Callahan's POV on HCBD coaching vs. USF

[Jimmy Serrano]

You continue to discuss the game without mentioning a lack of an experienced OL, horrific field conditions, and a game plan that had the first 4 passing plays go very wrong.

You act as if Diaco had them throw the ball 20 more times, all would be well. Except everything we saw only predicted we would be in worse shape if CW continued to pass the ball.

There was 2 ways Diaco could have gone with the game plan. Keep throwing or just run it. Either way, he gets criticized because there is no way if we kept passing do things work out fine.

You'd be the first to say "why was Diaco passing, in this weather," (after multiple turnovers).

Anyone who thinks we should have kept passing, with our struggling OL, in that weather, really has no clue.

See, this is the Strawman stuff I was talking about.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I do not think this group here was asking for 20 more passes, but some number greater than zero may have helped our cause. With so many defenders in the box, a successful quick slant in front of the safety's could open things up and move the chains.

USF has the same weather conditions we did. Somehow they were able to throw the ball in the rain. Of course they don't have our oline, but they are also not a top 100 team. A few short passes could have made a huge difference.

We ran the same GD running play 30 freaking times. Why is there no in between running and throwing? If the line can't protect the QB, there are passes that don't require the QB to stand in the pocket for 3-4 seconds. Would we have won? Who knows? But I know what would guarantee defeat: running the ball up the middle over and over and over and over again.

 

[Tenspro2002]

But I will say that Diaco's strategy absolutely sucked from a entertainment perspective, which is what I think most people are really unhappy about. It sucked to watch even if it gave us a slightly better chance to win.

It was horrible to watch, but I disagree that it gave us a better chance to win. Diaco's strategy may have improved the average outcome, but it did not increase our odds of winning.

I would estimate that, using our usual strategy, from down 14-0 we had a 10% chance to win, a 30% chance of a close (<14 point) loss, and a 60% chance of a blowout (>14 point) loss. Neutering the offense, we then had maybe a 5% chance to win, a 60% chance of a close loss, and a 35% chance of a blowout loss. Well, mission accomplished, we got that desperately-sought close loss.

Also, in the era of conference realignment, isn't it arguably the case that entertainment value (read: eyeballs) is close to as important as winning football games? Even if we win a 1940's-style game 17-14, what P5 commissioner is going to say "my goodness, what an exciting brand of football! we need to grab these guys!"?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You continue to discuss the game without mentioning a lack of an experienced OL, horrific field conditions, and a game plan that had the first 4 passing plays go very wrong. I'm well aware of the circumstances.

You act as if Diaco had them throw the ball 20 more times, all would be well. Except everything we saw only predicted we would be in worse shape if CW continued to pass the ball. Really? Since you're clairvoyant as well as a football savant, care to elaborate how you know this to be true?

There was 2 ways Diaco could have gone with the game plan. Keep throwing or just run it. Either way, he gets criticized because there is no way if we kept passing do things work out fine. There's an in between here that you're ignoring. Not saying to throw it 20 times. But how about throws that don't involve keeping CW in the pocket for 4 seconds exposed?

You'd be the first to say "why was Diaco passing, in this weather," (after multiple turnovers). If he threw the ball 50 times, yes. If he threw it at least a few times after the first 4 plays and the garbage time drive, no.

Anyone who thinks we should have kept passing, with our struggling OL, in that weather, really has no clue. Talk about over the top statements.

 

[freescooter]

I do not think this group here was asking for 20 more passes, but some number greater than zero may have helped our cause. With so many defenders in the box, a successful quick slant in front of the safety's could open things up and move the chains.

USF has the same weather conditions we did. Somehow they were able to throw the ball in the rain. Of course they don't have our oline, but they are also not a top 100 team. A few short passes could have made a huge difference.

Right...nobody is saying UConn should have been throwing the football all over the lot, but really, c'mon! Its one thing if the running game was even slightly effective, but 7 3-outs out of 9 possessions indicates that wasn't the case. And I get trying to hang around, but again, this went to the extreme. Our best player is a receiver. Our best offensive unit is our receiving corps. That we didn't even bother to try and involve them at all was crazy. This has all the earmarks of a coach who panicked, and is now trying to justify his decisions. With luck he'll learn from it and make more rational decisions next time we get in a winnable game.

