UConn Press Conference (Tuesday 9/2) Quick Hits

[Carl Spackler]

Question:
Suppose that Cochran and 4 other key players clearly violated team rules and Diaco suspended them, would you be upset?

If not, why not? I mean, by suspending them, the team would likely lose, thus showing that winning was not priority 1 for Diaco.

Or would you agree that for long term success, the coach sometimes has to focus on learning and development over near-term wins?

Right now, absolutely not, because we have 50+ players on offense alone getting practice and game time reps, as well as the D. (that's a joke)

Seriously, if the players violate rules, to the point where the head coach feels the need to suspend them as a consequence, then I'm truly not going to be upset at all. Because I believe that the fundamental purpose of college football, is to be part of an academic mission for a university. Development of quality young men, through the game of football. Diaco has never waivered from this, has been crystal clear about it as his purpose, and has been consistent about how he's approached it, so far, and that is probably what I like most about him. I would be disappointed to see him cut corners on something like that, away from the field. Winning is important, there is no room for second place, but winning in life, is a lot more important than winning on the football field, and suspending players to help them learn from mistakes to become better people in life, is not in any way, showing that winning isn't priority #1. JMO.

As for your second question, I don't think it's ever a good idea to be making decisions that do not give yourself the best chance you can come up with, to win - now, and later. You can do both at the same time, but it takes experience and practice, just like everything else,and if you find yourself in a situation where you are acutely making a decision in one way over the other (i.e. something you are doing now, that costs you a chance to win games now - vs. losing now, to try to something later? ) That to me - means that you've effed up in your decision making, and need to correct something. You need to find ways to balance doing the best you can to win now - and later. I believe he's trying to do that, but I just don't agree with the method. It's ok, there is no golden standard on how to run a football program, and create a winning football program - the only thing that defines what works for who, where, and when - is the actual wins and loss column.

 

[Husky25]

H25,
I get what you are saying, but I disagree on the Saban comparison. He won his first 3 games including an upset over the #16 ranked team in the country. His problems actually came later as his depth wasn't there. and the basketball analysis is really faulty for a few reasons. First is 30 games vs 12. Second is that you approach games with big teams differently than you do games with Stony Brook. Yeah, Calhoun's bench was very long against Stony Brook. Against say Texas, not so much. When you play name teams you don't screw around. the benefit of beating BYU would have gone beyond anything we gained by "getting better" and losing by 25 points. Now I'm not saying we could have beaten them. But we didn't even try. That is what frosts me.

The Saban as a coach comparison does not work because he also had more material to work with, but the comparison in philosophy transcends both Diaco's and Saban's situation. I would love for Diaco to work out his kinks in preseason games but football doesn't and can't work like that. It's too physical and violent of a game.

I'm all in on Diaco. I'm on record as saying this team could possibly go 8-4 (4-2 by Columbus Day) and I'm sticking to it. I think former "Coach" Pasqualoni recruited talented players, but they checked out and he didn't develop them. Diaco is finding their talent. I had both BYU and BSU in the lose column, so the loss itself doesn't affect my prediction. That said, the first quarter could not have gone much worse for UConn, but in the end It may have been exactly what UConn needed. If this was last year's team, BYU covers the over all by themselves, and I doubt UConn scores 10. But it's not last year's team. They appeared to play hard the entire game.

Their were certainly negatives other than the physical mistakes by UConn (Turnovers and missed tackles), but very few were mental mistakes on the field. The post game press conference is the first time I heard Diaco say the wrong thing since he crossed the state line and I certainly second guess a couple decisions from Friday (Whitmer playing at all, not getting Newsome more involved, and the fake field goal are the ones that come immediately to mind). His justification for the field goal attempt was absurd, but I don't think it was the wrong decision (explained yesterday). I understand he is setting expectations, but I also expect him to deliver well above those goals and I think you'll see some of them be achieved this week.

 

[businesslawyer]

I dunno, what do people on the board see in Cochran? At least Whitmer didn't throw any picks. Not that I'm saying Whitmer is great but one of the things we've been hammering home is not making bad turnovers, which is exactly what Cochran did.

Thank you for asking, because incredibly the answer doesn't seem clear to 100% of UConn fans. Cochrane started the last four games for an 0-8 team, that then won 3 of the last 4. During those four starts, his AVERAGE numbers were 24 for 37 (65%) for 276 yards a game, with 2.25 TDs per game and 0.75 picks per game (a 3 to 1 ration).

What I see in Cochrane -- and what you should see in Cochrane -- is that when given the chance he produced. And produced big. Period.

 

[Husky25]

Actually Shula was a tire fire. Alabama had scandals, had to vacate a bunch of wins from his tenure and on top of all that he was 0-4 against Auburn. Even without the vacted wins he only had 1 winning season.

Okay let me rephrase: Shula was not as much of a tire fire as the "Coach" Pasqualoni era.

He had 1 winning season (10-3), and 2 6-6 seasons (can't give him the bowl loss before which he was fired). The scandals happened during the Stallings/Dubose/Franchione years and capped off by the Mike Price controversy. The program began to turn around under Shula even as his teams were being sanctioned for past transgressions.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I dunno, what do people on the board see in Cochran? At least Whitmer didn't throw any picks. Not that I'm saying Whitmer is great but one of the things we've been hammering home is not making bad turnovers, which is exactly what Cochran did.

