

Whitmer faced a defense ranked 93 out of 120!

Note to self: The coaches were the primary reason we lost to WMU this year.

Which means that if we swapped QBs in the game we would have won by 40.

 

[Stinger92860]

Which means that if we swapped QBs in the game we would have won by 40.

No, but if we swapped OC's.......

 

[Waquoit]

Clearly not irrational... just unrealistic at this point in time.

I can wait until December 2nd.

 

[J187Money]

No, but if we swapped OC's.......

Then we still would have lost because Carder is a lot more talented and experienced than Whitmer and I believe that they still would have thrown all over us.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Correct. But the scheme is not flexible enough to put these kids' talents to better use or in the best position to win.

I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu

 

[Waquoit]

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy.

Come back to us, Carl.

 

[Husky25]

I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu

I think we are saying the same thing. Don't confuse strategy (Haphazardly running the Wildcat in an effort to trick the defense, killing all momentum in the process) with scheme (using undersized O-lineman to driveblock D-lineman giving up 50 lbs. instead of using their quickness).

The coaches are trying to fit these kids into a Pro-style offense when they may are better suited for a different style or scheme. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[mattp]

If anyone here really thinks that we don't have the talent to be better than what we're doing, even though we've all seen this talent perform better, than you're also saying that Randy Edsall must have been the greatest offensive mastermind of all time to achieve what he did. I liked Edsall a lot, but he wasn't an offensive genius, and his offenses were light years ahead of what we've had, and I don't think our talent is any less than when he was here. At least then we'd get 4-5 yards on our run-every-play offense most plays and it would wear teams down. Now it's 2 yards and a cloud of dust and frustration until you're forced to pass every play.

 

[Kingspoint]

I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu

Nice Sun Tzu quote, but your use of the term strategy to make your point is incorrect. A strategy isn't flexible, (it could be under developed) but it isn't flexible. A strategy defines your goals or end state. Tactics like plans on the other hand put the strategy in motion and can be flexible dependant upon the circumstances when they are developed and after they are undertaken.