The sheer stupidity of the coaching staff on full display

[Husky25]

This thread is the equivalent of UConn fans complaining about a blemish on Jessica Alba's inner thigh. We won an actual football game. I don't know about you, but given how this team has played so far, I'm gonna go ahead and give them a pass on this one.

Agree with the first two sentences, disagree with the final one.

UConn let their foot off the gas in the 3rd quarter once again for at least the third this season. Whether this was intentional or has to do with lack of adjustment, either way this fatal flaw reared its ugly head. Argue all you want about the INT in the endzone (poor execution of a correct call.), the hand offs, or the 3rd down pass to ice the game. The fact of the matter is that it should have never come down to any of those plays.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Agree with the first two sentences, disagree with the final one.

UConn let their foot off the gas in the 3rd quarter once again for at least the third this season. Whether this was intentional or has to do with lack of adjustment, either way this fatal flaw reared its ugly head. Argue all you want about the INT in the endzone (poor execution of a correct call.), the hand offs, or the 3rd down pass to ice the game. The fact of the matter is that it should have never come down to any of those plays.

What you need to realize, is that this team cannot win, when we turn the ball over on offense. The most talented, best teams in teh country, can't win when they turn it over. It's much easier to turn the ball over when you throw, than when you pass. We were up 24-0 and kicking off to start the second half, they put the game in the hands of the D to control, and tried to run the ball. We ran a total of 7 times for I think 8 total yard, and had a nine yard sack, with the only first down of the third quarter coming on a pass play. Two field position, and time possessions of the ball on offense, trying to call a balanced game, and get the running game involved, but our running game, just isn't good this year. That was followed by the defense having it's worst series of the game.

We came back in the fourth quarter and went back to the pass, and moved it right down field, and guess what - turned it over. What happens if we turn the ball over on an INT in the third quarter?

We tried to run again later on offense in the fourth again, and again got stuffed, and needed the passing game to complete a HUGE, game clinching play on third and long.

We are not going to go from the 117th scoring offense to the top 10 overnight, and I didn't see any letting off the gas, I actually saw a team that put the game in the hands of the defense to win that third quarter, and they won it, and then the offense was put in position to win the game in the fourth.

I'd much rather have the ball in the hands of the offense to win games, more often than the D.

There's plenty to criticize this coaching staff about, but this game is not one of them. They had a game on a silver platter handed to them with the circumstances around this game, and they completely jumped all over it, and took the opportunity given them, and I'm proud of every member of this team.

Now they need to take whatever newfound momentum they've got, and build upon it every minute, every day, every practice - to go to Louisville, and continue to salvage the season.

 

[Husky25]

What you need to realize, is that this team cannot win, when we turn the ball over on offense. The most talented, best teams in teh country, can't win when they turn it over. It's much easier to turn the ball over when you throw, than when you pass. We were up 24-0 and kicking off to start the second half, they put the game in the hands of the D to control, and tried to run the ball. We ran a total of 7 times for I think 8 total yard, and had a nine yard sack, with the only first down of the third quarter coming on a pass play. Two field position, and time possessions of the ball on offense, trying to call a balanced game, and get the running game involved, but our running game, just isn't good this year. That was followed by the defense having it's worst series of the game.

We came back in the fourth quarter and went back to the pass, and moved it right down field, and guess what - turned it over. What happens if we turn the ball over on an INT in the third quarter?

We tried to run again later on offense in the fourth again, and again got stuffed, and needed the passing game to complete a HUGE, game clinching play on third and long.

We are not going to go from the 117th scoring offense to the top 10 overnight, and I didn't see any letting off the gas, I actually saw a team that put the game in the hands of the defense to win that third quarter, and they won it, and then the offense was put in position to win the game in the fourth.

I'd much rather have the ball in the hands of the offense to win games, more often than the D.

There's plenty to criticize this coaching staff about, but this game is not one of them. They had a game on a silver platter handed to them with the circumstances around this game, and they completely jumped all over it, and took the opportunity given them, and I'm proud of every member of this team.

Now they need to take whatever newfound momentum they've got, and build upon it every minute, every day, every practice - to go to Louisville, and continue to salvage the season.

I'm pretty sure you meant run here, correct? Either way. I'm not fully on board with this. Look at it another way, You can pick up a larger chunk of yards (leading to 1st downs, and ultimately touch downs) easier via the pass with a competent QB than with the run. Whittmer has proven to be at least semi-competent. It really depends what the team does best and as you say, that ain't running the ball righ now.

