Another game for college football purists

[jdb50]

Our DE's were slow off the snap, stood up therefore losing leverage, and were driven back or at best a stalemate, no penetration just lowsey. Our outside backers were unable to decide to hit the QB thereby forcing the pitch which can result in bad pitches or fumbles. Frankly our edge has sucked all season. I would have put faster more athletic players in at the DE if possible. We looked like brontosauruses out there. At OLB it is time to give other players more burn.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Somehow Yale, Rice and Kent State managed the incredible amount of mental tenacity required to defend such an unstoppable juggernaut.

Actually they didn't do a very good job either. Yale gave up 600 yards, Kent gave up 300 rushing, Rice gave up about the same total yards as we did. They average 300 rushing yards/game. Agree with Carl and Biz, cant screw up on the other side of the ball so much. Cant throw 2 picks in the red zone, one a pick six, cant be taking stupid penalties that push you back to mid field when your driving. That a four score differential. I expect an improved offense next year.

 

[RMS25CT]

There's two sides of the field. Can't only have one man have the QB and pitch man in that case. That would be impossible to cover that much ground that quickly. Army plays fast and gets up field quickly. No drop back, quick lateral movement (spin from QB) and quickly got up field. When they tried to stretch it wide they always seemed to have one more blocker, loading the backfield it seemed.

Ok, I didn't think I had to state the obvious...of course there are 2 sides of the field....the left de has QB and nothing but QB if the play is to our left....the right de has QB and nothing but QB if it is run to our right.....make more sense now? Smfh

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Much like Yale-Army, at the bowl the same day we lost to temple by 26 points I think, the game yesterday?

Believe it or not, I think it was a great game. It's sad that I think that, because it means I've become detached. Consecutive years of 5-7, 5-7, 3-9, now 2-7. I am just human.

On some level it does piss me off endlessly that we lost, but I have no control over anything, other than my own contributions and ticket purchases. So no use getting pissed off about it. Detached. Oh well.

SO reality. It was a great game. The pure joy of football. Playing the academies is true football. It's a battle of mental wills, individually as a player, as a team, as detached leaders individually the coaches, as a full team in the playing field on sidelines, Most of all as a team. The physical part is incidental.

THat was on display full out yesterday. Funadamentals of blocking, tackling, ball security, and execution of a plan. We had bigger stronger players, they blocked and tackled better, protected the ball better.

Lots of minutiae to look at in the game, as to where, when, how, why things could have gone different, but there was honestly IMNSHO, anything wrong with the game plans and decision making (other than what I've chosen to ignore over recent weeks on offense)

Every single strength, and weakness, that UCONN football 2014 is, was on full display. It was an Army exposition.

What is great, is that you can see the passion, and desire, and heart our guys have pouring out, dripping out of themselves on the field. Levy - falling to his knees after he knew he f--ked up. Chandler - who is truly a warrior, in every aspect the word can mean on a football field, looked like he was going to vomit after throwing that last pick.

It was heartbreak to see - and with that - I realize that I'm not SO, SO detached, because I felt terrible for everybody on this roster when the game ended with the small, undersized, and slow Army DB's that had been getting run over all day long, but tackling with perfect form, returned the ball 100 yards to end the game.

It is always the case, when you play the academices, that the team that makes the least amount of mistakes wins. THey won for no other reason, than we made too many mistakes, and they didn't make enough. They are a smarter, and more fundamentally sound football team in blocking and tackling.

Anyone that doesn't understand why I've been harping on that all season long,need only to rewatch this game. Anyone that really wants to understand what UCONN football is, right now - need only watch that game. Our coach, got his butt handed to him, by the simple fundamentals of leverage, that for whatever reason, we foregoed training endlessly on for this season, to get everyone equal playing time as in little league baseball or something.

Excellent learning experience - I wonder if we will learn from it. From here on out, it's playing for the name on the front of jersey only.

Carl, I agree on much of what you posted in this thread. I detached after the USF game, figured it would help get through this season.

 

[RedStickHusky]

We lost this game bec a use of our own offensive mistakes, not the weakness in our Defense that army exploited.

