The View From Section 241

[businesslawyer]

See, a good long summer was just what was needed to get your sense of humor back in tow. I'll take TD's anyway I can get them, just as long as UConn is putting up 4 or 5 or more per game. If running can produce that, then Hoo-rah! But . . . not think they will generate that kind of scoring without a good, solid, dependable, fully integrated into the offense, passing game. So if your druthers is a "ground and pound", pass only on 3rd and long, offense than be prepare for scoring "not enough points" to permit the defense to hold on and win.

Glad you had a good summer.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Glad you had a good summer.

You are also quicker in your response than I remember. You are well rested and hope you also had a good summer. Added another paragraph (hadn't anticipated your rapid reply).
So far . . . . it's just to soon to tell, but it looks like an offense that has a chance to be effective at some point.

 

[whaler11]

How do you figure?

We were down 21 points with 12 minutes. to go.

You make the FG, you're down 18 (3 possessions), you don't convert on 4th down you're down 21 points (3 possessions).

The only thing that could've made t the odds of winning better would have been a TD.

The key component here is that it was the 4th quarter.

So unless you think in 12 minutes UConn was getting a TD, TD+2, and a FG to tie, it was wrong.

It was a poor decision and the practice from the right hash comment was just idiotic.

I guess it's the sort of thing people either get or they don't get. It is painfully obvious it was a bizarre decision - but it didn't impact the outcome and hopefully next time they get it right.

It really sounds like they just didn't even consider trying to win the game, so maybe he gets the math, and really thought getting BP a kick was something worthwhile? It's on the short list of craziest logic I've ever heard - but I'd prefer it rather than not getting how useless 3 points was.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yes, but I think that would be true of most any college 3-4 end, save the absolute most athletic . . .

I do question what is the right alignment for a program such as UConn's. I think the 3-4 is a more versatile front, but overall it relies on having players that are at a premium in the college game. I wonder if programs like ours should favor the 4-3, which doesn't require 325 pound tackles and 250 pound linebackers with speed, and where you can take undersized guys and bulk them up.

DE's that can lock down and play multiple down and distance situations, in a 3 man front line defense are at a premium in the NFL too. I think you're overestimating the size of the LB's btw. What the 3-4 defense needs - is height, to go with the given - speed - not weight. (other than those three guys up front, that need to be houses.) The 4-3 defense is pretty rigid, in where you're LB"s can go to fill gaps, and they don't need to read too much beyond their gap control up front, the LB"s and DB's in a 3 man line, have a lot more to look at, to figure out what to do. They need to be able to see over the top, to be able to move all over and fill in behind those guys scrumming up front. Anyway if you're good enough to build it once, that kind of thing, snowballs, and becomes a pretty good recruiting tool.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I guess it's the sort of thing people either get or they don't get. It is painfully obvious it was a bizarre decision - but it didn't impact the outcome and hopefully next time they get it right.

It really sounds like they just didn't even consider trying to win the game, so maybe he gets the math, and really thought getting BP a kick was something worthwhile? It's on the short list of craziest logic I've ever heard - but I'd prefer it rather than not getting how useless 3 points was.