Seriously, it's night and day. If you want to make your decision in a vacuum based on the number of TO's each of them accounted for on Friday night, then Whitmer is your guy.

However, if you take everything else into account and include how they've performed in the past and how, to the football eye each of them played within the context of the BYU game, it's Cochran. By a lot.

 

[freescooter]

Somehow, I'm willing to guess that the difference between the Bama roster Saban inherited and the UConn roster HCBD inherited is greater than the difference between the philosophies that they brought with them. Seriously, you need to do better than comparing us to Alabama.

I didn't make the comparison. Others compared Diaco's approach to Saban's. I merely pointed out that is was an erroneous comparison. As you say, Alabama football is not UConn football, but even taking that into account, Saban didn't actually approach his 1st year in Tuskaloosa season like Diaco did his first season in Storrs. He went out and tried to win, and in fact did win.

 

[Husky25]

http://the-boneyard.com/blog/bob-diaco-bleeds-winning/

Nice piece by Matt.

 

[warbler1055]

Too much talk about process, development. More winning would help.

 

[Chin Diesel]

I dunno, what do people on the board see in Cochran? At least Whitmer didn't throw any picks. Not that I'm saying Whitmer is great but one of the things we've been hammering home is not making bad turnovers, which is exactly what Cochran did.

Except there is a year of JUCO film and two years of UConn film of Whitmer having a high INT rate, whereas Casey had four games last year of a good TD to INT ratio.

 

[jackl]

Early this morning (12:30)I watched the replay of the game from 21-0 on. It really wasn't that bad. A couple of dropped passes by the wideouts not named Davis and it could have been closer. I think right now Diaco is tuning the engine and from what I've seen with his recruiting I can't wait for the rest of the season and the future. We are on our way to being a lot more than respectable. I like his positive outlook as he is constantly talking and teaching on the sidelines. Not Spitting in their faces like someone we all knew. GO HUSKIES!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Carl Spackler]

Seriously, it's night and day. If you want to make your decision in a vacuum based on the number of TO's each of them accounted for on Friday night, then Whitmer is your guy.

However, if you take everything else into account and include how they've performed in the past and how, to the football eye each of them played within the context of the BYU game, it's Cochran. By a lot.

One can hope, that this kind of situation, is panning out all over the roster, and by the time we've finished with this first 3 game quarter of the season, everyone will have had the reps they were told they would get in practice and games, and the coaches will finally settle on a starting 22, that are going to get the majority of the work every week, and when they do make those decisions and inform the players, it will come as no surprise to any of the players. That's the value in doing what Diaco is doing.

You just hope that we're not 0-3, to get there. You're only sure of having 12 games a year, you have to earn the extra one by winning more than you lose.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

I dunno, what do people on the board see in Cochran? At least Whitmer didn't throw any picks. Not that I'm saying Whitmer is great but one of the things we've been hammering home is not making bad turnovers, which is exactly what Cochran did.

Whitmer threw back breaking, moral sucking pick-6s on four consecutive weeks at the start of last year. It will be Cochran but he very well may need Whitmer at the end of the year, possibly for a bowl berth.

 

[tense50]

The excitement that accompanied HCBD's arrival here seems to have tempered a bit with the loss to BYU. I don't know about most BY'ers but I think we should give him the time to develop the team into one that wins on a consistent basis. He certainly came with impressive credentials and knows how to win. And he came into a team that he and his assistant coaches had no previous contact with (except for coach Foley). It's hard, I know, because of the preceding 3 years, but I still have confidence that all will be right with the Huskies sooner rather than latter. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time. Hope I'm not wrong.

 

[Dogged]

What on earth does he see in Whitmer? Nice kid, but he melts when there is a pass rush. That should have been obvious to Diaco on Friday.

What he sees in Whitmer is one of two options he has at quarterback unless he pulls Boyle's redshirt off. Whitmer has to be ready to play in Diaco's system if Casey gets hurt.

I totally opposed the QB change on the drive into the red zone against BYU and I would prefer to have lost 35-17 or 35-24 but a loss is a loss and I'm willing to accept that BD is coaching these players and needs to do that in a hurry. The conference season is coming fast.

The team's main weakness is lack of game experience at almost every position. That's what needs to be fixed the most. So lots of subbing and a field goal attempt from the kicker's weak spot and a fake field goal to teach the holder and the kicker may pay benefits down the road.

I'm all for the process.

And I don't believe they don't want to win every game.

 

[fgbrault]

I watched and listened to the video of the press conference. I found it the most fascinating look into the thinking of a head coach that I have ever heard. I am not sure that his approach and philosophy will work, but he makes a lot of sense to me (although I have doubts about using 2 quarterbacks) and coupled with the type of recruits he is getting, in spite of the teams poor performance over the last 3 years, it gives me me a lot of hope for the future. I think listening to everything he said that there is an initial balance in his approach between winning and developing this team. He has clearly emphasized to the players that if they lose they should be crestfallen after all the effort they put in to win. However, they then have to get over it and move on and get better and be pleased if they have improved. At the same time, he has to develop players and so will not, in this stage, always have his best player in at each position. Diaco, is not stupid and he knows that his job and career, in the longer term, require winning. I just hope he is right in his philosophy and approach.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Seriously, it's night and day. If you want to make your decision in a vacuum based on the number of TO's each of them accounted for on Friday night, then Whitmer is your guy.

