Diaco on Passing and Play Calling (Silver and Fuller) | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Diaco on Passing and Play Calling (Silver and Fuller)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
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.

HUH?

What exactly does this mean???

"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."
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
HUH?

What exactly does this mean???

"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."

I imagine it means exactly what it says.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,115
Reaction Score
31,392
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.

Diaco was pretty much still holding OPEN TRYOUTS at the running back position on Friday night. Can someone let him know that NFL preseason is over?

You know what the definition of insanity is right? After two quarters... Well I will just shut up.


Discount? Please it's the truth and you know it. Wining five games to close the regular season was nice however.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
926
Reaction Score
1,852
What's our record without the early turnovers? Definitely better than 1-3.

Jmoney...we are 3 & 1 without the early TO's.
A team can put players, especially young ones in a position to win....another thing getting over the hump.....we will get through it...
............hang onto your jocks boys-this is going to be a freakin great ride and not all of it smooth. This is not for the faint of heart. Maybe, just maybe...some of the people who leave early or can't get into a game on time need to grow a pair or trade in their block C blue hats for a freakin pink hat!!!

Maybe, just maybe IMHO.... it's time some of those that frequent our midst out there question their own very heart and soul and not whether a coach wants to win as was expressed in another thread...please spare me . This football program was taken DOWN right under a lot of noses and most of the UCONN fandom didn't see it. To a few of you on the BY to your credit, you saw it 3 years ago as did the guys in our group..... If you don't watch and enjoy the ride with these very young Husky pups, you will miss the ride back because it's only going to happen once. We finally have a coach with the testicular fortitude to get us there, again and make us great-again!. (Hear that Hathaway)...... Maybe, some of the UCONN pink hats need to examine their own DNA....Multiple mens BB championships, #1 womens BB program in the world, a state that sits in between NY and Boston with the Bruins, Patriots, Giants, Red Sox and Yankees. We abound and sit in and amongst greatness and very successful teams. not all can be smooth all the time...even Friday's ugly debacle but with the ugly comes the awesome.

You are 2 players away on the OL from being 3 & 1 with a team that has a majority of players that haven't had to shave yet...
You are 2 early turnovers from being 3 & 1....

Enjoy the ride...see you at Temple.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
Jmoney...we are 3 & 1 without the early TO's.
A team can put players, especially young ones in a position to win....another thing getting over the hump.....we will get through it...
..hang onto your jocks boys-this is going to be a freakin great ride and not all of it smooth. This is not for the faint of heart. Maybe, just maybe...some of the people who leave early or can't get into a game on time need to grow a pair or trade in their block C blue hats for a freakin pink hat!!!

Maybe, just maybe IMHO.... it's time some of those that frequent our midst out there question their own very heart and soul and not whether a coach wants to win as was expressed in another thread...please spare me . This football program was taken DOWN right under a lot of noses and most of the UCONN fandom didn't see it. To a few of you on the BY to your credit, you saw it 3 years ago as did the guys in our group..... If you don't watch and enjoy the ride with these very young Husky pups, you will miss the ride back because it's only going to happen once. We finally have a coach with the testicular fortitude to get us there, again and make us great-again!. (Hear that Hathaway). Maybe, some of the UCONN pink hats need to examine their own DNA....Multiple mens BB championships, #1 womens BB program in the world, a state that sits in between NY and Boston with the Bruins, Patriots, Giants, Red Sox and Yankees. We abound and sit in and amongst greatness and very successful teams. not all can be smooth all the time...even Friday's ugly debacle but with the ugly comes the awesome.

You are 2 players away on the OL from being 3 & 1 with a team that has a majority of players that haven't had to shave yet...
You are 2 early turnovers from being 3 & 1....

Enjoy the ride...see you at Temple.

So I was smart before but an idiot now and my heart and soul as a fan is a bigger question than the coach.

Um ok.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
Mathematically, it was a close game. But we might as well have lost 28-0.

That face palm was for the "play Boyle" comment.

As if something would just "click" with that OL because Boyle is in.

I imagine it means exactly what it says.

If you're gonna complain about straw men, don't build them. He didn't say "sheer act of losing 28-0". I didn't accuse him of saying "sheer act of losing 28-0". That's how you parsed his words to build a straw man.