The decision, cannot be rationalized, for sure - but it's without a doubt, that those 3 points are meaningless if you are actually decision making, on that 4th down, with the final outcome on the scoreboard in mind, at that point in the game. It's also flummoxing, the way he explained it after. It's only clear mistake Diaco made - that I am sure needs correcting. One way or the other, his reasoning needs to be corrected. Either way, if he did in fact make the decision, that the game was over at that point - that is something that needs to be corrected, you never ever stop coaching or playing to win, when a win is within your reach, and you sure as hell, don't tell the media that you're not interested in a win at a point where it's argueable the game was still winnable - (he didn't do that, but came about as close as he could to actually saying it). That's for Warde Manuel to figure out. If he didn't make that decision, thinking the game was out of reach, then again - he still needs to be corrected on why the 3 points was meaningless, at that stage of the game, and the correct percentages and all that, a better call, would have been to go for the 4th down conversion, or the end zone, and either convert keeping the drive and possession alive, and potential alive to make it a 2 possession game, or score the TD and make the game a 2 possession game, or turn the ball over on downs, without the variables of a kickoff return, deep in their territory, with it remaining a 3 possession game, and your defense coming out immediately. (which had been doing well to that point). Worst case scenario on that 4th down play is a turnover and 6 point return, putting you down 4 possessions. At that point, the game would be out of reach, for sure, but the chances of that happening, even with our QB's are percentage wise much less, than a game changing play on kick. An Int, in the endzone, or anywhere back there, that is tackled, beyond the LOS, is also the equivalent of a punt as well, and net win in field position, keeping the game a 3 possession game. It really is a no brainer, and me and my guys, did walk out after it happened. Diaco effectively threw in the towel, IMNSHO, with that call. It's something that he needs to address, and correct, and never repeat, one way or the other - whatever his decision making process was. The way you correct it, is as a coach, when the third quarter starts, and you get into the fourth quarter, and you are down on the scoreboard, you need to start keeping a running count of the number of offensive possessions you can accurately predict you'll get before the game ends. With 11 minutes left, you are pushing it, expecting to get 3 more offensive possessions in the game. Sure enough, as it turned out, we only got 2 more after the FG.

BTW: I am NOT a gambler. I can't even tell you what giving vs getting points means, and I don't care to know.

That's the last I'll write about it - pinky promise

 

[Husky25]

I guess it's the sort of thing people either get or they don't get. It is painfully obvious it was a bizarre decision - but it didn't impact the outcome and hopefully next time they get it right.

It really sounds like they just didn't even consider trying to win the game, so maybe he gets the math, and really thought getting BP a kick was something worthwhile? It's on the short list of craziest logic I've ever heard - but I'd prefer it rather than not getting how useless 3 points was.

There is no amount of hyperbole that can justify Diaco's comments. Get off the comments. we agree...

But I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand you think going for it on 4th & 12 subliminally means they are trying to win the game. What you don't get is kicking there does not definitely mean he doesn't care (Again the explanation made no sense. We're with each other on that.).

The way the game was playing out, what are the chances they convert? 2%? 4%? 10%, tops? When they don't convert (which 9 times out of 10, they wouldn't...With Whitmer, it's closer to 10/10), they're still down by 3 TD's. Dismissing ConnHuskBask convoluted math to tie (FG's and 2pt conversions), those three scores that you would have had to get anyway, give you the chance to win. Who wants to figure out the best way to tie?

It baffles me that you are making such a big deal about this field goal and not the earlier fake attempt. You know when the play called for a backup punter to gain 16 yards!?!?! That's what I don't get.

Also: You don't have to be so passive aggressive by replying to a post while talking to/about someone else. My computer is probably 50 miles away from yours. 1) you won't hurt my feelings, and 2) You run zero risk of getting punched in the throat. No one knows who you are in real life...

 

[junglehusky]

Wait my friend? Did you just type we could score more TDs either passing or rushing? O.K., who got TDH's log in code and is pretending to be him?

I have to admit I was scanning the thread, and totally missed this. I also have to admit I did feel like it would have been nice to see a few deep completions on Friday, but now I'm guessing we'll be saving some of those for conference play. Long term, I'm also hoping Newsome has good enough hands for him to be an option catching the ball in space. Maybe a Noel Devine type?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

That's the last I'll write about it - pinky promise

Lock of the century this goes another 4 pages with Spackler arguing about this.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Lock of the century this goes another 4 pages with Spackler arguing about this.

Wanna bet? Take the points. I'm giving 3.

 

[whaler11]

There is no amount of hyperbole that can justify Diaco's comments. Get off the comments. we agree...

But I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand you think going for it on 4th & 12 subliminally means they are trying to win the game. What you don't get is kicking there does not definitely mean he doesn't care (Again the explanation made no sense. We're with each other on that.).

The way the game was playing out, what are the chances they convert? 2%? 4%? 10%, tops? When they don't convert (which 9 times out of 10, they wouldn't...With Whitmer, it's closer to 10/10), they're still down by 3 TD's. Dismissing ConnHuskBask convoluted math to tie (FG's and 2pt conversions), those three scores that you would have had to get anyway, give you the chance to win. Who wants to figure out the best way to tie?

It baffles me that you are making such a big deal about this field goal and not the earlier fake attempt. You know when the play called for a backup punter to gain 16 yards!?!?! That's what I don't get.

Also: You don't have to be so passive aggressive by replying to a post while talking to/about someone else. My computer is probably 50 miles away from yours. 1) you won't hurt my feelings, and 2) You run zero risk of getting punched in the throat. No one knows who you are in real life...

Passive agressive isn't really my thing. You aren't the only person who doesn't see the blunder - so it wasn't directed at you even if CHB was replying to you.

Orginally I thought he just made a bad decision in the heat of the moment and wasn't quitting on the game. It's not subliminal: he has all but said he knew the game was over and chose the opportunity to give Puyol a kick.

I thought the play selection on the fake was ridiculous and I didn't like the timing since it was an easily predicitible time to attempt a fake. At least they were still attempting to get back in the game.

Here is the analysis fairly simply:

The chance to win the game after taking three is right around zero (especially if you don't come out and attempt an onsides kick).

So if the chance to get the first down is higher than zero it's the wrong decision to take three.

Again, it didn't change the outcome but if we see stuff like that after the first three games.... well I'd prefer that the coach give at least the illusion of trying to win the games, even if they are trailing a better team in the fourth quarter.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Not sure how being down 18 and having to score 18 points is "convoluted math".

 

[Husky25]

Not sure how being down 18 and having to score 18 points is "convoluted math".

It is not against the rules of football to be down by 18 and score more than 18 for the rest of the game. Why fool around with 2 pt. conversions and field goals? Three touchdowns...done. My point is (and always has been) the chances of converting a 4th & 12 on a short field with Whitmer under center were next to nothing. Everyone advocating going for it seems like they just assume he was going to get it. Plus even if he does get it, that takes even more time off the clock. There is no guarantee that UConn gets two more possessions.

One of the premises behind my argument also addresses the fake field goal. That call shows Diaco's focus on development over winning far more than the field goal at 11:03 in the 4th.

It was a stupid call in terms of yardage, time of game, and mindset of the players. It was right after halftime and UConn was marching down the field. They stalled, but they picked up a huge amount of yardage and were in field goal range. If Puyol hits that field goal, the score is 28-10 with 1 2/3 quarters remaining. If everything else played out as it did, the field goal in the 4th quarter makes it 28-13, and we are not having this discussion about what going for it means on 4th & 12 with the lesser QB of the two under center. Feagles is a RSFr. so I have no problem with him getting field time, I have a big problem asking a punter to get 16 yards to keep the drive alive. I thought it was a bad snap, but I didn't see the actual play because the BYU players were blocking my view. There is no reason to call a fake field goal in that situation.

 

[Carl Spackler]

[ fingers poised above keyboard ] ..... move right hand to mouse........click

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

[ fingers poised above keyboard ] ..... move right hand to mouse...click

I should've taken the points. No chance you can stop now.

 

[whaler11]

Yeah just score three more touchdowns, WHY DIDN'T YOU THINK OF THAT CHB?

No one is assuming they were going to get it.

Kicking a field goal and kicking away is the equivilant of calling the ref over and telling him you quit.

At this point you have to be trolling us because there is no way anyone could actually be this dense.

 

[pj]

Kicking a field goal and kicking away is the equivilant of calling the ref over and telling him you quit.

At this point you have to be trolling us because there is no way anyone could actually be this dense.

Kicking a field goal followed by an onside kick may have better chances than going for it on 4th and long. Kicking a field goal and trying to force a turnover may be better odds. If you convert 4th and long, you've only gotten a first down. You still haven't gotten to the end zone and you might end up with only 3 points.

 

[whaler11]

Kicking a field goal followed by an onside kick may have better chances than going for it on 4th and long. Kicking a field goal and trying to force a turnover may be better odds. If you convert 4th and long, you've only gotten a first down. You still haven't gotten to the end zone and you might end up with only 3 points.

You can never end up with three points because there is never a reason to kick a field goal. Unless it's to get some practice from the right hash.

 

[uconnfan68]

It was a nice night.