However, if you take everything else into account and include how they've performed in the past and how, to the football eye each of them played within the context of the BYU game, it's Cochran. By a lot.

It seemed to me the competition last year between them was night and day. Cochran didn't exactly have a murderer's row of competition.

That being said, neither of them looked particularly good against BYU. I honestly thought they both looked marginally about the same. I'd start Cochran, too, since he's younger and more likely to get better, but my eyes didn't show me a QB light years ahead of Whitmer, either.

 

[businesslawyer]

It seemed to me the competition last year between them was night and day. Cochran didn't exactly have a murderer's row of competition.

That being said, neither of them looked particularly good against BYU. I honestly thought they both looked marginally about the same. I'd start Cochran, too, since he's younger and more likely to get better, but my eyes didn't show me a QB light years ahead of Whitmer, either.

Oh please. Cochrane played against decent teams in SMU and Rutgers. It's not like Whitmer (Towson and Buffalo) and Boyle (USF) didn't have chances against crappy teams as well.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It seemed to me the competition last year between them was night and day. Cochran didn't exactly have a murderer's row of competition.

That being said, neither of them looked particularly good against BYU. I honestly thought they both looked marginally about the same. I'd start Cochran, too, since he's younger and more likely to get better, but my eyes didn't show me a QB light years ahead of Whitmer, either.

I don't know. Too each their own, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one of the QB's who played Friday night was scared and flushed out of the pocket by his own shadow. No thanks.

 

[Excalibur]

I didn't make the comparison. Others compared Diaco's approach to Saban's. I merely pointed out that is was an erroneous comparison. As you say, Alabama football is not UConn football, but even taking that into account, Saban didn't actually approach his 1st year in Tuskaloosa season like Diaco did his first season in Storrs. He went out and tried to win, and in fact did win.

He won as a by-product of having good enough talent to win. His approach was very similar.

 

[Nostical]

It's all about positive reinforcement with BD. That's why he brought in Whitmer at the end of the drive. He counted on a touchdown providing a boost for his confidence. It's why he had Puyols kick the field goal. It's all part of his philosophy in rebuilding the psyche of this team right along with their physiques. I'm all for it. The team will be on the field Saturday with heads held high, having been encouraged despite the defeat in the effort against BYU. They will be better tuned to their roles and more confident in their skills. We will beat Stony Brook--that's a given. More importantly the game and the win will help validate the BD approach. And that bodes well for the remainder of the season--and the program beyond..

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't know. Too each their own, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one of the QB's who played Friday night was scared and flushed out of the pocket by his own shadow. No thanks.

I don't think its fair to label Chandler that way Jimmy. That kid is about as tough a player at the QB position that you can have, and he's been a loyal Husky all along, and looks like he will graduate a Husky forever. The number of hits, where he got completely rocked in the past 3 seasons, and got back up and stepped right back into the game, there is no debate on what he brings to the field as a player at the QB position, and it is not fear. You want to question his decision making under pressure, I'm with you, and but I disagree that anything he's doing on the field is done because he is scared - of contact, or scared of anything else.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I don't think its fair to label Chandler that way Jimmy. That kid is about as tough a player at the QB position that you can have, and he's been a loyal Husky all along, and looks like he will graduate a Husky forever. The number of hits, where he got completely rocked in the past 3 seasons, and got back up and stepped right back into the game, there is no debate on what he brings to the field as a player at the QB position, and it is not fear. You want to question his decision making under pressure, I'm with you, and but I disagree that anything he's doing on the field is done because he is scared - of contact, or scared of anything else.

That's fair. But it doesn't change the fact that he had, I'll say, "below average to poor pocket presence".

 

[RedStickHusky]

I dunno, what do people on the board see in Cochran? At least Whitmer didn't throw any picks. Not that I'm saying Whitmer is great but one of the things we've been hammering home is not making bad turnovers, which is exactly what Cochran did.

What I see, and this is subjective. is that CC looks to be in the game and CW looks like the game is something happening to him.

 

[UconnFamily]

I think the coach has made it pretty clear that getting better is top priority and winning would come in after that, for the first three games. He said that he would not be doing this if BYU or SB or BSU were conference teams. One could simply deduce from all of that, without much thought in fact, that he thinks UConns best chance at winning the conference comes from playing these three games like he is. So to specifically answer your question, Goal number one of his does not appear to be winning against stony brook, but it appears to be getting better to face our conference. I am sure that Coach would think winning would be nice and all, but it is pretty obvious that winning the next game is against stony brook is not what the coaches are coaching for, a conference championship is. If UConn were national championship contenders, this would not be a great plan. If UConn were coming off a horrible 3-9 season, this may be just what the doctor ordered, only time will tell.

Spot on