Boneyarders Bold Predictions - 2014 Preseason Edition

[Carl Spackler]

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.

Methinks you forgot the Whitmer/Cochran/Diaco press conference that named our starting QB combo.

 

[UConnDan97]

Methinks you forgot the Whitmer/Cochran/Diaco press conference that named our starting QB combo.

^^^ 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...

 

[J187Money]

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.

 

[UConnDan97]

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.

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...

 

[J187Money]

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...

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

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.

 

[J187Money]

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.

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.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

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.

 

[UConnDan97]

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.

1) That's my point. They had 9 months to evaluate them. Diaco decided that after 9 months of evaluation, that the right thing to do was to make "QB 1 and QB 1A". There's no reason for me to believe that he would have changed that approach, unless Casey performed perfectly. And as you know with our OLine being what it was, especially early in the season, there was no way for Casey to perform perfectly.

2) Yeah, at the point we instituted Foxx and the wild husky, I didn't have a problem with it either. Nothing else was working, and we needed to establish some sort of run game. Since we couldn't do it conventionally, we did it with Foxx.

3) His point of view of 2014 was not shaped by Cochran. That was his point of view all along. He was even bold enough to come out and say it. Many of us made fun of the "preseason" stuff ad nauseum here.

I definitely agree with the puzzling stuff. Let's hope for a much brighter 2015...

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

Excuses. Whitmer chose to return, and that was a good thing. A new head coach, walking into the situation he did with a senior QB in Whitmer's position? Hardly unique. Cochran and Whitmer both had concussion issues - which has arisen as a variable in all of this. And something important that should be addressed if we had decent media in the offseason. Boyle, is Boyle. I'm pretty sure the other QB - Taylor wasn't out until spring football started? Maybe I'm wrong about that. Diaco came into a situation with 4 eligible scholarship QB's on the roster. Attrition and injury happen, it's part of the game. Excuses.

On the concussions though - this is something I want to know and understand about UCONN football. We have had multiple players in the past few seasons hang up the shoes, and/or be told not to play again, because of concussion issues, and at least one player - transferred to a different division 1A school and played football.

My concern, is that in our insurance capital of the world, blue state, lawyerly world - is that people are so CYA about the hot topic concussions, that we are being unnecessarily restrictive of our own football program. I would like to know, that all of this is being addressed properly, and if there is an adequate explanation as to why multiple players at UCONN have been told not to play again, yet at least one is still playing - that we all know why we do things different than other programs.

 

[J187Money]

1) That's my point. They had 9 months to evaluate them. Diaco decided that after 9 months of evaluation, that the right thing to do was to make "QB 1 and QB 1A". There's no reason for me to believe that he would have changed that approach, unless Casey performed perfectly. And as you know with our OLine being what it was, especially early in the season, there was no way for Casey to perform perfectly.

2) Yeah, at the point we instituted Foxx and the wild husky, I didn't have a problem with it either. Nothing else was working, and we needed to establish some sort of run game. Since we couldn't do it conventionally, we did it with Foxx.

3) His point of view of 2014 was not shaped by Cochran. That was his point of view all along. He was even bold enough to come out and say it. Many of us made fun of the "preseason" stuff ad nauseum here.

I definitely agree with the puzzling stuff. Let's hope for a much brighter 2015...

I don't think it is that complicated:

• Yes, he was going to treat "non-conference" games as "preseason"
• I believe he was going to settle on a QB for the "regular season" and try to win the conference
• That might have been Whitmer or Cochran - then Cochran got hurt
• All bets were off

The only real puzzling thing is that once he decided to use multiple QBs is "how" he did it. It didn't seem to make any sense at all within the game flow.

 

[UConnDan97]

I don't think it is that complicated:

• Yes, he was going to treat "non-conference" games as "preseason"
• I believe he was going to settle on a QB for the "regular season" and try to win the conference
• That might have been Whitmer or Cochran - then Cochran got hurt
• All bets were off

The only real puzzling thing is that once he decided to use multiple QBs is "how" he did it. It didn't seem to make any sense at all within the game flow.

I agree with your assessment of being puzzled by how he did it.
I disagree with your assessment that the madness would have stopped after game 4. If anything was proven this year, it was that he was willing to juggle things all the way to the very end. For more on that, see "Geremy Davis never playing a critical 3rd down play"...

 

[Carl Spackler]

I agree with your assessment of being puzzled by how he did it.
I disagree with your assessment that the madness would have stopped after game 4. If anything was proven this year, it was that he was willing to juggle things all the way to the very end. For more on that, see "Geremy Davis never playing a critical 3rd down play"...

The only thing we can do, is hope that he really is a mad scientist genius and we start winning soon. Trying to figure anything out that happened in 2014? It will make you nuts. I've stopped doing it because you inevitably end up at the same conclusions. You can find plenty of rationalization for individual situations, position groups personnel decision making, individual situation game planning, etc......but when you try to reconcile those snapshots with the big moving picture, it always falls apart. The only conclusions you can come to are #1, that all of 2014 was essentially treated as a 4 month long training camp and scrimmage and the intent was never to actually approach the season on a week to week basis based on opponents and developing the best team we could, that would improve as the season went on, OR, the young first time coach really did try to implement a plan, that he came up with that was supposed to generate a winnign team that would improve as the season went on, and he failed.

Either way, we start 2015, with not much different when it comes to actual game performance and generating wins, than we had in 2014. The only difference is that all the players that played, and are returned will be a year older, and year more experience in their individual roles. They will still need to learn and demonstrate coming together as a team to win, rather than a group of individuals performing individual tasks.

The thing is - either way - whatever happened in 2014 - be it intentional 4 months of scrimmages and practice , or a failed attempt at something - just demonstrate improvement. It's sad that's the case, because the only way not to demonstrate improvement, is to repeat as the worst team in all of division 1, but Diaco certainly did lower the bar effectively, to be able to show improvement moving forward.

We'll see in September. Villanova and Army back to back at home to start the season. 9 months to prepare.

 

[J187Money]

I agree with your assessment of being puzzled by how he did it.
I disagree with your assessment that the madness would have stopped after game 4. If anything was proven this year, it was that he was willing to juggle things all the way to the very end. For more on that, see "Geremy Davis never playing a critical 3rd down play"...

Did any of our illustrious media members ever ask him about GD? That's really the other thing that didn't make sense to me.

But to Carl's point, he did act like a mad scientist. And he did treat the season like a 4 month training camp. But he had an OL that was very bad at the beginning of the season, no real QB, talented backs that kept putting the ball on the ground. The more I think about it, the less puzzled I am in general from a philosophy standpoint. As I've said, my main gripe is that he seemed to stick to his plans while ignoring the actual game situations.

 

[J187Money]

And I will say this: Diaco may be a bust, but I'm happier coming off 2-10 with our youngsters having a ton of in-game experience than I would be if we were 4-8 and we did nothing but play seniors all year. I didn't like watching it, but if he is a good coach having players with experience will help a lot.

 

[UConnDan97]

Did any of our illustrious media members ever ask him about GD? That's really the other thing that didn't make sense to me.

Outside of the QB jumbling thing, this was my biggest gripe with Diaco. We had an NFL-level talent at WR, and we used him sparingly when we needed him the most. There was the speculation of yet another "lower body injury", but I never saw the CT media press Diaco about Geremy. It shouldn't shock me, because I didn't see them press Diaco about much of anything. But I really feel for Geremy Davis, because I fear it may have cost him an opportunity to get selected on Draft Day...

 

[Stainmaster]

Outside of the QB jumbling thing, this was my biggest gripe with Diaco. We had an NFL-level talent at WR, and we used him sparingly when we needed him the most. There was the speculation of yet another "lower body injury", but I never saw the CT media press Diaco about Geremy. It shouldn't shock me, because I didn't see them press Diaco about much of anything. But I really feel for Geremy Davis, because I fear it may have cost him an opportunity to get selected on Draft Day...

It's all about the combine. Smallwood was a huge impact performer on the field last year, but the combine was what dropped him down so far. There's still hope for Geremy.

 

[TheJerk]

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...

my point was I think everyone can agree this season was worst case scenario.

 

[Jimdish255]

We're all idiots and I'm not assuming anything until I see it on the field this year.

 

[UCFBfan]

It's all about the combine. Smallwood was a huge impact performer on the field last year, but the combine was what dropped him down so far. There's still hope for Geremy.

Was just gonna say the same thing. While play on the field gets you noticed, it's the combine and Pro Days that get you drafted. Suck it up there and your draft stock is shot. Have a massive performance and your stock sky rockets.

 

[junglehusky]

Outside of the QB jumbling thing, this was my biggest gripe with Diaco. We had an NFL-level talent at WR, and we used him sparingly when we needed him the most. There was the speculation of yet another "lower body injury", but I never saw the CT media press Diaco about Geremy. It shouldn't shock me, because I didn't see them press Diaco about much of anything. But I really feel for Geremy Davis, because I fear it may have cost him an opportunity to get selected on Draft Day...

The only possible explanation is that Diaco suffers from head coach paranoia syndrome. He is making a habit of releasing as little information on injuries as possible because he thinks it will give him an advantage when the other team has to scheme for different scenarios. It was absurd for this year's team that couldn't beat Army and SMU and probably did more to hurt relations with the alumni base than anything else, but I guess if a coach thinks it'll buy one win it's worth doing. I suspect we will continue to see this in the future, and at some point the Horde will throw a hissy fit about it.