But I disagree on the talent statement. They had one incredible skill player. Past that, the squads were not that far apart talent wise. Put Hill on the Huskies and we win.

I see people make this mistake over ad over. What the Huskies lack is one or two special talents on the squad. The rest is pretty close. Give BYU Whitmer and the Huskies Hill and everyone will say BYU didn't have the horses to keep up with us. It's the special player, that one guy, or two, that we lack.

And it looked worse than it was because we played guys who didn't know what to do. On the first TD, we get good pressure up the middle but Stapeton completely loses contain and Hill trots in holding the ball over his head. Maybe in three games Stapleton learns to hold the edge. Again, not a talent issue, a redshirt freshman issue. In a couple of years we could be raving about Stapleton.

Didn't we learn anything from the P era? We put plenty of talent on the field. We need it to play to its potential and it would be nice, just once, to be the team with Dennard Robinson or Pat White.

Wow... I saw a bigger, faster, stronger team in BYU, at almost every position. Not sure what game you saw.

 

[Husky25]

I wasn't going to write back, but whatever...

You have your opinion and I have mine. It's Wednesday night, the NFL starts tomorrow, and we are much closer to the Stony Brook kick off than the final gun of BYU. I'm done with this topic. You're boring me and it's time to move on.

I probably won't even know it, but see you on Saturday.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

You can never end up with three points because there is never a reason to kick a field goal. Unless it's to get some practice from the right hash.

Sometimes at work, I have to bite down on my upper lip when I read your(and others') responses or else I would have coworkers peering over my way wondering wtf is going on. Its a compliment.

 

[Dogged]

What a beautiful night for football. Perfect fall weather (like we've had all summer). A good crowd (the 35k announced looked low to me compared to what I saw) given the harm that has been done to our program. Not much enthusiasm, but we were down so quickly that's to be expected. Did it resemble the crowd for WVU and Pitt in '11 or LV or USF in '07? Of course not. But frankly I was surprised to see as many have stuck with the program as have given the disaster that was P, the disaster that is conference realignment and the fact that attendance at sporting events is down generally. Yes, traffic in CT is just god awful. Yes, I wish they could get us into the stadium easier. But it was a good night for football.

We didn't lose because of HCBD (although I'll get to that later). We lost because they were more talented up and down the rosters. We lost the game because we were clearly wearing cleats that weren't right for the turf, and we watched WR after WR slip and fall trying to cut (while BYU didn't have that problem). We lost because they had more experience and a staff that has been there winning more than losing for a while. And, most importantly, because our team is just not built for stopping a QB of that style that good. Our DEs, to a man, are to slow to even contain someone like that, much less pressure him, and once he's out of the pocket whether he runs or throws we're in trouble. If we play more QBs like him we'll lose more games. Until we get back to DEs who max out at 250 and can run. That's why we lost the game. Yes, whenever you play you can win if absolutely everything goes right. But we never had a material chance of winning that game, and it wouldn't matter if Vince Lombardi was coaching us.

I must say, the unbelievable number of substitutions and players used makes it incredibly difficult to talk about what I saw. But let's give it a try. On O, I thought the OL played competently. Yes, that's not huge praise, but it's lightyears ahead of where we were just a year ago, notwithstanding our losses to graduation. Thank you Mike Foley. I liked the way Ron Johnson ran through an arm tackle, I liked Mariner's burst and I liked Newsome's quickness and elusiveness. But they all need to learn stuff. Mariner did not score running to the corner when he couldn't execute a stiffarm. A Bellamy or a Brockington, neither with his legs, scores easily on that play. I liked the start of the TEs, especially Bloom. Other than Davis, the WRs were not good enough (and by the way -- Geremy Davis should not be off the field more than 10% of our offensive snaps, if at all). Obviously, not a fan of playing two QBs -- and even when I was ready for that the thought that we'd be changing during a drive is Pasquolini level stupidity. As to how they played, Whitmer made the nice escape and through to Bloom, and didn't turn it over, but wasn't accurate enough. Cochran was o.k. Neither got much help from their wideouts, not just with drops but with the inability to cut.