I also don't buy the balance argument. Why does the play calling NEED to be balanced, especially if one facet of the offense is not as effective? Running draws and bubble screens in between medium passes down field can keeps the defense on their toes just as well as the play-action. The "establish the run" argument is really a misnomer in the current college environment.

Final note: I thought the EZ INT in the 4th quarter was the result of poor execution of a solid play call. I still feel they went too conservative in the 3rd quarter.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm pretty sure you meant run here, correct? Either way. I'm not fully on board with this. Look at it another way, You can pick up a larger chunk of yards (leading to 1st downs, and ultimately touch downs) easier via the pass with a competent QB than with the run. Whittmer has proven to be at least semi-competent. It really depends what the team does best and as you say, that ain't running the ball righ now.

I also don't buy the balance argument. Why does the play calling NEED to be balanced, especially if one facet of the offense is not as effective? Running draws and bubble screens in between medium passes down field can keeps the defense on their toes just as well as the play-action. The "establish the run" argument is really a misnomer in the current college environment.

Final note: I thought the EZ INT in the 4th quarter was the result of poor execution of a solid play call. I still feel they went too conservative in the 3rd quarter.

You answered your own question. You can't be one dimensional on offense and expect to win unless you are so physically overmatched with your opponents, that it doesn't matter. We aren't a team on offense that can physically dominate our opponents with either the passing game, or the running game. It's that simple. You need to do both, and the defense needs to be kept reactive as much as possible, to maintain the natural advantage that comes with playing O - and that's that the O knows what it wants to do prior to the snap. We just haven't blocked well at all in the run game this season - as a team - and in this system, it requires a team effort in blocking, and a ball carrier to find his way through the chessboard.

Thankfully, Pittsburgh, just always seems to give us great opportunities to improve that aspect of our game - blocking, and running. Sad to see them go. Hopefully somebody in the new crew of conference opponents will be able to take their spot for us.

As for the TD - I had a chance to look at it again a little while ago, and it was a double tight end shift, by us, into a formation we've used as a run heavy formation all season, with Nick Williams in as a receiver. THey basically ran a stick / triangle type route pattern, with Delahunt going out to the flat, Griffin on the seam, and Williams going back corner endzone. Pitt was in a single deep safety high, shaded to the strong side after the shift (Jolley - who would make the INT) and Griffin was left wide open on the seam - WIDE OPEN on the hashmarks coming off the LOS - no LB running with him - he sat down on the route, in the soft spot of the defense he found himself, inside the 5 yard line with nobody within 5-10 yards of him. Whitmer had already let it go. Williams already has his arms in the air expecting the TD catch to Griffin, b/c he knew the safety was shaded strong side. Even if a Linebacker had covered Griffin coming off the LOS, it's a mismatch for #94, and he extends the pattern to the post - and it's a TD.

Whitmer just threw the ball too early, the post route was there for the TD and he let it fly. Jolley - who's a pretty darn good safety, reading his eyes wider than plates inside his helmet, reverses his field and is able to make it back to the ball and pick it going to the ground. Whitmer takes that extra split second to see the play develop, and see Griffin sit down on the route in the middle of the field wide open, and he hits him between the numbers and Griffin walks into the end zone.

We've got a pretty good QB on this team that was brought in, and he's gotten progressively better through his first 10 games as a starter in 1-A ball, and has proven that he's tough as nails. Our blockers have to keep this kid alive, and things look good for the future on O.

 

[Carl Spackler]

There's an old cliche, and I know I'm full of them, but when players play the game well (any game) you'll hear them say it themselves, and their coaches talk about the game "slowing down".

I think that INT - is a perfect example, of a learning experience for a first year QB, in what happens when the game hasn't "slowed down" enough yet. Fourth quarter, momentum shifting in the game, coming up to the line after a huge running play yardage gain, and going for the endzone...... the key players on that play, specifically the QB, knew they had that TD throw to Griffin, based on the defensive alignment and offensive play call. it's just a matter of the QB being able to have the patience to let the play develop and then deliver the ball.

And I can say, for 100% pure certainty, that it's much easier, to discuss this kind of thing after a win, than a loss.

 

[Husky25]

You answered your own question. You can't be one dimensional on offense and expect to win unless you are so physically overmatched with your opponents, that it doesn't matter. We aren't a team on offense that can physically dominate our opponents with either the passing game, or the running game. It's that simple. You need to do both, and the defense needs to be kept reactive as much as possible, to maintain the natural advantage that comes with playing O - and that's that the O knows what it wants to do prior to the snap. We just haven't blocked well at all in the run game this season - as a team - and in this system, it requires a team effort in blocking, and a ball carrier to find his way through the chessboard.

Thankfully, Pittsburgh, just always seems to give us great opportunities to improve that aspect of our game - blocking, and running. Sad to see them go. Hopefully somebody in the new crew of conference opponents will be able to take their spot for us.

As for the TD - I had a chance to look at it again a little while ago, and it was a double tight end shift, by us, into a formation we've used as a run heavy formation all season, with Nick Williams in as a receiver. THey basically ran a stick / triangle type route pattern, with Delahunt going out to the flat, Griffin on the seam, and Williams going back corner endzone. Pitt was in a single deep safety high, shaded to the strong side after the shift (Jolley - who would make the INT) and Griffin was left wide open on the seam - WIDE OPEN on the hashmarks coming off the LOS - no LB running with him - he sat down on the route, in the soft spot of the defense he found himself, inside the 5 yard line with nobody within 5-10 yards of him. Whitmer had already let it go. Williams already has his arms in the air expecting the TD catch to Griffin, b/c he knew the safety was shaded strong side. Even if a Linebacker had covered Griffin coming off the LOS, it's a mismatch for #94, and he extends the pattern to the post - and it's a TD.

Whitmer just threw the ball too early, the post route was there for the TD and he let it fly. Jolley - who's a pretty darn good safety, reading his eyes wider than plates inside his helmet, reverses his field and is able to make it back to the ball and pick it going to the ground. Whitmer takes that extra split second to see the play develop, and see Griffin sit down on the route in the middle of the field wide open, and he hits him between the numbers and Griffin walks into the end zone.

We've got a pretty good QB on this team that was brought in, and he's gotten progressively better through his first 10 games as a starter in 1-A ball, and has proven that he's tough as nails. Our blockers have to keep this kid alive, and things look good for the future on O.

Pass-first or pass-predominent does not mean one-demensional (look at current NFL Offenses, which by definition makes them pro-style). What I'm questioning is the coaching staff's hard-headed assertion that UConn must be a balanced or run-first team and their lack of recognition that they do not have the pieces to do so. Secondarily I question their perceived shift in game plan to go ultra-conservative in the second half without a catalyst to do so.

Breaking down the INT, NFL Matchup-style wasn't really necessary. I primarily agree with everything else you said. It was poor execution of a solid play call.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Pass-first or pass-predominent does not mean one-demensional (look at current NFL Offenses, which by definition makes them pro-style). What I'm questioning is the coaching staff's hard-headed assertion that UConn must be a balanced or run-first team and their lack of recognition that they do not have the pieces to do so. Secondarily I question their perceived shift in game plan to go ultra-conservative in the second half without a catalyst to do so.

Breaking down the INT, NFL Matchup-style wasn't really necessary. I primarily agree with everything else you said. It was poor execution of a solid play call.

We can back and forth all day, and you must have not understood what I wrote before, the fact that we had multiple route runners open late in the game, on the ill-fated INT - was because we actually tried to run the ball earlier out of the same formation, in the same game, and throughout the season. As for the assertion that UConn is a run-based football team, well, that's the situation the coaches walked into, and have been clearly demanded of, to maintain. I know I want a run based team. They've failed to establish that, but it's not for lack of trying. As for not being able to recognize that they don't have the pieces? I don't think that's the case at all.

Look, I'm not a fan of George Deleone's play calling, and there are many, many people that for whatever reason don't like Paul Pasqualoni. There is plenty to get on these guys about, and running Hyppolite on a sweep when we needed a yard to move the chains, and actually were getting a push off the line and blocking well at times in this game, I've got a problem with that. The funny issues at the end of the game with the clock running down? P's had time management issues his entire career. You'd think by now, he'd have a specific person assigned to slap him in the face when it's time to call a time out, or not, or there's a decision like that to be made - and somebody can just slap him and say - run the clock out. As soon as the first down was completed to Philips, I was walking out with my guys, I didn't even know they didn't kneel on it until the next day, my back was turned and we were headed out, my ass was cold, and I really had to take a leak. Maybe they were trying to keep us in our seats until the final whistle by not kneeling on it? That's really important to the internet fans you know.

