Boneyarders Bold Predictions - 2014 Preseason Edition | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Boneyarders Bold Predictions - 2014 Preseason Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy Serrano said:
I hope you're right.

Side note: I picked up 2 extras in 241 for Friday. I may sit there with my son. Would love to say hi to all of you 241 hooligans.
Expand ...
Jump in !!!! Sitting 10 rows from the top, you'll hear the voice like a fog horn!!!!!!
 
CodyJ. said:
I'll come to 241 in my 3point stance
Expand ...

So this will be like sumo wrestling. Cody to the left Jimmy to the right. Lol

sumo-4.jpg
 
Uconnalliance said:
REALLY!!! alright i believe it, side note Davis sets school records in receiving new nickname is the Venus fly trap!
Expand ...
While it's not exactly a bold prediction, I predict that Alliance will be drunk before kickoff seven times this year @ the Rent.
 
.-.
Uconnalliance said:
Were's the love bro? I'll be drunk at every kickoff get it right!!!!!
Expand ...

I'm guessing you may be drunk now. There will be seven games at the Rent this year.

Can't wait for next week! It'll be great to see you again!
 
6-7 wins will be a good solid season...especially if 1 or 2 wins comes from BYU, Boise, UCF, Cincy. Anything above 7 wins means that we got every single bounce, roll, call and have a injury free season.
 
We're gonna win 7 minimum. We will be back to defending OUR HOUSE!
 
TheJerk said:
6-6 at best, 2-10 at worst. There is a whole lot of parts that need to develop in a hurry to reach 6-6
Expand ...

First off, don't doubt me. Also its amazing how many of you were so off base from the get go in August after re-reading this thread
 
.-.
TheJerk said:
First off, don't doubt me. Also its amazing how many of you were so off base from the get go in August after re-reading this thread
Expand ...

So let me get this right: you feel good about the fact that you predicted the final season outcome after having given yourself 5 different answers?!? (2-10, 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, or 6-6)

You are a friggin' Nostradamus... :confused:
 
I just threw up reading my own bold predictions. Why did we have to resurrect this thread?
 
I don't see it in this thread but I thought 4-8 was the number. I figured we get 1 WTF win (UCF) but never figured to have so many WTF losses (USF, Tulane, Army, SMU).

I remember thinking all of you 7 & 8 win guys were out of your minds.
 
too early for 2015 predictions? Because my gut tells me it'll be less than this year.
 
.-.
Jimmy Serrano said:
I don't see it in this thread but I thought 4-8 was the number. I figured we get 1 WTF win (UCF) but never figured to have so many WTF losses (USF, Tulane, Army, SMU).

I remember thinking all of you 7 & 8 win guys were out of your minds.
Expand ...

If everything played out the same way other than Casey was healthy all year, what do you think the number is? I still think it would have been closer to 7 than to 2.
 
J187Money said:
If everything played out the same way other than Casey was healthy all year, what do you think the number is? I still think it would have been closer to 7 than to 2.
Expand ...

With a healthy Casey I think we're at 4 or 5. We might not beat UCF though. Foxx won us that game and Whitmer played well. We probably never see Foxx take snaps back there if we had 2 healthy (productive) QB's all year.
 
J187Money said:
If everything played out the same way other than Casey was healthy all year, what do you think the number is? I still think it would have been closer to 7 than to 2.
Expand ...

Methinks you forgot the Whitmer/Cochran/Diaco press conference that named our starting QB combo.
 
Carl Spackler said:
Methinks you forgot the Whitmer/Cochran/Diaco press conference that named our starting QB combo.
Expand ...

^^^ This.

Not much would have changed, because not much would have changed with the philosophy of how the QB's were handled. It is the biggest thing that needs to be "improved" from Diaco's philosophies, in my humble opinion...
 
I know he didn't appear to manage the QBs properly, but you are assuming that if Cochran clearly outplayed Whitmer, that they would have continued to see a 50/50 split in playing time. If that is actually the case (given that Whitmer had his run and Casey had 2 more years of eligibility), then we all should just give up and go find another team to root for until we get the next coach.

