Diaco on Passing and Play Calling (Silver and Fuller)

[businesslawyer]

Maybe you or Bizlaw can answer this question:

If he was fine letting Whitmer hand off on every play what is the risk if he gets hurt?

I don't understand your point.

 

[kemba]

Yes, but many of us would rather lose 28-0 due to incompetence of the players than 17-14 due to unwillingness of the coaches to compete. There's no shame in losing a game, but there's shame in losing because you chose to fight with one arm tied behind your back.

As for the idea of winning the game on special teams without an offense, how often does that happen? Has anyone ever seen a team that won that way? If you don't have playmakers on offense, how can you have playmakers on special teams?

It's not about not having playmakers on offense, it's not having a line and QB that gives you a chance to get them the ball.

Winning on special teams without an offense doesn't happen much, but I think it's more likely than passing with a line that can't block anybody, a QB who is turnover prone, in terrible weather, when you have been backed up most of the game.

 

[king conn]

Its actually pretty obvious what he is doing here. He has an opportunity to set the floor so low his first year, and he is taking full advantage of it.
Year two, 5 wins will be an improvement, progress as he likes to call it.
Year 3, a .500 record and bowl eligibility! Turning around the program!
By year 4, it will be 8 wins in the new CUSA. because by that time ECU, Cinncy and CFla will be in the p5 and it won't matter anyway.
And then he runs out his resume to the p5 how he took us from the dregs to that div. 2 conf championship.

 

[jbdphi]

A few quick facts here. While according to the stat sheet, only 10 passes were attempted, there were a few more than 10 plays which were called which involved attempting passes (I count 4 more plays, three sacks and one penalty).

1st Half:
- 1st series - attempted pass to Foxx - holding called - 10 yard penalty
- 1st series - strip sack and fumble
- 3rd series - sack for a 13 yard loss
- 3rd series - incomplete pass to Davis (so he didn't get just one target)

That's basically when things got shut down - we had three more series in the 1st half which started from our 9, 5 and 12 yard line respectively and all three were 3 runs and out.

2nd Half:
- 1st series - screen pass to DeLorenzo
- 1st series - incomplete pass to Marriner
- 2nd series - started on our own 3 yard line - no passes attempted
- 3rd series - incomplete pass to Abrams, complete pass to Foxx and then a sack for a 10 yard loss
- 4th series - 4 complete passes leading to the TD to Davis

Almost every offensive series where only runs were called involved extremely poor field position for UConn except for our 2nd series in the first half (where in the prior series we had fumbled the ball following a sack). I'm not saying it shouldn't be possible to pass the ball when your team is backed up but with this OL I think it is pretty clear that the coaches don't think it is a recommended strategy.

Fact is, we had a total of four possessions in the 2nd half - all but one included a pass attempt. USF may not have scored much on our defense but they sure won the field position battle and time of possession all night long. It was a brutally ugly game to watch but I can understand why the coaches went this way. The key issue for me is that this staff obviously doesn't believe in the ability of the players to the extent that this board does. Unfortunately, if I had to pick to believe one of those positions over the other, you have to go with the coaches. It seems quite likely we're going to continue to suck this season - that's why Diaco says his heart goes out to the seniors - because he knows this team sucks right now and isn't going to get better enough by the end of the year to go bowling.

 

[whaler11]

I don't understand your point.

If Whitmer gets hurt what is the downside? You hand off every play? So what is the risk of getting him hurt? They were already running every play.

 

[Confident Carl]

Maybe you or Bizlaw can answer this question:

If he was fine letting Whitmer hand off on every play what is the risk if he gets hurt?

Once again, a fan I HATED the play calling. It looked stupid, boring and down right weird. It just did not look or smell right.

BUT, even though I feel Whitmer is a mediocre quarterback he still can keep us in games IF he gets some form of protection from the O-Line. I don't know what condition Boyle was or is in. No question Diaco had several variables playing in his decision to run the ball. I am amazed that USF didn't score 40 pts in that game. It was a credit to our Defense. I maintain, that like it or not, if he loses Whitmer to a serious injury in that game, you might as well flush the season down the toilet.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Until UConn can score TDs in quantities of at least 3-4 per game, they will continue to lose. Until they develop ana effective passing game, they simply won't score enough. Until they develop an effective passing game they will not run effectively enough to win. Until they develop an effective passing game, they will continue to be an embarrassment every time they are on TV - they are a nightmare for announcers to deal with without slamming the players. Whitmer is not the answer. Get someone else in.