Ultra conservative in the third quarter? That's a stretch. We were up 24-0 and kicking off to start the second half, with one of the top defenses in the country, and if we turn the ball over throwing, we lose games. It's that simple. We had a total of two offensive possessions in the entire quarter, and converted a first down on one, and moved the ball and field position, and then got completely stuffed in the run, and sacked on a pass play on the other, and didn't get a first down. It was 24-3 after the quarter. What was the defense doing all of this time? Did they play a great second half? Is it a complete fluke that Pitt, might have actually gotten themselves up to play in the second half? The other team wants to win too.

it's a win - in a 4-6 season so far, was it pretty? At times yes. Was it ugly? At times yes - and it was everythign in between, and in the end - it was a win. We need more.

 

[Husky25]

Once I unwind what I think you are trying to say, I find that we agree on more things than not.

We can back and forth all day, and you must have not understood what I wrote before, the fact that we had multiple route runners open late in the game, on the ill-fated INT - was because we actually tried to run the ball earlier out of the same formation, in the same game, and throughout the season. As for the assertion that UConn is a run-based football team, well, that's the situation the coaches walked into, and have been clearly demanded of, to maintain. I know I want a run based team. They've failed to establish that, but it's not for lack of trying. As for not being able to recognize that they don't have the pieces? I don't think that's the case at all.

I don't however agree here...The staff did not walk into anything in 2012, they installed a pre-2007 "pro-style" offense in 2011 and it is not working. It is the coaching staff responsibility to put their team in the best possible position to succeed, whether that means running the ball or via the pass. I don't care which one as long as the ball is moved down the field. Who exactly demands that they maintain a run heavy offense? Shouldn't that be dictated by the strength of the players on the current team (The undersized linemen and starting RB suggest to me a read option or West Coast style offense). Why continue to force a square peg into a round hole? Seems like the clinical definition of insanity. I gave them a pass last year due to our starting QB's the Walk-on status, new overall scheme, 1,000 yard rusher, inexperience at receiver, etc. There is no excuse this year. I am happy they won on Friday. However I fear this win will serve as justification and the staff will gloss over an absolute need for improvement.

Look, I'm not a fan of George Deleone's play calling, and there are many, many people that for whatever reason don't like Paul Pasqualoni. There is plenty to get on these guys about, and running Hyppolite on a sweep when we needed a yard to move the chains, and actually were getting a push off the line and blocking well at times in this game, I've got a problem with that. The funny issues at the end of the game with the clock running down? P's had time management issues his entire career. You'd think by now, he'd have a specific person assigned to slap him in the face when it's time to call a time out, or not, or there's a decision like that to be made - and somebody can just slap him and say - run the clock out. As soon as the first down was completed to Philips, I was walking out with my guys, I didn't even know they didn't kneel on it until the next day, my back was turned and we were headed out, my ass was cold, and I really had to take a leak. Maybe they were trying to keep us in our seats until the final whistle by not kneeling on it? That's really important to the internet fans you know.

Another unecessary NFL Matchup-syle break down. Should Ron Jaworski be worried about his job?

Ultra conservative in the third quarter? That's a stretch. We were up 24-0 and kicking off to start the second half, with one of the top defenses in the country, and if we turn the ball over throwing, we lose games. It's that simple. We had a total of two offensive possessions in the entire quarter, and converted a first down on one, and moved the ball and field position, and then got completely stuffed in the run, and sacked on a pass play on the other, and didn't get a first down. It was 24-3 after the quarter. What was the defense doing all of this time? Did they play a great second half?

1) I don't understand the rationaleof assuming a passing turnover, but not a fumble? 2) Why do you want to pass the buck to a depleted Defense (You said yourself that, "[You'd] much rather have the ball in the hands of the offense to win games, more often than the D.")? UConn actually had 2 first downs on the drive you allude to. However after the second 1st down, they called run (by Whitmer, so it could have been a broken pass play. I don't recall), run for 1 yard a piece. Then a sack. The 2nd drive of the qtr. was 3 runs and out. That, in a sense (or in essence), is a rushing turnover, IMO.

Is it a complete fluke that Pitt, might have actually gotten themselves up to play in the second half? The other team wants to win too.

it's a win - in a 4-6 season so far, was it pretty? At times yes. Was it ugly? At times yes - and it was everythign in between, and in the end - it was a win. We need more.

Finally, my view from the 30 yard line told my that the fact, "Pitt, might have actually gotten themselves up to play in the second half..." is the primary reason to keep the pressure on.

 

[Carl Spackler]

the picked pass was not a dumb call. You can argue it either way (wasn't it the great Cheech Marin in "Tin Cup" who famously said "sometimes par is good enough") but it just wasn't dumb. They knew it had a high chance of success of puttingthe game away and it just didn't happen.

If you want to pin something on the staff last night, blame them for their clock management. We came out of the locker room for the second half detemined to be conservative, and protect the lead, which is certainly a reasonable strategy there, except that if you're doing that you have to take the play clock down on almost every snap and shorten the number of plays in the game. We didn't. We consistently ran offensive plays with an average of 10 seconds left on the play clock, and each time we were stopped we raced the punting team out and snapped it to Wagner with 20 seconds left on the play clock. It would have served us right to lose the game in the last 40 seconds, which never, never would have been there had we even moved more slowly just punting the ball.

I'm glad I found this BL, b/c I wanted to comment on it before I got into that discussion about the INT - a had a buddy of mine with me at the game, who hadn't been to a UConn football game in a long, long, long time. We had a great, great time BTW, and he's going to be a ticket buyer next year. More of us, need to do this kind of thing......as usual I digress...

But he turned and looked at me in the third quarter, and said, damn, there's Pasqualoni for you - we're up - let the clock go down. In exactly the points you mention. But to do that, the players have to be conditioned and coached to go out there, and wait for the clock to hit 3,2....to snap the ball.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. Pasqualoni is a coach, that completely understands that players win games, and I trust his eye for talent. All you need to do is look at Chandler Whitmer. If we can get players, dozens and dozens of them, that play the game, like this kid can, we're going to be ok. I've never followed Pasqualoni closely, but the people that I know, that have, all warned me - that this kind of thing was going to happen with the team. The attention to this kind of detail, the play clock, timeouts, etc...while basic to the most competitive football people.....just isn't really focused on all that much by a coach like Pasqualoni who's made a career of recruiting players.

When you've got a roster of players that can make game changing plays.....the equivalent at whatever respective position, of throwing a 15+ yard completion on third and long, to ice a game in the 4thQ, when you've got a defender hanging on your legs - ? Don't need to focus on those little things, like clock management. It's the same thing that drives really good football coaches crazy, about how the really dumb coaches can make so much money in some places around the country. You don't really have to have a good understanding of the game details down to that level, as a head coach, if you're a good manager of people, and can recruit, to suit up a roster of very talented players year in and year out. But you take a guy like Pasqualoni, and have him work on the details of playing the position of defensive line, and you get a Kendall Reyes in the NFL. You take a guy like Deleone, and put him on the details of playing Tight End, and you get a Ryan Griffin in the NFL. We've put players in the NFL, before, but very few - very few - were actually NFL ready. Deon Anderson and Tyvon Branch, IMO, are the only ones that were really NFL ready out of college, Tyvon because of his natural gift of speed and tackling, and Deon for his gift of being a complete lunatic on the field.

Clearly, Pasqualoni has been able to head coach himself to a career record of 150 wins, 89 losses and 1 tie, with what apparently looks like an almost disregard for the game and play clock and the use of timeouts and things like that. A very good argument can also be made, that we're not over .500 yet as a program with Pasqualoni, because of it too.

Now contrast that coaching approach to the game, with the Randy Edsall approach that we're used to, and you get a fan base like we die hards are, that are tearing our hair out by the simple decisions to not run the play clock down on a punt when you're up 24-0 in the second half, or kneel on the ball with a little over a minute to go and possession,and an opponent that can't get it back, and a guy like my buddy, who has an understanding of football, looking at me and telling me that he isn't surprised that they're kicking the ball with more than half the play clock left and the game clock ticking up 24-0.

I highly doubt that Pasqualoni had any care at all about what the play clock was showing when the ball was being snapped on punts in the third quarter, or at any other time this season. These are things a coach like that doesn't think about.

Hopefully, somebody that reads this website, will point the clock timing thing out to the Special Teams coach.

I'm glad we won this game, and I"m glad we won with the players making the plays we did, becuase we needed it. In all three phases of the game. Players have to win games. Hopefully this 2012 has learned it, because there's no wiggle room left anymore.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm glad I found this BL, b/c I wanted to comment on it before I got into that discussion about the INT - a had a buddy of mine with me at the game, who hadn't been to a UConn football game in a long, long, long time. We had a great, great time BTW, and he's going to be a ticket buyer next year. More of us, need to do this kind of thing......as usual I digress...

But he turned and looked at me in the third quarter, and said, damn, there's Pasqualoni for you - we're up - let the clock go down. In exactly the points you mention. But to do that, the players have to be conditioned and coached to go out there, and wait for the clock to hit 3,2....to snap the ball.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. Pasqualoni is a coach, that completely understands that players win games, and I trust his eye for talent. All you need to do is look at Chandler Whitmer. If we can get players, dozens and dozens of them, that play the game, like this kid can, we're going to be ok. I've never followed Pasqualoni closely, but the people that I know, that have, all warned me - that this kind of thing was going to happen with the team. The attention to this kind of detail, the play clock, timeouts, etc...while basic to the most competitive football people.....just isn't really focused on all that much by a coach like Pasqualoni who's made a career of recruiting players.

When you've got a roster of players that can make game changing plays.....the equivalent at whatever respective position, of throwing a 15+ yard completion on third and long, to ice a game in the 4thQ, when you've got a defender hanging on your legs - ? Don't need to focus on those little things, like clock management. It's the same thing that drives really good football coaches crazy, about how the really dumb coaches can make so much money in some places around the country. You don't really have to have a good understanding of the game details down to that level, as a head coach, if you're a good manager of people, and can recruit, to suit up a roster of very talented players year in and year out. But you take a guy like Pasqualoni, and have him work on the details of playing the position of defensive line, and you get a Kendall Reyes in the NFL. You take a guy like Deleone, and put him on the details of playing Tight End, and you get a Ryan Griffin in the NFL. We've put players in the NFL, before, but very few - very few - were actually NFL ready. Deon Anderson and Tyvon Branch, IMO, are the only ones that were really NFL ready out of college, Tyvon because of his natural gift of speed and tackling, and Deon for his gift of being a complete lunatic on the field.

Clearly, Pasqualoni has been able to head coach himself to a career record of 150 wins, 89 losses and 1 tie, with what apparently looks like an almost disregard for the game and play clock and the use of timeouts and things like that. A very good argument can also be made, that we're not over .500 yet as a program with Pasqualoni, because of it too.

Now contrast that coaching approach to the game, with the Randy Edsall approach that we're used to, and you get a fan base like we die hards are, that are tearing our hair out by the simple decisions to not run the play clock down on a punt when you're up 24-0 in the second half, or kneel on the ball with a little over a minute to go and possession,and an opponent that can't get it back, and a guy like my buddy, who has an understanding of football, looking at me and telling me that he isn't surprised that they're kicking the ball with more than half the play clock left and the game clock ticking up 24-0.

I highly doubt that Pasqualoni had any care at all about what the play clock was showing when the ball was being snapped on punts in the third quarter, or at any other time this season. These are things a coach like that doesn't think about.

Hopefully, somebody that reads this website, will point the clock timing thing out to the Special Teams coach.

I'm glad we won this game, and I"m glad we won with the players making the plays we did, becuase we needed it. In all three phases of the game. Players have to win games. Hopefully this 2012 has learned it, because there's no wiggle room left anymore.

Jesus H. Christ. Pasqualoni draws a 7 figure salary. Figure out the clock management stuff. Or task someone to do it for you. End of story. Jesus H. Christ.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm glad I found this BL, b/c I wanted to comment on it before I got into that discussion about the INT - a had a buddy of mine with me at the game, who hadn't been to a UConn football game in a long, long, long time. We had a great, great time BTW, and he's going to be a ticket buyer next year. More of us, need to do this kind of thing......as usual I digress...

But he turned and looked at me in the third quarter, and said, damn, there's Pasqualoni for you - we're up - let the clock go down. In exactly the points you mention. But to do that, the players have to be conditioned and coached to go out there, and wait for the clock to hit 3,2....to snap the ball.