I can't believe that a) Cochran wouldn't have outplayed Whitmer and b) if he did that he wouldn't have been in full command of the team by the time conference play started.
 
J187Money said:
I know he didn't appear to manage the QBs properly, but you are assuming that if Cochran clearly outplayed Whitmer, that they would have continued to see a 50/50 split in playing time. If that is actually the case (given that Whitmer had his run and Casey had 2 more years of eligibility), then we all should just give up and go find another team to root for until we get the next coach.

I can't believe that a) Cochran wouldn't have outplayed Whitmer and b) if he did that he wouldn't have been in full command of the team by the time conference play started.
Expand ...

I fear that you might be rooting for another team, then.

Let's look at what we know:

1) Cochran, the successful starter from last year, was given a full evaluation from the coaching staff through Spring ball and through the preseason camp. Despite your belief to the contrary, the coaches felt like they had QBs 1 and 1A; to the point where they labeled them as such in the press conference and played them that way in the first game.

2) Whitmer, who so clearly was the best QB on the roster after Cochran left, was constantly giving up series not only to Boyle but also to Foxx. Jimmy is spot on with the fact that we probably don't beat UCF without Foxx's superb game, but it is what it is.

3) By his own admission, Diaco wasn't even treating the non-conference portion of the season (or much of the season, for that matter) as a win-or-lose proposition. He treated it as a building process, getting as many players on the field as possible. Almost as if it were a 12-game tryout for 2015. That may have meant less time for Whitmer since he was a senior, but likely would have meant plenty of time for Boyle.

I still believe that Diaco can turn the ship around. He has a lot of positive energy, he can recruit pretty well, and he has assembled a quality coaching staff for the most part. But the way he treats QBs.....well, let's just hope he fixes how he treats QBs...
 
.-.
UConnDan97 said:
I fear that you might be rooting for another team, then.

Let's look at what we know:

1) Cochran, the successful starter from last year, was given a full evaluation from the coaching staff through Spring ball and through the preseason camp. Despite your belief to the contrary, the coaches felt like they had QBs 1 and 1A; to the point where they labeled them as such in the press conference and played them that way in the first game.

2) Whitmer, who so clearly was the best QB on the roster after Cochran left, was constantly giving up series not only to Boyle but also to Foxx. Jimmy is spot on with the fact that we probably don't beat UCF without Foxx's superb game, but it is what it is.

3) By his own admission, Diaco wasn't even treating the non-conference portion of the season (or much of the season, for that matter) as a win-or-lose proposition. He treated it as a building process, getting as many players on the field as possible. Almost as if it were a 12-game tryout for 2015. That may have meant less time for Whitmer since he was a senior, but likely would have meant plenty of time for Boyle.

I still believe that Diaco can turn the ship around. He has a lot of positive energy, he can recruit pretty well, and he has assembled a quality coaching staff for the most part. But the way he treats QBs.....well, let's just hope he fixes how he treats QBs...
Expand ...

1) Yes, but that's my point. We don't know what would have happened because Cochran got hurt. If it turns out that he wasn't better than Whitmer and that last year was a fluke (or maybe the result of a better offensive system under TJ or bad competition or whatever) then yes, we would have probably ended up in the same place.

2) I don't have a problem with the Foxx situation, because if he wants to run wildcat here, he needed to start teaching the rest of the offense how to do it, and if that meant Foxx because he was the only guy that could execute it, so be it. We've discussed Boyle to death and I think we all wish they had not burned his RS. Again - had Cochran not been hurt, Boyle never would have seen the field, even if Cochran wasn't any better than Whitmer.

3) Especially after Cochran went down, his point of view might have been "well - there is no way I can cobble together a bowl season out of this, so let me set it up for 2015"...

Lots of this was puzzling, but there are also "rational" explanations for it, given the circumstances. I would assume, under more normal circumstances, that we see different decision making.
 
J187Money said:
I know he didn't appear to manage the QBs properly, but you are assuming that if Cochran clearly outplayed Whitmer, that they would have continued to see a 50/50 split in playing time. If that is actually the case (given that Whitmer had his run and Casey had 2 more years of eligibility), then we all should just give up and go find another team to root for until we get the next coach.

I can't believe that a) Cochran wouldn't have outplayed Whitmer and b) if he did that he wouldn't have been in full command of the team by the time conference play started.
Expand ...

He didn't appear to manage QB's properly? LOL.

What I can't believe is that we went from rotating not 2, but 3 QB's with division of reps as the season went on. What I have no trouble believing, as that none of the 3 QBs, ever gained a full command of the team by the time the season ended.
 
Carl Spackler said:
He didn't appear to manage QB's properly? LOL.

What I can't believe is that we went from rotating not 2, but 3 QB's with division of reps as the season went on. What I have no trouble believing, as that none of the 3 QBs, ever gained a full command of the team by the time the season ended.
Expand ...

I say "appear" because once Cochran went down we didn't really appear to have one. So we might have ended up with 2-4 wins no matter who we played, because none of them were any good.
 
I don't understand why so few people realize how thin we were at the QB position when Diaco took over. If Whitmer hadn't come back (and at the time Diaco was announced as head coach all signs pointed to Whitmer being out the door) we would have been dead in the water.

Yes, Casey was the best QB (even before he got into shape) throughout camp. Without the realistic possibility of playing time Whitmer easily could have transferred as late as Labor Day. What Diaco did was in large part to ensure that the (few) QB's on the roster would remain on the roster. Before Casey retired, the benefit of having Whitmer was that we could redshirt Boyle (who in retrospect obviously would have benefitted from a RS year). After Casey retired we needed Whitmer in order to attempt to field an offense.

What Diaco did at the QB position was out of necessity, not design.
 
J187Money said:
I say "appear" because once Cochran went down we didn't really appear to have one. So we might have ended up with 2-4 wins no matter who we played, because none of them were any good.
Expand ...

Look, I'm just having a little fun. If I seriously try to evaluate what happened in 2014, I just get angry. The only logical explanation as to what happened in 2014, that I can arrive at and be confident in, is that Bob Diaco has a plan, and was executing it. That we were dividing reps among QB's, to me, seems to be an integral part of that plan and there is no evidence to suggest it would have changed at any time during the season. I think you are reaching in making the assumptions/conclusions you're making. Based on what I saw happen with Whitmer and Boyle still getting gametime reps during the course of the season after Cochran going out, I don't see how you can reach the point that Cochran would have been given full game reps because Whitmer was clearly better than Boyle, but was not getting full game reps. The only QB that got full game reps, if I wasn't too drunk to mix it up, was Boyle - after post season opportunity was gone. (I'm choosing to ignore the Deshon Foxx reps at QB for this discussion purposes)

All we can do, is hope that Bob Diaco's plan, whatever it is will start to produce winning teams. The plan did not produce winning football in 2014, and in fact, produced the worst season of UCONN football from start to finish in a long, long time.

I honestly am concerned that we will start 2015 0-2 with home losses to Villanova and Army. I hope I'm wrong.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
I don't understand why so few people realize how thin we were at the QB position when Diaco took over. If Whitmer hadn't come back (and at the time Diaco was announced as head coach all signs pointed to Whitmer being out the door) we would have been dead in the water.

Yes, Casey was the best QB (even before he got into shape) throughout camp. Without the realistic possibility of playing time Whitmer easily could have transferred as late as Labor Day. What Diaco did was in large part to ensure that the (few) QB's on the roster would remain on the roster. Before Casey retired, the benefit of having Whitmer was that we could redshirt Boyle (who in retrospect obviously would have benefitted from a RS year). After Casey retired we needed Whitmer in order to attempt to field an offense.

What Diaco did at the QB position was out of necessity, not design.
Expand ...

Huh? How in the world was this out of necessity? We had 3 scholarship QB's who have seen significant time. We weren't thin until Casey retired after 1 game. I also don't buy the notion that Diaco had to placate Whitmer in order to prevent him from transferring on Labor Day. That's quite a stretch.

He handled this situation as poorly as he could've.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,368
Messages
4,568,442
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom