Diaco on Passing and Play Calling (Silver and Fuller)

[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.

 

[ZooCougar]

Diaco is so Edsall. Honestly, Edsall would have coached that game the EXACT SAME WAY.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Diaco is so Edsall. Honestly, Edsall would have coached that game the EXACT SAME WAY.

The amazing thing is that you said that with the intent of insulting Diaco and many of the lunatics on this board will read it as an insult.

 

[ZooCougar]

The amazing thing is that you said that with the intent of insulting Diaco and many of the lunatics on this board will read it as an insult.

It's a total Rohrshach test. But yes both coaches lack the creativity and preparedness to play themselves out of that hole.

 

[CL82]

http://snyuconn.com/uconn/football/diaco-on-passing-and-play-calling

>>“I shutdown the passing. I believe in that,” Diaco said Sunday. “I am watching the special teams, I am watching the defense play, and got a chance to watch our first four passes. If I didn’t intervene, I was concerned the game would be 35-0, 28-0. I’m more inclined to play ping pong and win the game on special teams than just continue to call plays on offense just to call plays on offense.

“Based on climate, early passes we saw, and based on how backed up like we were, that’s why the play pattern tried to tilt (to run only). Which was what we needed to do, which gave us an opportunity at the end of the game to win the game. As bad as it was, crazy as it was, as abysmal as it was looking on offense, we still had an opportunity to win the game at the end of the game.”
.”<<

Has any coach ever said a more unequivocal, more damning critique of his offense? Somehow I think that this far more loudly than all the "good jobs" we see him mouthing coming off the field. Wow.

 

[BlueMAB]

Diaco is so Edsall. Honestly, Edsall would have coached that game the EXACT SAME WAY.

5 Straight bowl games, 2 conference championships, Fiesta Bowl. I'd settle for that.

The thing about Edsall most people on this board never got, is that he coached the teams he had, not the ones he wanted. That's what the best coaches do. Diazo seems to be a much better recruiter, so if he's as good a coach as Edsall we'll be fine. I haven't seen nearly as many threads announcing Edsall's demise the past 2 years. But whatever, this shouldn't be about Edsall.

I hated the fact Diaco felt he had to coach the game that way, not the fact he coached that way. I wouldn't rather lose 28-0 than 17-14. I'd rather lose a close game knowing he was coaching to win. People can disagree on that strategy, I certainly think he went overboard and could have thrown in some screens, quick passes, something. But the idea that a 28-0 loss is a better example of "coaching to win" than a 17-14 loss is, IMO, idiotic.

 

[metsfan2323]

If we are building for next year can we start playing next year's QB? When will Boyle be named the starter? Why not do it now?

I understand rewarding Chandler for coming back but he can read the writing on the wall and he said in the pre-season press conference that he was content to be the back-up.

Let's put Boyle under center, give him max protection, run the ball a lot, go to shotgun on third down, tell him to throw the ball out of bounds if someone breaks through the line, and lets see what happens. Maybe something sparks the way it did with Casey last year. There is no reason to wait any longer.

Losing will be easier to stomach if we are developing next year's QB.

 

[sportsart]

It's a total Rohrshach test. But yes both coaches lack the creativity and preparedness to play themselves out of that hole.

Would it be wrong if a little part of me hopes Diaco is an Edsall clone just to drive you a little crazy?

 

[whaler11]

5 Straight bowl games, 2 conference championships, Fiesta Bowl. I'd settle for that.

The thing about Edsall most people on this board never got, is that he coached the teams he had, not the ones he wanted. That's what the best coaches do. Diazo seems to be a much better recruiter, so if he's as good a coach as Edsall we'll be fine. I haven't seen nearly as many threads announcing Edsall's demise the past 2 years. But whatever, this shouldn't be about Edsall.

I hated the fact Diaco felt he had to coach the game that way, not the fact he coached that way. I wouldn't rather lose 28-0 than 17-14. I'd rather lose a close game knowing he was coaching to win. People can disagree on that strategy, I certainly think he went overboard and could have thrown in some screens, quick passes, something. But the idea that a 28-0 loss is a better example of "coaching to win" than a 17-14 loss is, IMO, idiotic.

Corn mazes have fewer strawmen than the Boneyard these days.

 

[BlueMAB]

http://ct.fra.bz/i46/5/10/3/duck8178f89bf1.jpg

 

[BlueMAB]

Corn mazes have fewer strawmen than the Boneyard these days.

Come again?

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.

This is crazy. If the coaches kept putting the players in a position where we'd lose the game 28-0, we'd all be pissed that they didn't do something different, and didn't give the guys the chance to win a game. Nobody would say "we just lost 28-0 to one of the bottom 20 teams in the country, but at least we went down swinging with no chance at winning"

 

[ZooCougar]

5 Straight bowl games, 2 conference championships, Fiesta Bowl. I'd settle for that.

The thing about Edsall most people on this board never got, is that he coached the teams he had, not the ones he wanted. That's what the best coaches do. Diazo seems to be a much better recruiter, so if he's as good a coach as Edsall we'll be fine. I haven't seen nearly as many threads announcing Edsall's demise the past 2 years. But whatever, this shouldn't be about Edsall.

I hated the fact Diaco felt he had to coach the game that way, not the fact he coached that way. I wouldn't rather lose 28-0 than 17-14. I'd rather lose a close game knowing he was coaching to win. People can disagree on that strategy, I certainly think he went overboard and could have thrown in some screens, quick passes, something. But the idea that a 28-0 loss is a better example of "coaching to win" than a 17-14 loss is, IMO, idiotic.

Backed into a Fiesta Bowl sharing that championship with like 13 other schools, some of which may not even have been in the Big East at the time. And we lost to Temple who had better record but couldn't even get to a bowl game due to conference affiliation.

Every season 70 schools of 130 get to bowl games. Congrats on us being part of such an exclusive group.

The idea that we would have lost 28-0 if we had tried a different tactic is just nonsense and conjecture at best. It's like saying, "if I had been even more incompetent then we would have lost by a whole lot more!"

This reminds me if 2006. Wake Forest. Late 4th quarter. It's 4th and 17 and we're going for it and what does Edsall do?

Draw play baby.

Media asks him what on earth was he thinking? "Why I was trying to win the game". Wow.

So have another Edsall. That's great. We can look forward to at least two rebuilding years. A disappointing rebound year and a miracle season buoyed by non call on a fair catch.

 

[ZooCougar]

Would it be wrong if a little part of me hopes Diaco is an Edsall clone just to drive you a little crazy?

It's my nightmare. I just want one coach with a killer instinct and isn't about BS incremental growth. It's not inspiring, it's not fun to watch. I actually want to see my team blow another team out and have a competent offense someday.

 

[ZooCougar]

http://ct.fra.bz/i46/5/10/3/duck8178f89bf1.jpg

Mathematically, it was a close game. But we might as well have lost 28-0.

 

[whaler11]

Come again?

Fairly simple: Of course the sheer act of losing 28-0 does not mean you coached to win more than losing 17-14.

No one has claimed that it does.

 

[BlueMAB]

Backed into a Fiesta Bowl sharing that championship with like 13 other schools, some of which may not even have been in the Big East at the time. And we lost to Temple who had better record but couldn't even get to a bowl game due to conference affiliation.

Every season 70 schools of 130 get to bowl games. Congrats on us being part of such an exclusive group.

The idea that we would have lost 28-0 if we had tried a different tactic is just nonsense and conjecture at best. It's like saying, "if I had been even more incompetent then we would have lost by a whole lot more!"

This reminds me if 2006. Wake Forest. Late 4th quarter. It's 4th and 17 and we're going for it and what does Edsall do?

Draw play baby.

Media asks him what on earth was he thinking? "Why I was trying to win the game". Wow.

So have another Edsall. That's great. We can look forward to at least two rebuilding years. A disappointing rebound year and a miracle season buoyed by non call on a fair catch.

It's still amazing that our fans would discount the program's accomplishment just because they didn't like the coach.

Diaco doesn't have a whole lot in common with Edsall, that's all in your head.

Considering how successfully we started out throwing the ball, there is some rational thought behind Diaco's decisions.

If you want to pretend it wasn't rational because you disagreed with it, that's your call. I didn't entirely agree with the strategy. But pretending like everything was going fine when we tried to throw the ball (sack, TO on the first drive) so we should just keep plugging with that tactic is silly.