Here's what I think in a nutshell. Pasqualoni is a coach, that completely understands that players win games, and I trust his eye for talent. All you need to do is look at Chandler Whitmer. If we can get players, dozens and dozens of them, that play the game, like this kid can, we're going to be ok. I've never followed Pasqualoni closely, but the people that I know, that have, all warned me - that this kind of thing was going to happen with the team. The attention to this kind of detail, the play clock, timeouts, etc...while basic to the most competitive football people.....just isn't really focused on all that much by a coach like Pasqualoni who's made a career of recruiting players.

When you've got a roster of players that can make game changing plays.....the equivalent at whatever respective position, of throwing a 15+ yard completion on third and long, to ice a game in the 4thQ, when you've got a defender hanging on your legs - ? Don't need to focus on those little things, like clock management. It's the same thing that drives really good football coaches crazy, about how the really dumb coaches can make so much money in some places around the country. You don't really have to have a good understanding of the game details down to that level, as a head coach, if you're a good manager of people, and can recruit, to suit up a roster of very talented players year in and year out. But you take a guy like Pasqualoni, and have him work on the details of playing the position of defensive line, and you get a Kendall Reyes in the NFL. You take a guy like Deleone, and put him on the details of playing Tight End, and you get a Ryan Griffin in the NFL. We've put players in the NFL, before, but very few - very few - were actually NFL ready. Deon Anderson and Tyvon Branch, IMO, are the only ones that were really NFL ready out of college, Tyvon because of his natural gift of speed and tackling, and Deon for his gift of being a complete lunatic on the field.

Clearly, Pasqualoni has been able to head coach himself to a career record of 150 wins, 89 losses and 1 tie, with what apparently looks like an almost disregard for the game and play clock and the use of timeouts and things like that. A very good argument can also be made, that we're not over .500 yet as a program with Pasqualoni, because of it too.

Now contrast that coaching approach to the game, with the Randy Edsall approach that we're used to, and you get a fan base like we die hards are, that are tearing our hair out by the simple decisions to not run the play clock down on a punt when you're up 24-0 in the second half, or kneel on the ball with a little over a minute to go and possession,and an opponent that can't get it back, and a guy like my buddy, who has an understanding of football, looking at me and telling me that he isn't surprised that they're kicking the ball with more than half the play clock left and the game clock ticking up 24-0.

I highly doubt that Pasqualoni had any care at all about what the play clock was showing when the ball was being snapped on punts in the third quarter, or at any other time this season. These are things a coach like that doesn't think about.

Hopefully, somebody that reads this website, will point the clock timing thing out to the Special Teams coach.

I'm glad we won this game, and I"m glad we won with the players making the plays we did, becuase we needed it. In all three phases of the game. Players have to win games. Hopefully this 2012 has learned it, because there's no wiggle room left anymore.

I'm not at all sure I understand where you're going with this, but big time college football is very competitive. You are not going to win most of your games by being able to do some of the aspects of coaching well and some at a below competency level. If, when he was at Syracuse, he was able to beat Temple and Rutgers and Pitt every year just by having better players and then not doing a good job with the rest of coaching, well, bully for him. But that is a strategy that is not likely to succeed here because, unlike his last job, he is not walking into what was then clearly the second most prestigious program in a nine state region of the country (which was also proportionately a larger segment of the country than it is today)..

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not at all sure I understand where you're going with this, but big time college football is very competitive. You are not going to win most of your games by being able to do some of the aspects of coaching well and some at a below competency level. If, when he was at Syracuse, he was able to beat Temple and Rutgers and Pitt every year just by having better players and then not doing a good job with the rest of coaching, well, bully for him. But that is a strategy that is not likely to succeed here because, unlike his last job, he is not walking into what was then clearly the second most prestigious program in a nine state region of the country (which was also proportionately a larger segment of the country than it is today)..

Very, very true. Big time college football is extremely competitive, and you can't believe how fast things move on the sidelines. Yes indeed, you are not going to win most of your games by being able to do some of the aspects of coaching well and some at a below competency level. Ideally, you want to be the best at everything, but I guess the question is simple - if you had to put a priority list together of things that are important to winning games, what would it be?

For me - finding players, is priority #1, and is well above anything, and everythign else you need to do as a coach to win.