Kind of a chicken-egg argument when you question whether a game was lost on O or D. The winning equation is to score more than you allow; 28 is a tough number for us to match and the more pressure we put on our O the more likely we are to turn it over. Army dominating time of possession increased the pressure on our O -- needed to do more than their usual with less possession. The early pick was a contributor but our best chance at winning yesterday was probably a few more stops on D. Bottom line in the locker room is probably that it's a team thing; one side struggles the other needs to step up.

 

[BNich]

Ok, I didn't think I had to state the obvious...of course there are 2 sides of the field....the left de has QB and nothing but QB if the play is to our left....the right de has QB and nothing but QB if it is run to our right.....make more sense now? Smfh

You act as if the DE's don't have an OL to contend with. Doesn't solve anything.

 

[RMS25CT]

You act as if the DE's don't have an OL to contend with. Doesn't solve anything.

Did you watch the game. The DE or the OLB was generally the primary "option" man. That means he is the man they don't block and the QB options him. I don't pretend to know what they were told their responsibility was, but having defended it numerous times in my life and coached to defend it numerous times, it probably should have been either QB, which means the QB should have been planted on his back every time they ran the option whether he pitched it or not. And if the responsibility was pitch, then it was the inside backer or the safety filling the alley who had QB. What I saw too many times was a player trying to play both QB and pitch, which means neither is defended effectively and generally is a recipe for disaster.....the equivalent of 365 yards of rushing.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Listening to Diaco this week talk up how difficult it was to stop Army on offense, I became convinced it would be impossible to stop Army on offense. I wonder if his players were convinced too. You would have thought we we're facing Oregon. Didn't really inspire confidence.

Yeah, what he says to the press is verbatim to what he says to his players.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Someone should have told the players that when playing against that offense, each player has one and only one, responsibility, one failure and the D is at risk. Someone always has QB and only QB, someone has pitch and only pitch, someone has FB and only FB, and someone has counter and only counter. It may be different people with different responsibility depending on the D called but against that offense that is the very basics to defend it. How many times did we see a UConn defender caught between QB and pitch, to only not be able to effectively defend either? To me, that is poor preparation. Our D at times (many times) looked like it was shocked at what it was seeing.

Our corners which should have been primary or secondary responsibility on the pitch were getting buried by the WR blocks too often. If they were undersized to defend this offense, there should have been a plan B to play different people (back up safeties anyone) at corner.

And you are 100% right on regarding the fact that the outside backers failed miserably as did the DEs defending the edge.

Interesting. It sounds as if you've coached quite a bit of football. Unfortunately it sounds as if all of your coaching was prior to the /four Horseman of Notre Dame.

Defensive players have gap (or lane if you prefer) responsibility. If the DE crashes inside (after biting on the fullback dive), and the QB pulls the ball back, that gap is now unaccounted for. This occurred at least 20 (likely closer to 30) times yesterday.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Gotta agree with RMS on this one; pretty sure you (still, just like in Knute's day) have to switch to assignment d against the triple option; it's why coaches hate playing against it, requires a total schematic change. what I saw yesterday was our OLB's getting beat to the edge and sealed inside; corners unable to get off blocks didn't help but it was olb's simply not getting there that gave them numbers on the edge all day.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Interesting. It sounds as if you've coached quite a bit of football. Unfortunately it sounds as if all of your coaching was prior to the /four Horseman of Notre Dame.

Defensive players have gap (or lane if you prefer) responsibility. If the DE crashes inside (after biting on the fullback dive), and the QB pulls the ball back, that gap is now unaccounted for. This occurred at least 20 (likely closer to 30) times yesterday.

If our coaching staff thinks that you defend the Army triple option with single gap control leverage across the formation, and having DE's key on the fullback - we are really in trouble.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If our coaching staff thinks that you defend the Army triple option with single gap control leverage across the formation, and having DE's key on the fullback - we are really in trouble.

I don't believe the DE's were supposed to leave their assignments. They didn't maintain discipline and we got burned (countless times) because of it. We showed our youth far too often yesterday.

 

[RMS25CT]

Interesting. It sounds as if you've coached quite a bit of football. Unfortunately it sounds as if all of your coaching was prior to the /four Horseman of Notre Dame.

