136-0 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

136-0

ShakyTheMohel said:
For the millionth time... understand what our choices were last year. It wasn't to play a 12 game schedule. It was to play 3 or 4 games on random weekends when schedules and covid allowed.

But...I will give you my perspective...

I thought they would be physically more capable to play FBS football than they were in 2019. I thought they would have a deeper knowledge of Edsalls schemes and playbook. I thought the time off would allow Edsall players to establish themselves while Diaco players graduated or transferred.

It turns out that time didn't help. Bad team in 2019 and they are still bad in 2021.

Does that answer your question?
Expand ...
There were people who said they would be better without playing a whole season of football, that's an absolutely insane take.

Looks like you're one of those people.
 
superjohn said:
There were people who said they would be better without playing a whole season of football, that's an absolutely insane take.

Looks like you're one of those people.
Expand ...
Anything live last year would have helped…it’s crazy to think otherwise. Even UMess has looked better.
 
Rugger36 said:
Anything live last year would have helped…it’s crazy to think otherwise. Even UMess has looked better.
Expand ...
I don’t follow UMASS closely although I should since I work there and have connections like UCONN. What I noticed is the QB that played last year is no longer there. Got a transfer from CU and now they are scoring points. It mattered.
 
Bongo Fury said:
I don’t follow UMASS closely although I should since I work there and have connections like UCONN. What I noticed is the QB that played last year is no longer there. Got a transfer from CU and now they are scoring points. It mattered.
Expand ...
There are a lot of other guys that got game experience last year. That certainly matters.
 
superjohn said:
There were people who said they would be better without playing a whole season of football, that's an absolutely insane take.

Looks like you're one of those people.
Expand ...
It wasn't a whole season. It would have been 3 or 4 games. I did believe the unique position of the UConn program (true freshman needing to play...no conference games...covid risks) meant a year of development versus a few crappy games would be beneficial.

I don't think that is an "insane take"...and how they played this season hasn't proven anything. Who knows if the team would be better if they played a few games last year. Maybe...but I'm not so sure. They still had Edsall and Giufre.
 
.-.
Rugger36 said:
Anything live last year would have helped…it’s crazy to think otherwise. Even UMess has looked better.
Expand ...
Say they played last year...how would that impact this year? Would they have a win? Maybe beat Holy Cross?

All that would have done is help Edsall keep his job. They still wouldn't be a good team.

Really...at this point...who cares?
 
ShakyTheMohel said:
It wasn't a whole season. It would have been 3 or 4 games. I did believe the unique position of the UConn program (true freshman needing to play...no conference games...covid risks) meant a year of development versus a few crappy games would be beneficial.

I don't think that is an "insane take"...and how they played this season hasn't proven anything. Who knows if the team would be better if they played a few games last year. Maybe...but I'm not so sure. They still had Edsall and Giufre.
Expand ...
I’m with you. We would’ve played UMass (maybe twice), Liberty, and maybe one other random school. Edsall wouldn’t have been fired during a covid year. 4 saturdays in 2020 wouldn’t have made this a different team than it is right now. It’s a straw man argument.
 
ShakyTheMohel said:
It wasn't a whole season. It would have been 3 or 4 games. I did believe the unique position of the UConn program (true freshman needing to play...no conference games...covid risks) meant a year of development versus a few crappy games would be beneficial.

I don't think that is an "insane take"...and how they played this season hasn't proven anything. Who knows if the team would be better if they played a few games last year. Maybe...but I'm not so sure. They still had Edsall and Giufre.
Expand ...
You can debate whether it made financial sense but thinking it is more beneficial to a college football team not playing for a season is an insane take.
 
blue93 said:
I’m with you. We would’ve played UMass (maybe twice), Liberty, and maybe one other random school. Edsall wouldn’t have been fired during a covid year. 4 saturdays in 2020 wouldn’t have made this a different team than it is right now. It’s a straw man argument.
Expand ...
They would have seen who can play or not. Instead they know who is good at lifting weights and doing practice drills.
 
Bongo Fury said:
RE being obstinate didn’t want to play. Enough with the excuses. If the kids didn’t want to play then they are wimps and shouldn’t be playing at all.
Expand ...
You sound like a 12 year old…calling a bunch of college football players “wimps”
 
.-.
Bongo Fury said:
They would have seen who can play or not. Instead they know who is good at lifting weights and doing practice drills.
Expand ...
For the record, our starting QB today wasn’t even on campus in 2020. But I’m sure 4 games last year would’ve been the key to turning it around this year.
 
Is it really any more complicated than you can’t beat FBS teams when you’re limited to recruiting FCS players (regardless of whether they’re from Canada or wherever)?
 
ShakyTheMohel said:
Say they played last year...how would that impact this year? Would they have a win? Maybe beat Holy Cross?

All that would have done is help Edsall keep his job. They still wouldn't be a good team.

Really...at this point...who cares?
Expand ...
Boom. It didn’t matter. We are just way behind where we need to be. I mostly blame Edsall. He was starting our worst QB. That aided in shattering our confidence. Krajewski and TP both score enough to beat Holy Cross. We were led by a coach that was past his sell date.

The guys are stronger and faster, they are just poorly coached and more importantly, poorly game planned. Everyone dismissing Spanos, consider, he’s tried two QBs and given us something to be mildly happy about. That hasn’t happened since we beat Houston at the Rent 100 years ago. Things are better today than they were two weeks ago. Let’s just worry about that.
 
Last edited:
.-.
I do give spanos credit for mixing things up. I would rather him in a damn heartbeat over an obstinate stubborn SOB. Bringing in a new set of eyes to at least try and help the offense is at least a sign he is trying. The talent gap is just mind boggling.
 
scotty0330 said:
I do give spanos credit for mixing things up. I would rather him in a damn heartbeat over an obstinate stubborn SOB. Bringing in a new set of eyes to at least try and help the offense is at least a sign he is trying. The talent gap is just mind boggling.
Expand ...
Boom, in a nutshell!

Spanos can try a new quarterback every week, but guess what, many on the O-line still can't block, many of the RBs can't break tackles, many of the WRs can't get open, and many on the defense can't tackle. Because for the most part we can't recruit enough FBS 3-star prospects who are willing to spend 4-5 years in Storrs, CT. So our ceiling will never rise above 3-4 wins annually, against the likes of HC, Yale, and UMass.
 
fireford said:
It also should be noted that Uconn ran back it's first kickoff for a TD in 10 years. Baby steps.

Expand ...

I enjoy the color commentary, but I noticed, (if I missed it I am wrong), that no mention of the fact was made of Brewton switching the ball from his right arm(the "inside" arm relating to the defense) to his left arm (the "outside" arm), at about the 28. He saw the defense was going to be on his inside, ( the right), so he switched up the ball from the inside to the outside. Now you know you have the sideline as your own "blocker" and can use your inside arm to protect and parry-"stiff arm".
I don't see that enough anymore. Gives me an insight to Brewton's own confidence and situation awareness.
 
amishboy said:
Boom, in a nutshell!

Spanos can try a new quarterback every week, but guess what, many on the O-line still can't block, many of the RBs can't break tackles, many of the WRs can't get open, and many on the defense can't tackle. Because for the most part we can't recruit enough FBS 3-star prospects who are willing to spend 4-5 years in Storrs, CT. So our ceiling will never rise above 3-4 wins annually, against the likes of HC, Yale, and UMass.
Expand ...
Stars or no stars just need good players. Coulda shoulda woulda transfer portal for more proven players.
 
.-.
Ldandy said:
WR can't catch, OL doesn't block, RB make no one miss, DL can't get pressure, LB don't tackle, and DB can't cover. Other than that things are going well...
Expand ...
You forgot QB can't throw.
 
It’s not about lowering standards across the board. It’s about allotting about 25% of roster space to individuals who are reaches academically but who the staff feels will do well with academic attention.

I can assure you not every player on Stanford or Northwestern meets their schools stringent admission standards.
 
And just to add, people point to schools like Boise State who rose to prominence like it can be done easily - have you seen their admission standards for athletes?

We need to loosen the standards.

we have lost all conference type players, heck even defensive national player of the year award winners that wanted to come here but couldn’t because of academics. That has to change.
 
huskysupporter said:
And just to add, people point to schools like Boise State who rose to prominence like it can be done easily - have you seen their admission standards for athletes?

We need to loosen the standards.

we have lost all conference type players, heck even defensive national player of the year award winners that wanted to come here but couldn’t because of academics. That has to change.
Expand ...
Why should we? According to US News UConn is one of the top rated public universities. We shouldn't be a football factory if that mean that we accept room temperature IQ players.
 
HuskyDogArt said:
Why should we? According to US News UConn is one of the top rated public universities. We shouldn't be a football factory if that mean that we accept room temperature IQ players.
Expand ...
Yet we do it in basketball in some cases.

the standards need to be relaxed for a percentage of the team. It will not hurt US News rankings of UCONN as a university.

In fact, I would argue that a very good football team would increase applications and possibly increase UCONNs ranking. Remember it wasn’t too long ago when UCONN was a safety school, it’s rise coincided with Basketball teams emergence.
 
huskysupporter said:
Yet we do it in basketball in some cases.

the standards need to be relaxed for a percentage of the team. It will not hurt US News rankings of UCONN as a university.

In fact, I would argue that a very good football team would increase applications and possibly increase UCONNs ranking. Remember it wasn’t too long ago when UCONN was a safety school, it’s rise coincided with Basketball teams emergence.
Expand ...
But what percentage of the team? Do we lower standards on the hockey or baseball teams? If so, what's the percentage?
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,291
Messages
4,561,636
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom