ALL BEAT WRITERS READ

[Dann]

which ever one of you steps up and asks the tough questions and sees the fans issues, you will be getting a lot more attention from this fanbase as result. i promise you that. so which one of you will it be? no one has so far...

 

[huskymedic]

which ever one of you steps up and asks the tough questions and sees the fans issues, you will be getting a lot more attention from this fanbase as result. i promise you that. so which one of you will it be? no one has so far...

You can't make somone answer a question they don't want to answer. The questions are being asked... do you suggest waterboarding or thumbscrews for responses?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

What do you them to ask P?

"Paul, considering the ineptness of the offense, are you looking to can your good buddy of 40 years?"

 

[UConn9604]

You can't make somoene answer a question they don't want to answer. The questions are being asked... do you suggest waterboarding or thumbscrews for responses?

This (your general point about being unable to force someone to answer a question) is true, but I don't consider the time-management of the first half to be a tough question. In fact, I considered it to be THE question of the first half. Better time management would have improved our odds of hitting a tying FG or (gasp!) put us into position to score a TD.

The question has to be asked: "Paul, I noticed that you went into the locker room with all three timeouts, and it seemed like there were a few opportunities where stopping the clock would have helped the offense a little bit. Care to share a little insight as to why you elected not to call a timeout?"

That's not being a jerk and that's not a difficult question (in my opinion).

I can appreciate why a beat writer might not want to piss off his subjects, but the question has to be asked. It must.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This (your general point about being unable to force someone to answer a question) is true, but I don't consider the time-management of the first half to be a tough question. In fact, I considered it to be THE question of the first half. Better time management would have improved our odds of hitting a tying FG or (gasp!) put us into position to score a TD.

The question has to be asked: "Paul, I noticed that you went into the locker room with all three timeouts, and it seemed like there were a few opportunities where stopping the clock would have helped the offense a little bit. Care to share a little insight as to why you elected not to call a timeout?"

That's not being a jerk and that's not a difficult question (in my opinion).

I can appreciate why a beat writer might not want to piss off his subjects, but the question has to be asked. It must.

That question was asked. You probably don't want to see P's response though.

 

[Dann]

the writers need to ask questions. if coaches dont answer them then it shows more that the coaches are lost. if they answer then we judge from there...

the more writers that start asking questions instead of acting like things are ok the more the staff will have to start answering and realizing the pressure is on etc.

writers should not be scared that asking tough questions will result in them not getting the inside info and typical q/a's. this staff is gone soon enough so they dont need to worry any more about that.

GET AT HEADS!!!!!!!!!

 

[Munchito]

HCPP response was nonsense! He will not take the blame, he will blame everything on the players.

 

[mattp]

That question was asked. You probably don't want to see P's response though.

If you tell me P's response was that there wasn't anything he'd have done differently it will turn me from a guy that hopes we get a new OC to a guy that hopes we get a new OC and HC. It was unquestionably handled poorly, and if he can't even recognize that than he needs to go.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

If you tell me P's response was that there wasn't anything he'd have done differently it will turn me from a guy that hopes we get a new OC to a guy that hopes we get a new OC and HC. It was unquestionably handled poorly, and if he can't even recognize that than he needs to go.

You asked for it Matt..................

"We were in good shape, there wasn't really a need to use a timeout," Pasqualoni said. "Once it got to eight seconds we kicked a field goal. If you run the risk of trying to play there with eight seconds that's kind of the cutoff. If you do something, God forbid you get sacked, you get tackled in bounds, even though you have timeouts sometimes you can't get to them. ... You're right at the line with seven seconds and I wasn't going to risk one second. I just thought Chad, with the wind, would have a pretty good shot to make the three."

 

[ruskin]

At a minimum, would love it if someone asked him if he wanted to "walk back" his defense of the debacle at the end of the first half

The Huskies were moving before the half and had the ball at its 44 and all three timeouts left. There was one big completion on the drive, a 22-yarder to Geremy Davis (four catches, 78 yards) but there were no timeouts called to set up shots at the end zone.
"We were in good shape, there wasn't really a need to use a timeout," Pasqualoni said. "Once it got to eight seconds we kicked a field goal. If you run the risk of trying to play there with eight seconds that's kind of the cutoff. If you do something, God forbid you get sacked, you get tackled in bounds, even though you have timeouts sometimes you can't get to them. ... You're right at the line with seven seconds and I wasn't going to risk one second. I just thought Chad, with the wind, would have a pretty good shot to make the three."

Again, the timeline: UConn has all three timeouts, Geremy catches ball at RU 34 w/23 secs left. Time NOT called. 9 seconds run off before review. Ref doesn't put time back on clock, P doesn't object. First down play w/14 seconds is incompletion to sideline. 8 seconds remain, and, well, you know the rest. 1 second left after missed FG. No points, three ununsed timeouts . . . but at least we were in good shape.

 

[huskymedic]

the writers need to ask questions. if coaches dont answer them then it shows more that the coaches are lost. if they answer then we judge from there...

the more writers that start asking questions instead of acting like things are ok the more the staff will have to start answering and realizing the pressure is on etc.

writers should not be scared that asking tough questions will result in them not getting the inside info and typical q/a's. this staff is gone soon enough so they dont need to worry any more about that.

GET AT HEADS!!!!!!!!!

Guess you don't spend much time dealing with politicians/elected officials eh?

 

[ruskin]

I vote for THIS GUY to be the participation monitor going forward (and not because great minds think alike) . . . he can throw towel at coach before he insanely inserts a true freshman

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I vote for THIS GUY to be the participation monitor going forward (and not because great minds think alike) . . . he can throw towel at coach before he insanely inserts a true freshman

View attachment 1427

I resemble that remark.

 

[mattp]

You asked for it Matt..................

"We were in good shape, there wasn't really a need to use a timeout," Pasqualoni said. "Once it got to eight seconds we kicked a field goal. If you run the risk of trying to play there with eight seconds that's kind of the cutoff. If you do something, God forbid you get sacked, you get tackled in bounds, even though you have timeouts sometimes you can't get to them. ... You're right at the line with seven seconds and I wasn't going to risk one second. I just thought Chad, with the wind, would have a pretty good shot to make the three."

jeez. 8 second cutoff my ass. How can he not realize if he called the TO right after the catch he'd have had over 20 seconds? We had time for at least 2 plays before we should have gotten to his 8 second cut off. And with 2 TOs (assuming we used the first right after the catch) we could have used the whole field. The worst part is he doesn't want to acknowledge any of it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I was baffled myself at what was going on. #1, it was a first down. Unless something has changed, that I don't know about, in college ball, the rule is that the clock stops on a first down, until the chains can get moved and set. That was a 30+ yard completion. The sticks guys don't run 4.4 40s, and the rutgers clock operator didn't stop the clock. There should ahve been a good 5-10 seconds minimum of dead time...

So I think the rutgers clock manager hosed us there, and I don't have a problem with P not calling the timeout, especially on finding out the play was going under review.

I do have a problem, Dan, as you noted, with P not thrwoing a complete mental breakdown at the refs, when the clock wasn't reset to 23 seconds on the finding of a good completion, and noting that the clock wasn't stopped on teh first down to move the chains.

What happened after that? Well, i'm on as thin ice as I can possibly be with our OC right now.

Unless I"m completely mistaken on both the rule, and that the clock was stopped to get the chains set on that first down. I don't hink I'm wrong about the rule, and I"m pretty sure they let the clock run after the completion.

Regardless, we had 14 seconds, three timeouts, to get a field goal off, and leave no time remaining, and failed. We could have done a full back dive in the middle of the field - Randy Edsall special, and at least kicked from the middle of the field and left no time.

Very poor grades for the coaches there.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I was baffled myself at what was going on. #1, it was a first down. Unless something has changed, that I don't know about, in college ball, the rule is that the clock stops on a first down, until the chains can get moved and set. That was a 30+ yard completion. The sticks guys don't run 4.4 40s, and the rutgers clock operator didn't stop the clock. There should ahve been a good 5-10 seconds minimum of dead time...

So I think the rutgers clock manager hosed us there, and I don't have a problem with P not calling the timeout, especially on finding out the play was going under review.

I do have a problem, Dan, as you noted, with P not thrwoing a complete mental breakdown at the refs, when the clock wasn't reset to 23 seconds on the finding of a good completion, and noting that the clock wasn't stopped on teh first down to move the chains.

What happened after that? Well, i'm on as thin ice as I can possibly be with our OC right now.

Unless I"m completely mistaken on both the rule, and that the clock was stopped to get the chains set on that first down. I don't hink I'm wrong about the rule, and I"m pretty sure they let the clock run after the completion.

Regardless, we had 14 seconds, three timeouts, to get a field goal off, and leave no time remaining, and failed. We could have done a full back dive in the middle of the field - Randy Edsall special, and at least kicked from the middle of the field and left no time.

Very poor grades for the coaches there.

This is not at all what happened. The clock stopped at 23 seconds. Once the ball is spotted and the chains moved, the ref started the clock. It winded down to 14 seconds while we moved down the field, got a play in, and set the formation. They then whistled for a review at 14 seconds. They absolutely should not have put back time. It was our idiot coaches who failed to call a TO. To compound things, after the review the clock was to start on the ref's signal. So we hurried up to the line, rushed the play and settled for the FG attempt.

It's not on the refs, the clock operator, or anyone else not name Paul Pasqualoni.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This is not at all what happened. The clock stopped at 23 seconds. Once the ball is spotted and the chains moved, the ref started the clock. It winded down to 14 seconds while we moved down the field, got a play in, and set the formation. They then whistled for a review at 14 seconds. They absolutely should not have put back time. It was our idiot coaches who failed to call a TO. To compound things, after the review the clock was to start on the ref's signal. So we hurried up to the line, rushed the play and settled for the FG attempt.