Defensive players have gap (or lane if you prefer) responsibility. If the DE crashes inside (after biting on the fullback dive), and the QB pulls the ball back, that gap is now unaccounted for. This occurred at least 20 (likely closer to 30) times yesterday.

Not against this offense you don't have gap responsibility, particularly on the edge. You have man responsibility. When you defend a "gap" against this option you get a player stuck between QB and pitch, which is the same as being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You can't win that battle.....and I know I'm right because I saw it happen yesterday. That is what is so difficult about defending this offense. You have to get your players to forget everything they have been taught as far as basic defensive concepts go. It's why many coaches refuse to play teams that run this.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Someone should have told the players that when playing against that offense, each player has one and only one, responsibility, one failure and the D is at risk. Someone always has QB and only QB, someone has pitch and only pitch, someone has FB and only FB, and someone has counter and only counter. It may be different people with different responsibility depending on the D called but against that offense that is the very basics to defend it. How many times did we see a UConn defender caught between QB and pitch, to only not be able to effectively defend either? To me, that is poor preparation. Our D at times (many times) looked like it was shocked at what it was seeing.

Our corners which should have been primary or secondary responsibility on the pitch were getting buried by the WR blocks too often. If they were undersized to defend this offense, there should have been a plan B to play different people (back up safeties anyone) at corner.

And you are 100% right on regarding the fact that the outside backers failed miserably as did the DEs defending the edge.

I'm going to disagree on the preparation, mostly for my own peace of mind. It would bother me immensely to know that football coaches being paid as much as we're paying them at UCONN, wouldn't know to prepare the players to defend this offense properly. I think we've got young players, and Diaco was clear in the press, that they were trying to prepare a scout team for several weeks to simulate the offense in practice, and they probably weren't hitting the scout QB in the practice.

Clearly, the simulation didn't work so well. By the time the defenders had seen the offense in action, and started adjusting somewhat - it was 4, 5 possessions in - and the 2nd half. They had gotten completely gashed and shellshocked, and were playing tired by that point. We had a very crucial 3rd down early in the game, upon review, that had that gone differently? who knows. the players actually defended well to open that drive, and got them to 3rd and long, but the runner - and I think it was the QB - broke I think 3 tackles to make the first down. Poor tackling from us, fundamentals - not assignment. From there, Army started marching, and we started guessing.

Interesting point on the corners. Problem there is that our depth chart is pretty much nonexistent for scholarship players at this point for DB's.

Anyway - the game was lost because we made too many mistakes and they didn't, most of our mistakes on offense - as badly as the D was gashed by the option. We had the safeties to cover it up and clean it up, but they just were chunking out too much yardage to keep them behind the chains.

It's always the case, but it's crystal clear, when you go up against Army or Navy.

Nothing to do but go back to the drawing board.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Not against this offense you don't have gap responsibility, particularly on the edge. You have man responsibility. When you defend a "gap" against this option you get a player stuck between QB and pitch, which is the same as being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You can't win that battle.....and I know I'm right because I saw it happen yesterday. That is what is so difficult about defending this offense. You have to get your players to forget everything they have been taught as far as basic defensive concepts go. It's why many coaches refuse to play teams that run this.

Funny because when Rockne introduced the motion backfield (Four Horsemen), the antidote to this revolutionary attack was playing a position defense (instead of man on man), which was counteracted by rule blocking (now known as zone blocking), which led to more adjustments on defense, followed by more on offense, followed by,... well, you get the picture.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Carl what are the chances that when you're still trying to teach the gap control 3-4, that you really don't want to fully invest in teaching option defense mid-season for a one-game payoff? Not saying that happened but I've heard other coaches express the sentiment in the past.

 

[RMS25CT]

Carl what are the chances that when you're still trying to teach the gap control 3-4, that you really don't want to fully invest in teaching option defense mid-season for a one-game payoff? Not saying that happened but I've heard other coaches express the sentiment in the past.

Interesting question. Hadn't thought about it that way before.

I hope that wasn't the mind set, because UConn is going to have to face that offense every year vs Navy so for one game every season they are going to have to forget modern defensive concepts.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl what are the chances that when you're still trying to teach the gap control 3-4, that you really don't want to fully invest in teaching option defense mid-season for a one-game payoff? Not saying that happened but I've heard other coaches express the sentiment in the past.

Question doesn't really mean anything to me, sorry.

We have Army on our schedule for at least one more season, and Navy is going to be a conference opponent next season. Defending these offensive systems is going to be part of our defensive makeup as a program moving forward. Diaco made it clear during the week in the press, that they had attempted for a few weeks to build a scout team to simulate the offense. So they were trying to prepare to win the game. We are 9 games into a season with a full spring and fall camp - I would hope that by now, whatever base concepts of our 3-4 defense have been installed and drilled. We actually are pretty good at it, against the most common types of offenses out there. I think.

THe next time we play Army - next September, and later in the year next fall when we get Navy - we'll be better at it on D. I'm confident of that.

what we need to get better to win though, is offense.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Interesting question. Hadn't thought about it that way before.

I hope that wasn't the mind set, because UConn is going to have to face that offense every year vs Navy so for one game every season they are going to have to forget modern defensive concepts.

LOL - beat me to it, and in far less words.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Agree with both of you that we're going to see this offense more in the future and will have to learn to defend it. I just have a strong sense that BD sees his job as building from the ground up and not wanting to give them more than he thinks they're ready for. FWIW, while I agree we've been decent in base defense, containment from the OLB position has been a pretty consistent issue - magnified, I guess, against the option.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Not gonna win in college football with 21 points. Thats just not the way the game is played. Hell they almost got caught last week with 37 points and barely hung on. Until UConn offense can put up points for 4 quarters and score 4 to 5 TD's a game on offense, expect the disaster to continue.

 

[Confident Carl]

Lots of comments on here today about the D game plan. I have not looked at stats yet, but yesterday had the ongoing argument in the stands. First off, biggest fan of UCONN football now is Angel Santiago. As the QB running the option offense at Army, he had probably his easiest day when it comes to physical punishment in a long time. To my knowledge, and eye, Larry Dixon the back, was the primary threat all season, and we did very well to take that away. My only gripe with that decision, is that it was known that the guy has been fighting injuries of the dreaded lower leg, so game planning to take him away, rather than the QB? Well - what I wrote above - everything positive and negative about UCONN football was on display.

An Army Exposition. We didn't fail because of scheming or game planning, we had the opportunity to make plays within the defensive game plan - we made errors in angles, and weren't fundamentally sound enough in tackling. From the outside linebackers and DE's - not the DB's or Safeties, or interior D, and it was the same positions they exploited in the pass plays they completed. O LB's and DE's. They went right at our weaknesses, and destroyed our D. but the only fault in the game plan, was taking away the back, that was playing hurt, rather than the QB.

just looked - Air Force and Yale, are the only two teams so far this season that defended Dixon in the triple option better than we did.

The game plan was sound on D - unconventional against the triple option, but sound. But again, everything about UCONN football 2014 was on full display yesterday - EVERYTHING. Our coaching staff is not conventional.

I agree with what you have been saying about the basics. We consistently got beat on the edge Saturday. I can't stop thinking about how things might have been a little better if Senior Captain Byron Jones was in the game. Losing Casey on O and BJ on D has not helped our fragile condition.

 

[Confident Carl]

Honestly when apathy has set in for Spackler can it get any worse?

I'm looking forward to our annual deep fry turkey tailgait against Cincy. I may bring the Gentleman Jack Daniels to numb the pain of watching the game.

What do you mean might. I am already soliciting for a designated driver.
On second thought, the Jack Daniels might not be good to take along with the
anti depressants I went on after the Army game.

I will recover and hopefully Chandler will too. Would be great to see our guys
make a come back after a terrible loss and knock off Cincy. I am rooting for Chandler to have a great game. The kid F--ked up and he knows it. Still appreciate
his heart and desire. Our guys have to be really pissed and embarrassed. Hopefully they will take in our on Cincy.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Honestly when apathy has set in for Spackler can it get any worse?

I'm looking forward to our annual deep fry turkey tailgait against Cincy. I may bring the Gentleman Jack Daniels to numb the pain of watching the game.

Didn't see this post til this morning JimmyS. It's not apathy, it's just detachment. The stadium was rocking, as much as the 25k or still there at that point (guestimate - announced was just under 28k I believe?) anyway - the stadium was ROCKING after that onside kick recovery. The fumble non-call? Complete horse-sh---t. Our team competes like animals, and I love it, and I don't expect it to stop, and that - THAT - is Diaco's greatest success this season. We no longer have anything to play for, but the name on the front of the jersey, the name on the back of the jersey of the few seniors left from the past several years of turmoil, and next season.

I have no doubt that our guys will come back and compete, from start to end, with all they got. The emotion at the end of that game, was palpable. The only thing that I can think of coming close, to the emotional outpouring that we had when Rutgers ran that TD the length of the field to end the game back in 2009.

There is no apathy anywhere - just.....detachment.

Why? Because we are what we are. Everythign, and I mean EVERYTHING, good and bad about UCONN football in Nov. 2014, was on full display - from coaching, to systems, to players - all of it. Given that necessary baseline for effective competition - that being that everyone, from top to bottom and inside out, is putting everything they have into performing their individual tasks within the team performance 24/7......which is undoubtedly the case again for the UCONN football program - the old saying - is absolutely true - you are what your record says you are. We are a 2-7 team, with 3 games left to play.

This past week, was definitely a step back, from winning the previous week - but it was also a learning experience, unique within the season. I'm sure you remember getting steamrolled by the Navy triple option in 2006. Disaster at Rentschler field. We won the following season. There simply is no adequate way to prepare for the offense, other than actually defending it in games. I am 100% certain we will better at defending it next season, and we'll probably use a different defensive game plan too, because we'll hopefully have DE's and OLB's that have learned, improved and won't get exploited so hard, and need to be cleaned up.

Our OLB's and DE's have been a weakness all season, and more than a few times, through the season, we've had safeties need to clean up the messes, if there is enough room on the field left - it was on display all day on Saturday. Adams and Melifonwu were our leading tacklers, and because of the failures of the OLB's and DE's in defending the option (and after re-reading this discussion - I suppose I actually need to be clear - that what I mean by that, is when the OLB's and/or DE's were left unblocked and forced to defend the actual ball carrier - which most of the time was the QB - they failed to do the simple task of making the hit, whether or not the ball carrier keeps or pitches - irrelevant. There has been some discussion here that perhaps it was a preparation / coaching failure, but I doubt it. It's simply an experience thing.

The coaching/ preparation issues are all on the offensive side of the ball, and we will continue to lose, until we establish some kind of identity on offense, and remain consistent with it. We have progressed this season, from rotating 2 QB's, to now rotating 3 QB's. It's f---king mind boggling.

As for D game planning, there are a lot of different things you can do, to defend the triple option as far as a defensive structure and defensive play calling, but the constants are always there - one man in the D is going to responsible for putting the potential ball carriers (or actual ball carriers) on their backs. Pressing up at least one of the safeties to force the issue, is ideal - but after the game wore on, I'd bet the farm that it was a conscious decision, to leave both Adams and Melifonwu deep most of the game, to clean up the option run messes, as well as the potential pass play big gainers - and like clockwork, it happened. If we didn't have them both back there, the failures up front against the run option, as well as the pass option by the edge defenders, easily go for TD's rather than long gainers. As it was, those safeties led the team in tackling, but because of the failures up front, Army simply kept moving the chains, because of the chunks of yardage they were getting, and eventually they reach the endzone. Only time you can stop it, is when somebody actually makes a play to stop the positive yardage, then the offense grinds to a halt - unless they option throw out of it.

Remember when Navy destroyed Randy Edsall's defense in 2006, and we came back the following year and stopped and won. The difference is experience, and actually playing the D. I am sure that we will play better on D next year against Army - and do well against Navy. I don't think there is a single player on defense on Saturday, that will not be returning.

Make no mistake though, beating these Army and Navy teams - is going to involve our offense improving dramatically, not the defensive issues we saw on Saturday.

 

[31GuardTrap]

I approve this message.