Specials was not, but it wasn't horrific either. Puyol made his kick, and got one KO into the endzone (although he kicked OB also). Wain needs to be better -- he looked like he was too focused on where the ball was going to land instead of just kicking it. Coverages weren't horrific, and if Newsome learns to take a KO and move at full speed even ahead of a hole being there he'll make a play or two this year.

Defense is harder to talk about, because there is not enough speed in the front 7 to stop offenses like BYU's. I can't blame 285 pound DEs for not being Cody Brown or Trevardo. There's no point. Stewart has athleticism but seems to struggle with coverages and reads. The frosh LB from PA -- is it Junior or Joseph -- looked much better to me than Ashiru playing in the middle. I thought Vann was solid. Williams needs to find the ball from the corner. I've never seen in Obi what others do. But I don't want to be too harsh after one game. The buttom line is the D could have quit at halftime and they didn't -- they played their butts off and, with the help of BYU mistakes, gave our O plenty of time to get back in the game. Ultimately, our O didn't finish drives at the level they were going to have to in order for us to have a chance to win.

So what about HCBD? Let's go back a bit, because I was quiet at the end of last season with both disillusionment and a lot of stuff going on in my life. I thought Warde ran a good process and made a good choice. Personally, I leaned to the Narduzzi because of his CT ties, and the thought that maybe he'd stay if successful, but HCBD was a good hire. We had better options than when we hired Edsall, because of where the program is, but frankly we didn't have the options we had when we hired P because of the realignment issues. But it was a good hire. But you never know with assistants if they'll be a good coach until they have their shot. So what happened Friday night? I think a lot of the criticism is silly. I thought the bodies coming in and off, given their number, did incredibly well (I only remember one defensive 4th down where there was real confusion) and certainly better than P's first year. Fifty players playing from scrimmage? No, I don't think you will ultimately win this way, and Friday night wasn't "ultimately." Did he need the evaluation? Does he consider the first three games preparation for the conference season? Did he feel he needed to play that many kids to get "buy in" up and down the roster? Who knows. But he deserves patience, and he deserves not to be criticized WHERE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS THINKING. On the other hand, was there crazy stuff happening? LIke not just the two QBs but switching in the middle of a successful drive? Like Geremy Davis being on the bench so much? Like a naked run on a fake FG when we needed 16 yards, not 6? I don't think he coached a good game, or even close to it. But it was his first one and not a game we were likely to win in any event. Talk to me after five games, when we've played at USF and Temple and home and I've seen how we've done.

So that's it. I think many on here, with the joy of a new coaching regime, where far more optimistic than either HCBD's experience or our talent levels justify. 6-6 and a minor bowl bid would be a very, very successful season as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not at all confident we have 6 wins in us. The sooner I see Whitmer not playing the happier I'll be, but if he gets us to 6 wins with Cody, or with a two platoon, so be it. He gets a chance to do it his way. And the chance is going to take more time than it took to judge P unless the guy starts costing us games. Which he did not do Friday night.

Thanks for the reasoned analysis. Quite astute and fair and so much preferable to the emotional drivel that comes from some posters who "slept at a Holiday Inn last night" but who are so disappointed by the lack of a win or a closer game that they can't see the forest for the trees or won't even consider a longer term perspective. I want to see the entire program change not just a game to game adjustment. I believe the latest recruit is a tell for the future: we are on a new road.

If the season is a mess at the end of the year, I will reconsider my position. Until then I'll withhold criticism.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

[ fingers poised above keyboard ] ..... move right hand to mouse...click

Spack, this has to be torture for you.

 

[RedStickHusky]

10, 9, 8, ...

 

[businesslawyer]

Wow... I saw a bigger, faster, stronger team in BYU, at almost every position. Not sure what game you saw.

Palatine has two rules for viewing what he sees in life:

1. It's Obama's fault.

2. If for some reason #1 can't be made applicable, it's the fault of the UConn football coach.

Since he can't find a way to blame Obama for UConn being pushed around on Friday night (at least not yet), we fall back on rule @2.

One day he will write something that can't be explained by one of those two rules, but I'm not holding my breath!

 

[uconnell]

It isn't Obama's fault?