 

[Jimdish255]

I disagree with Coach D's decisions in the game. Believe it gave us close to zero chance to win and demoralized the team and fans. That said he gave about the best most sincere explanation of what happened and why he did it that he could have. There's really not much more to say about it. Bottom line is until the offense stops making mistakes and starts blocking we'll be arguing about the best way to lose after every game and that sucks. I'm moving on to next week but with reservations about our OC as stated by others, and hoping we can settle on our 2-deep like yesterday.

If you're going to err in your decisionmaking I'd rather it be with a bias towards building for the long-term than trying to pull a quick fix gimmick. That's obviously his philosophy for this program. He may be green but he's not dumb.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

What is really funny is we had to listen for two weeks about fans calling our coach dumb because he is focuses on making the team better and not just winning, and the Friday night he plays to win and he's under attack for only focusing on getting a win.

If you think he should have thrown in the first half Friday night, that is perfectly rational. But the situation was so unique that to think it reflects on the job he will do here, as opposed to reacting once on the fly, does not make sense.

I really didn't expect you to join this parade.

I'll speak for myself. This master plan that Diaco has may work out in the long. I sincerely hope it does. But I am not making that judgement at this time.

And while I'd like to have been 2-2 at this point, that isn't the end all, be all either.

What I'm saying, is that I hate the way he's handled these first 4 games. From the things he says to the things he does. After 4 games I'm very underwhelmed with how he's treated these games. And on a fan Internet message board, that's par for the course. If you disagree, fine. Tell me why and we'll argue and have fun.

But I fail to see how you can say that he coached to win that game Friday night. The fact that we miraculously got to a point where USF had to field an onsides kick to win the game gives him and those who claim he was trying to win cover.

Diaco has admitted to the very thing I posted about yesterday and people are still disagreeing. So be it.

 

[J187Money]

I'm just glad he owned up to it. I'm done nitpicking. Won't do any good. But he at least said something that made sense, even if I would have liked something different.

 

[Uconnalliance]

News flash!!!!we're rebuilding,enjoy the ride up currently we are feeding on the bottom

 

[Colt house75]

Maybe you or Bizlaw can answer this question:

If he was fine letting Whitmer hand off on every play what is the risk if he gets hurt?

Whaler, have to go with BL and Confident Carl on this one.... in answer to your question, the risk is mitigated
and lessened and he played the odds to keep it close.
Yes, was it ugly....damn near the ugliest game I ever saw ...but so were the game factors. and he had the huevos rancheros to tell everyone he would do it again....
He played the odds that :
1)USF is not a great team and he bet the that his team D could keep it close.
2)that USF would make mistakes and they did, but not nearly enough.
3)that his D would make a big game changing play and they did...
4)that one of his young backs would catch lightning in a bottle given the conditions.....
5)that by trying to pound it out he could possibly alter field position....you're one dropped punt by USF in horrendous conditions
from that happening...it didn't work-so wtf
6) anything can happen in a monsoon. You know that-
I trust him and his knowledge.
BTW...
a) his game plan nearly worked holding Boise in check...(which put up close to 500 yards on the Rajun Cajuns yesterday.)
b) his on the fly CEO decision that nearly pulled this one off almost worked.... so WTF.
c) give us 2 more experienced bodies on the OL and a healthy Casey and we're 3 & 1 and most would be singing his praises.

SEE You at Temple...

 

[businesslawyer]

If Whitmer gets hurt what is the downside? You hand off every play? So what is the risk of getting him hurt? They were already running every play.

You know the answer to that. It was possible that Whitmer would throw the ball. In a way it wouldn't be possible with a wideout playing QB.

Do you really think there are not other coaches that would change their strategy if the only have one healthy QB?

 

[Carl Spackler]

After watching that strip sack, fumble in the first quarter, and having watched every minute of UCONN football, live and replay, over the past season, and the past season(S), I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Diaco throwing the entire passing part of the game plan in the circular file. I'm actually glad he did it, because it shows he IS willing to deviate from a plan when necessary.

THe only question here, is if you agree or not that the scrapping of that was necessary. I do.

THe problem, is that we are so fundamentally unsound, and undisciplined in the basics of body position, and leverage in matching up with a defense and engaging in blocks, that our running game, isn't good enough yet. We showed that when we can actually engage blocks, and moreover, get of the snap properly, we can move the ball with the running game. We made too many of our own mistakes though, with false starts, and simple poor blocking technique.

DOn't get me wrong, I am incredibly frustrated with our new coach and his system, but it has nothing to do with the play calling on Friday night. If Abrams catches that pass late, he had a lot of room to run in front of him. THe game was winnable, with all the mess, and with scrapping the game plan.

Really, I was wrong, the question, is do you think the game would have been that close late, if we had continued to try to pass the ball and allow players to come unblocked?

 

[whaler11]

You know the answer to that. It was possible that Whitmer would throw the ball. In a way it wouldn't be possible with a wideout playing QB.

Do you really think there are not other coaches that would change their strategy if the only have one healthy QB?

So you put yourself in a hole to allow the threat of a pass? Ok - if things are that fragile it should make for a fun 8 games.

 

[BNich]

Don't forget the first possession turnover, AGAIN.

 

[whaler11]

After watching that strip sack, fumble in the first quarter, and having watched every minute of UCONN football, live and replay, over the past season, and the past season(S), I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Diaco throwing the entire passing part of the game plan in the circular file. I'm actually glad he did it, because it shows he IS willing to deviate from a plan when necessary.

THe only question here, is if you agree or not that the scrapping of that was necessary. I do.

THe problem, is that we are so fundamentally unsound, and undisciplined in the basics of body position, and leverage in matching up with a defense and engaging in blocks, that our running game, isn't good enough yet. We showed that when we can actually engage blocks, and moreover, get of the snap properly, we can move the ball with the running game. We made too many of our own mistakes though, with false starts, and simple poor blocking technique.

DOn't get me wrong, I am incredibly frustrated with our new coach and his system, but it has nothing to do with the play calling on Friday night. If Abrams catches that pass late, he had a lot of room to run in front of him. THe game was winnable, with all the mess, and with scrapping the game plan.

Really, I was wrong, the question, is do you think the game would have been that close late, if we had continued to try to pass the ball and allow players to come unblocked?

Nope, I don't think the game would have been close. But I always prefer a 10% chance of winning with a 90% chance of not being close over a 3% chance of winning with a higher probability of keeping the game close.

And we will soon see how the players respond to the (lack of) confidence shown in them on national TV.

 

[Dooley]

Here's another thought: is this method really the best method to "protect" and "coach up" the OL? By refusing to throw the ball at all on Friday night, the discussion is all about why UCONN chose to run and punt nonstop. Because our OL sahqs. Calling out your OL and putting them under such an intense microscope can have two possible outcomes: 1) they get really motivated to prove people wrong and play better or 2) they turtle up worse than the play calling on Friday night and play worse.

 

[pj]

I would give the coach a lot of leeway in play calling, but the one big advantage the offense has is the element of surprise -- it knows what's coming and the defense doesn't. You can't give that up. Shutting down the passing game and running every play is a cardinal sin. No matter how bad the line is, you have to mix up your offense. There should be passing plays that are relatively fast and have minimal risk of a turnover or injury even with a porous line.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Nope, I don't think the game would have been close. But I always prefer a 10% chance of winning with a 90% chance of not being close over a 3% chance of winning with a higher probability of keeping the game close.

And we will soon see how the players respond to the (lack of) confidence shown in them on national TV.

I'm not as worried about that as you are. DIaco, seems to be a guy that can connect with his playres, and positively motivate them. There is a lot to be positive, and motivate about in that game. It's hard because as fans, we get emotional, but it's there.

What just sucks to me, is all of the tackles I've seen where we are trying to bump and run through people rather than wrap up, arm lock, and take them down. What sucks is watching an offensive line, get into their running power set, and they look like the Himalayas, rather than flat backs across.

 

[Hoophound]

Here's another thought: is this method really the best method to "protect" and "coach up" the OL? By refusing to throw the ball at all on Friday night, the discussion is all about why UCONN chose to run and punt nonstop. Because our OL sahqs. Calling out your OL and putting them under such an intense microscope can have two possible outcomes: 1) they get really motivated to prove people wrong and play better or 2) they turtle up worse than the play calling on Friday night and play worse.