 

[whaler11]

It was horrible to watch, but I disagree that it gave us a better chance to win. Diaco's strategy may have improved the average outcome, but it did not increase our odds of winning.

I would estimate that, using our usual strategy, from down 14-0 we had a 10% chance to win, a 30% chance of a close (<14 point) loss, and a 60% chance of a blowout (>14 point) loss. Neutering the offense, we then had maybe a 5% chance to win, a 60% chance of a close loss, and a 35% chance of a blowout loss. Well, mission accomplished, we got that desperately-sought close loss.

Also, in the era of conference realignment, isn't it arguably the case that entertainment value (read: eyeballs) is close to as important as winning football games? Even if we win a 1940's-style game 17-14, what P5 commissioner is going to say "my goodness, what an exciting brand of football! we need to grab these guys!"?

Going to need to see your model....

 

[sdhusky]

It was horrible to watch, but I disagree that it gave us a better chance to win. Diaco's strategy may have improved the average outcome, but it did not increase our odds of winning.

I would estimate that, using our usual strategy, from down 14-0 we had a 10% chance to win, a 30% chance of a close (<14 point) loss, and a 60% chance of a blowout (>14 point) loss. Neutering the offense, we then had maybe a 5% chance to win, a 60% chance of a close loss, and a 35% chance of a blowout loss. Well, mission accomplished, we got that desperately-sought close loss.

Also, in the era of conference realignment, isn't it arguably the case that entertainment value (read: eyeballs) is close to as important as winning football games? Even if we win a 1940's-style game 17-14, what P5 commissioner is going to say "my goodness, what an exciting brand of football! we need to grab these guys!"?

Pulling numbers out of your butt isn't really very effective - especially with you emotionally committed to make your argument work.

I estimate we had a 15.87% chance of winning with Diaco's strategy and a 11.654% with a normal game plan.

Since I don't care about losing close or losing big, I didn't pull out any numbers out of my butt for that.

But I think I have conclusively proven that Diaco's strategy increased our chances of winning by 36%

 

[ConnHuskBask]

We've covered 1970's boxing, 1980's Seton Hall basketball and now a "high level" chess player has thrown that parallel into the mix.

How about we stick to football and the idea that if you run the ball unsuccessfully over and over again you're not going to win any games. The fact that USF was so bad it came down to an onside kick in order to attempt a long FG is irrelevant.

Quit with the hostile environment and monsoon hyperbole too.

For Christ sake it was a football game that rained in front of what 3,000 people? Come on.

 

[HomeKing93]

I think Callahan made some good points.

I'm still buying what HCBD is selling and the 4th game in his head coaching career is not going to define him, but I really hope we don't play in any more "monsoon" games this year.

 

[Nostical]

How about this Mr. Callahan. I'll be shocked if we lose to Temple Saturday. All of this conversation will be moot when we use a home game in good weather to show what many expected to see in Tampa. We are currently one game behind in the HCBD process due to horrible weather and concerns for the QB. I just have a feeling in my gut that we're coming to play---and more importantly to win--on Saturday. Of course that feeling may simply be gas--lol--but I like our chances, especially after Temple whooped up on Delaware St. and we looked inept at Raymond James. The stars are aligning. I can't wait.

 

[noeynox]

Temple QB PJ Walker is really, really good. Like a right handed, poor man's version of Mike Vick. I really like his game, but he cannot be any tougher to defend than Taysom Hill.

 

[freescooter]

Just hope we don't have any problems blocking on pass plays. And we'll really be in trouble if the running backs fumble, too. I've never seen a team punt on 1st down so it doesn't have to run or pass the ball because, you know, something might go wrong. But there is always a first time.

 

[kemba]

Also, in the era of conference realignment, isn't it arguably the case that entertainment value (read: eyeballs) is close to as important as winning football games? Even if we win a 1940's-style game 17-14, what P5 commissioner is going to say "my goodness, what an exciting brand of football! we need to grab these guys!"?

Over time you can make an argument that its important to develop an exciting brand of football in addition to winning. That had nothing to do with this one game though. Continuing to call pass plays that lead to strip sacks, regular sacks, holding penalties, and intentional grounding is no more exciting than what we watched.

 

[Husky68]

Temple QB PJ Walker is really, really good. Like a right handed, poor man's version of Mike Vick. I really like his game, but he cannot be any tougher to defend than Taysom Hill.

And how did that Hill thingy go?