Reading the SU board

[BlueMAB]

You're taking this way too seriously. This is just a message board. I highly doubt the former players care at all about what we think.

Again, he was a little over .500 here and he's now a little under .500 for his career. Edsall is what he is, a decent coach. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think he's a good coach, definitely not great. Certain attributes were well suited for getting us off the ground and those generally go unappreciated here. But the .500 record deserves context. Going .500 at at UConn while making the transition from D1AA to BCS football (a year early) is very different than going .500 at many, many other programs. I, and anyone else who has defended the accomplishments has never denied that the man is replaceable.

Whether or not they care is arguable. We know for a fact that some players have lurked here, parents have lurked/posted here, and former, current, (and likely future) recruits visit these boards as well to get a feel for the program and the fanbase. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be here.

 

[ZooCougar]

If it makes you feel better to pretend that people worship him then so be it. But the only people that call him Saint Randy are you and Palatine.

Ok, then explain why his apologists have mounted hundreds of pages on this site in his defense..

He wasn't good enough.

 

[ZooCougar]

By the way, at risk of beating a dead horse, here is a link to Maryland's Rivals page. It looks to me, at least in the early going, that he is bringing in an equivalent class to Pasqualoni right now:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/maryland-5


Considering he is in his dream job, one would think that he was recruiting a couple of ticks better than that.



Hopefully, Pasqualoni can take us farther and for longer. UConn is all I care about, and right now, Edsall's jacket is red...

 

[ZooCougar]

People who normally feel like they cannot make a point without resorting to name calling are typically obtuse morons. I guess you don't need to pick.

You still don't get it. I didn't state that emphasis on values was a negative, but you seemed to think that I did. I guess you are just a moron. There was no point to be made other than the fact that he placed an emphasis on values.

 

[BlueMAB]

Ok, then explain why his apologists have mounted hundreds of pages on this site in his defense..

He wasn't good enough.

I think you have it backwards. It's not as much a defense of the former coach as it is the program.

The most vocal critics don't go after his shortcomings, they criticize the accomplishments, and that's what I defend. (and no, I don't take it personal)

He has no offensive vision, he's a great evaluator, but piss poor recruiter, he's not as genuine as he portrays himself, and doesn't hold himself to the same standards he holds his players. Criticize the man sure, but stop ripping the accomplishments that the program and players are responsible for.

I think he's a good coach, definitely not great...

...I, and anyone else who has defended the accomplishments has never denied that the man is replaceable.

It's long thread, maybe you missed some of these, could you tell me what I said in these posts that is equivalent to calling the man a saint?

 

[UConnDan97]

You still don't get it. I didn't state that emphasis on values was a negative, but you seemed to think that I did. I guess you are just a moron. There was no point to be made other than the fact that he placed an emphasis on values.

Once again, if you feel like the only way to try to make a point is to resort to name-calling, it says more about you than it does about me. Do you get it??

 

[pj]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

 

[UConnDan97]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Are you asking me what I had for breakfast this morning? Or was that directed at someone else?

 

[CTMike]

When the thread has devolved to arguments about who called whom by what name first, maybe it's time to turn the conversation to another subject. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

That's what all Edsall threads turn in to!

 

[ZooCougar]

Dan,

Once again, if you feel like the only way to try to make a point is to resort to name-calling, it says more about you than it does about me. Do you get it??

Nice deflection. For some strange reason, you assumed that I stated that his emphasis on values was a negative, which was pretty hilarious and stupid assumption on your part. bottom line is that Edsall's hard line beaver cleaver emphasis on values wasn't enough. He didn't win enough big games. He sucked at developing QBs and he was inflexible.

 

[ZooCougar]

It's long thread, maybe you missed some of these, could you tell me what I said in these posts that is equivalent to calling the man a saint?

Ok, you get credit. You have always been one of the more rational apologists. But the next time someone here wonders out loud here where the Edsall statue ought to be placed, I am going to politely point it to you.

 

[ZooCougar]

That's what all Edsall threads turn in to!

What was the original topic anyways?

 

[BlueMAB]

Ok, you get credit. You have always been one of the more rational apologists. But the next time someone here wonders out loud here where the Edsall statue ought to be placed, I am going to politely point it to you.

Again, I have never seen anyone discuss a statue for the man other than those who mock the statue that nobody wants built anyways.
He doesn't even merit discussion of a statue. The statue is specifically reserved for the coach who wins us our first national championship. And he's got to get in line behind Jim and Geno.

 

[UConnDan97]

Dan,


Nice deflection. For some strange reason, you assumed that I stated that his emphasis on values was a negative, which was pretty hilarious and stupid assumption on your part. bottom line is that Edsall's hard line beaver cleaver emphasis on values wasn't enough. He didn't win enough big games. He sucked at developing QBs and he was inflexible.

Oh! Oh, okay. Yeah, I didn't get what you were trying to say when you called me obtuse and a moron. But now that you say that my comment was stupid, it's becoming extremely clear to me! Thank you for clearing that up!!

Listen, friend, my original (and only) comment on that point was "and....that's a bad thing?" All you needed to do was to say, "No, I don't believe it was a bad thing." And then I would have said, "Okay, cool." But you are too much of an obtuse moron with stupid assumptions to keep the discussion on a decent level, huh? I'm sure you'll come up with some more colorful superlatives for me in response, so....whatever. Keep it real, Husky!

 

[BlueMAB]

He didn't win enough big games. He sucked at developing QBs and he was inflexible.

+1

 

[UConnDan97]

Don't be baffled (it's not worship, by the way). I'm baffled that some people think his body of work is incomplete after 11 seasons, but let's just focus on your points:

1. Terrible Record against the Top 25. Most do. That's why they are the Top 25.

2. Places a huge emphasis on character and values. And....that's bad?

3. Slow to take responsibility for results on the field, often deflecting blame to the players. Unfortunately, like most coaches do...

4. A good gameplanner who can get alot done with a little. I agree.

5. Slow to evolve and adapt when the plan isn't working or the conditions changed. Unfortunately, like most coaches do. They say, "I'm implementing my system."

6. Lots of blind spots... ??

7. Great at developing running backs.
8. Terrible at developing QBs or QBs seem to get worse as time goes by underneath his glare from the sidelines. So few coaches are good at both. I would just argue that he wasn't very good at recruiting good QB's with the exception of Danny O.

So there you have it. My synopsis of your synopsis in a nutshell.

Here is my original post (from almost a friggin' week ago!) that you keep bitching about. Where did I bash you?? I was commenting on each point, including the ones I agreed with. And my exact words to your statement turned out to be "And...that's bad?" Is that so inflammatory to you that you can't handle it, and that it is bothering you almost a week later?? Wow.

 

[CTMike]

What was the original topic anyways?

There was an original topic? haha. It's like a game of telephone that always dials Edsall's number.

 

[UConnDan97]

There was an original topic? haha. It's like a game of telephone that always dials Edsall's number.

It's more like "Six Degrees to Randy Edsall". No matter where you start, you'll get there in six posts or less...