It's not on the refs, the clock operator, or anyone else not name Paul Pasqualoni.

I remember being very surprised that the clock was running, before the ref's stopped it to review the play, and I don't recall it stopping after the catch. I'll take your word that I'm wrong, i haven't paid attention and watched that again in real time. If the clock was stopped for the chains, and then started again, and then the only reason it stopped again was by the refs for the review? it's clearly a complete bumble *ck on clock management by everybody. I do remember thinking that the clock was running again awfully fast after that completion. They must have some really fast stick holders in New Jersey. That was a 34 yard completion.

 

[ruskin]

The second Geremy caught the ball and was down P should have been running out to the field calling the timeout. You can sort out later if you get the TO back because of the review. There was only freaking 23 secs left anyway.

The sad part of this is it might have been the best play call of the day. Too bad it got ruined by the aftermath.

 

[mets1090]

My guess is he didn't call the timeout because he was attempting to get a play in so they couldn't review the catch. Why he didn't try to get them to put time back on the clock after reviewing it, I'm not sure. I don't know how the rules work there.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

My guess is he didn't call the timeout because he was attempting to get a play in so they couldn't review the catch. Why he didn't try to get them to put time back on the clock after reviewing it, I'm not sure. I don't know how the rules work there.

If that's the case than it's dumber than I thought. You don't give away 9 seconds there. You call the TO and hope the review stands.

As far as putting time back on the clock, they absolutely should NOT have. This was completely on P, who apparently thought we were in great shape there and didn't need to call a TO. The whole thing was just embarrassing.

 

[mets1090]

If that's the case than it's dumber than I thought. You don't give away 9 seconds there. You call the TO and hope the review stands.

As far as putting time back on the clock, they absolutely should NOT have. This was completely on P, who apparently thought we were in great shape there and didn't need to call a TO. The whole thing was just embarrassing.

I agree for what it's worth. Just guessing why he wouldn't call a timeout. There literally is no other fathomable reason. 3 timeouts and 23 or so seconds, when are you anticipating using them.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I agree for what it's worth. Just guessing why he wouldn't call a timeout. There literally is no other fathomable reason. 3 timeouts and 23 or so seconds, when are you anticipating using them.

Against Temple?

 

[Mr Blueskin]

My guess is he didn't call the timeout because he was attempting to get a play in so they couldn't review the catch. Why he didn't try to get them to put time back on the clock after reviewing it, I'm not sure. I don't know how the rules work there.

I was thinking that myself at first, but after watching the replay there is not a single bit of me that thinks PP or GDL had any clue what was going on. There was so much going on there and they did nothing. I just watched the replay, the ref set the ball down at 23 seconds after the 1st down catch and the line or play call wasnt even close to being set. Any other coach in America would have called a TO right away or at least after the clock rolled down to 20 seconds...but this old guy sees the clock role down to 14 seconds with 3 TOs and the TV announcer and Geremy Davis are wondering why the hell no TO is being called. The problem is there are numerous times last year that this similar clock management problem had occurred at the end of the halves. That whole run up to the line while the chains are being set to save a timeout does not apply when you have 3 f...ing TOs, a first down, and under 30 seconds left...As a coach in D1 football, you can not let that happen...Use a TO, I am completely on board with HFD...as long as they are the coaches this program is going to spiral downhill fast..they are way past their time and for the first time ever...I am completely unexcited about going to any more games this year...I almost want them to lose so these guys are canned faster.

 

[emshorts]

check out temples same exact scenario with clock management

-2nd and 10 at TEM 34Chris Coyer pass complete to Kenneth Harper for 12 yards to the Temp 46, tackled by Kayvon Webster for a 1ST down
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:18
-Chris Coyer pass complete to Deon Miller for 16 yards to the SFla 38, tackled by Kayvon Webster for a 1ST down
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:12
-Chris Coyer pass complete to Cody Booth for 5 yards to the SFla 33
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:07
-Brandon McManus 50 yard field goal GOOD

End of 2nd Quarter

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

check out temples same exact scenario with clock management

-2nd and 10 at TEM 34Chris Coyer pass complete to Kenneth Harper for 12 yards to the Temp 46, tackled by Kayvon Webster for a 1ST down
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:18
-Chris Coyer pass complete to Deon Miller for 16 yards to the SFla 38, tackled by Kayvon Webster for a 1ST down
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:12
-Chris Coyer pass complete to Cody Booth for 5 yards to the SFla 33
Timeout TEMPLE, clock 00:07
-Brandon McManus 50 yard field goal GOOD

End of 2nd Quarter

Yeah, but that left Addazzio and Temple with only 3 timeouts in the 2nd half.