It's crystal clear, that clock management is very low on that list for Pasqualoni, of what it takes to win games, and always has been. If we had a timeout called here or there, to change things during games, or had managed a clock differently from time to time, it's possible we're on the plus side of .500 rather than on the minus side 22 games into Pasqualoni's time at UCOnn. Whether it's because he's mentally incapable of repeatedly sound decision making regarding that during a game, or he doesn't care - is unknown.

I do know that I've seen a QB play on the field so far this year, that can play the position at the level it takes. A guy that was recruited new into the program in January and had never taken a snap in 1-A football. 11 months ago, after several years, of struggling to find players at the most important position on the field. We've got a true freshmen that would have no interest in being here if not for P - at the same position, and we've got another one coming in from Texas (fingers crossed) in a few short months signed. All I can say, is that if Whitmer is to be labeled as a type of player that Pasqualoni can hit on, and the way the QB position is setting up for the future is indicative of what he can do regarding hitting more than missing in recruiting across the board for a football team, I'll take that over getting the game clock decision right, more than he gets it wrong on the list of priorities that go into winning more football games than you lose.

Unlike Syracuse, it's highly unlikely that we'll have to endure 14 years of those game clock decisions. I'm not making excuses for the guy - I'd love to see him actually get better at it, while he's at my alma mater. Just idle chatter on a veterans' day.

 

[Hoophound]

Am I the only one that was thrown out of sorts by the reference to Jessica Alba's inner thigh? Ever since I imagined that, football has seemed irrelevant.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I don't know about the football program itself, but seeing this (currently) 10-page thread over a single playcall tells me that when it comes to neurotic arguments on the Internets, we are a big-time fanbase.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Am I the only one that was thrown out of sorts by the reference to Jessica Alba's inner thigh? Ever since I imagined that, football has seemed irrelevant.

You guys distracted from football by that, clearly arent getting enough poontang. You only have yourselves to blame.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Jesus H. Christ. Pasqualoni draws a 7 figure salary. Figure out the clock management stuff. Or task someone to do it for you. End of story. Jesus H. Christ.

Never, ever assume that a persons salary, contracted compensation for a job, or ranking position in an organization is in any way proportional to competency. Everyone knows this just like never to trust a sicilian, or get involved in a land war in Asia

 

[ruskin]

When you can't properly figure out when to take a freaking knee - and now it's happened two years in a row! - it's time to fire the CEO, General, or Don, whichever role you prefer for PP.

 

[ZooCougar]

I don't know about the football program itself, but seeing this (currently) 10-page thread over a single playcall tells me that when it comes to neurotic arguments on the Internets, we are a big-time fanbase.

It's not about one playcall. It's an awareness issue as well as a general lack of competence issue. As the head coach, is he competent enough, or does he have a system in place to know when it is appropriate to take a knee? Do one of the coaches have a little chart on a cheat somewhere? If the other team has X amount of timeouts left, and there is X amount of time left and it's first down can we take a knee three times and end the game? It's in the same vein as the "When to go for the two point conversion chart".

Maybe instead of a chart, you have one of the coaches or GA who's job it is to do the quick analysis since. There's lots of ways to do this..

It's perfectly understandable that in the heat of the moment, smart people need a cheat sheet to do simple math. It's not perfectly understandable that you wouldn't have some sort of system in place.

Every week we get an indication that these guys are incompetent and this was one indication.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Never, ever assume that a persons salary, contracted compensation for a job, or ranking position in an organization is in any way proportional to competency. Everyone knows this just like never to trust a sicilian, or get involved in a land war in Asia

Hey, read my posts from the last 2 months. I am certainly not assuming that P's competency level is on par with his salary. But as a paying customer and taxpayer funding a miniscule portion of that 7 figure salary, I can certainly demand that he earn every cent of his pay.

 

[ZooCougar]

Hey, read my posts from the last 2 months. I am certainly not assuming that P's competency level is on par with his salary. But as a paying customer and taxpayer funding a miniscule portion of that 7 figure salary, I can certainly demand that he earn every cent of his pay.

There is an inverse relationship to what PP is paid and his competence.

 

[huskymedic]

Hey, read my posts from the last 2 months. I am certainly not assuming that P's competency level is on par with his salary. But as a paying customer and taxpayer funding a miniscule portion of that 7 figure salary, I can certainly demand that he earn every cent of his pay.

Taxpayers fund not one dime of PP's salary...