Same goes for the QB. If I'm Chandler I'd be thinking, "if Jameis Winston was the UConn QB I bet coach would have tried more passes". Chandler is being bombarded by the blitz but barely throwing at all has got to wreak havoc on his confidence. Basically, he fumbled on the first series and he was shut down for the night, no way that doesn't get in your head.

 

[J187Money]

What's our record without the early turnovers? Definitely better than 1-3.

 

[jbdphi]

Nope, I don't think the game would have been close. But I always prefer a 10% chance of winning with a 90% chance of not being close over a 3% chance of winning with a higher probability of keeping the game close.

And we will soon see how the players respond to the (lack of) confidence shown in them on national TV.

Nobody knows what those actual probabilities are but you're right that this is the key question being debated. It also isn't so black and white in terms of choosing one over the other.

I would argue that as long as you're in the first half with plenty of game time to go, you might go the more conservative route. If you were down my multiple scores earlier in the second half I would certainly argue for trying to open things up more as well but that wasn't the case due to the Jones TD gift. As soon as we were down multiple scores in the second half we tried to pass more (and it didn't work).

To their credit, while USF may be a horrible team, their Specials were pretty good last night. Their punter and kick coverage constantly kept us pinned back. Their punt returners caught everything they were supposed to catch and their FG kicker made his one attempt. This more than anything else is what stopped HCBD's strategy from working.

 

[Srqhusky]

I really didn't expect you to join this parade.

I'll speak for myself. This master plan that Diaco has may work out in the long. I sincerely hope it does. But I am not making that judgement at this time.

And while I'd like to have been 2-2 at this point, that isn't the end all, be all either.

What I'm saying, is that I hate the way he's handled these first 4 games. From the things he says to the things he does. After 4 games I'm very underwhelmed with how he's treated these games. And on a fan Internet message board, that's par for the course. If you disagree, fine. Tell me why and we'll argue and have fun.

But I fail to see how you can say that he coached to win that game Friday night. The fact that we miraculously got to a point where USF had to field an onsides kick to win the game gives him and those who claim he was trying to win cover.

Diaco has admitted to the very thing I posted about yesterday and people are still disagreeing. So be it.

If there is gold to be found from this game it's that maybe the offensive line learned something.

 

[Excalibur]

Nope, I don't think the game would have been close. But I always prefer a 10% chance of winning with a 90% chance of not being close over a 3% chance of winning with a higher probability of keeping the game close.

And we will soon see how the players respond to the (lack of) confidence shown in them on national TV.

Way to make up numbers to support your point.

 

[Devland]

To those calling that he needs to own up to this.... he has done so. You're welcome.

He owned up but didn't admit he was wrong. I was hoping he would realize his mistake and learn from it. I am not yet convinced that this is a coaching upgrade. I hope he can convince me.

 

[Chief00]

Quite frankly, we waited 3 games to get the Diaco declared non- conference preseason done. Now he declares a no pass game against a mediocre team. What's next? The season will be half over in a couple games.
It's clear the most important thing this team and coaches lack is a sense of urgency. You should fight to win every game. It doesn't take a genius coach to rationalize why the game is some civics lesson rather than a game to win. This is getting old real fast - I almost like the Coach P culture better and I really disliked that.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Yes, but many of us would rather lose 28-0 due to incompetence of the players than 17-14 due to unwillingness of the coaches to compete. There's no shame in losing a game, but there's shame in losing because you chose to fight with one arm tied behind your back.

As for the idea of winning the game on special teams without an offense, how often does that happen? Has anyone ever seen a team that won that way? If you don't have playmakers on offense, how can you have playmakers on special teams?

Ae you out of your mind? How in hell is keeping the game close an unwillingness to compete?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

He owned up but didn't admit he was wrong. I was hoping he would realize his mistake and learn from it. I am not yet convinced that this is a coaching upgrade. I hope he can convince me.

What the hell makes you think he was wrong? If we attempted 45 passes, turned the ball over three additional times and lost by 20 points would that have been right?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Yes, but many of us would rather lose 28-0 due to incompetence of the players than 17-14 due to unwillingness of the coaches to compete. There's no shame in losing a game, but there's shame in losing because you chose to fight with one arm tied behind your back.

As for the idea of winning the game on special teams without an offense, how often does that happen? Has anyone ever seen a team that won that way? If you don't have playmakers on offense, how can you have playmakers on special teams?

In the early 1980's Florida St built a program that in short time became a powerhouse that way. About a decade later Va Tech did something very similar.