He absolutely said he would rather lose 28-0 "trying to win" than lose 17-14 because they were "unwilling to compete."

On it's face, this is crazy. If you lose 28-0 rather than 17-14, whatever you were trying, wasn't as successful, and didn't give you nearly the opportunity to win as whatever you were doing to lose 17-14.

You can say "he doesn't know we would have lost by 4 TDs" and you'd be right. But you also can't say we wouldn't have lost by 4 TDs. We'll never know what would have happened.

I was alongside many in my disgust with his comments that clearly implied winning the first three games wasn't as important as evaluating and "preparing". I don't think the argument that we weren't competing is entirely accurate here.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
Discount? Please it's the truth and you know it. Wining five games to close the regular season was nice however.


No, you're right. Since we wrote the tie-breakers rule. Since we choked our game against Pitt away like WVU did. Since we gave the Big East the BCS bid. Since Pitt was so obviously a more deserving team against Utah a few years prior. We absolutely should apologize to the nation for that Fiesta Bowl appearance.

Especially Rutgers, who you know, never got to go to one. But they did end one year ranked in the top 15, do you get a banner for that?

After the last 3 years, I can't believe people still pretend like bowl games are a birthright.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
That face palm was for the "play Boyle" comment.

As if something would just "click" with that OL because Boyle is in.



If you're gonna complain about straw men, don't build them. He didn't say "sheer act of losing 28-0". I didn't accuse him of saying "sheer act of losing 28-0". That's how you parsed his words to build a straw man.

He absolutely said he would rather lose 28-0 "trying to win" than lose 17-14 because they were "unwilling to compete."

On it's face, this is crazy. If you lose 28-0 rather than 17-14, whatever you were trying, wasn't as successful, and didn't give you nearly the opportunity to win as whatever you were doing to lose 17-14.

You can say "he doesn't know we would have lost by 4 TDs" and you'd be right. But you also can't say we wouldn't have lost by 4 TDs. We'll never know what would have happened.

I was alongside many in my disgust with his comments that clearly implied winning the first three games wasn't as important as evaluating and "preparing". I don't think the argument that we weren't competing is entirely accurate here.

It's not crazy. If the strategy that leads to a 28-0 loss gives you a better chance to win than the strategy that dooms you to a close loss than it's a better strategy.

Maybe some people understand blackjack. You can stand on 16 against a face card and lose a lot of close hands. It doesn't give you the best chance of winning even if a good amount of the time you hit something that busts you.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
617
Reaction Score
2,023
Hmmm. How many fumbles in the monsoon? 0
How many turnovers for points after the turtle strategy? 0
The running game almost looked good at times. (But not consistantly). Penalties destroyed any momentum we had.
Late shotgun seemed to give CW another 1/2 second, but didn't keep him from getting sacked in Q4. Gutsy call in extreme wet conditions. Helped him find receivers (and see the rush).
Arkeel consistently returned kicks beyond the 20.
First Defensive points of the season I belive.

Not pretty. Not a win.

HCBD is playing the hand he was dealt. With a porous OL you don't have many options and you can't fool the opponents into thinking you do.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,922
Reaction Score
7,773
Early on Coach Diaco decided to try and extend the game. I have no problem with that. Trying to throw when we were starting drives inside our 20 would have been setting the team up for a real embarassment. I thought we could get one long run to loosen things up but it didn't happen. We had one QB, he played it safe. On to Temple. 80 degrees, no rain. 4 o'clock start, GO Huskies!
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
It's not crazy. If the strategy that leads to a 28-0 loss gives you a better chance to win than the strategy that dooms you to a close loss than it's a better strategy.

Maybe some people understand blackjack. You can stand on 16 against a face card and lose a lot of close hands. It doesn't give you the best chance of winning even if a good amount of the time you hit something that busts you.

If you lose 28-0, you didn't have much of a chance at winning.

If you lost 17-14, you had a chance.

Of all the things that get argued about on this board. I understand people didn't like the strategy, I didn't. But arguing that a game plan that (for the sake of discussion) would cause us to lose by 4 touchdowns rather than a field goal; would have given us a better chance to win is absophuckinglutely crazy.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
20,513
Reaction Score
44,465
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.

I don't look at it as insult. I didn't like Randy but he is a decent coach.

If there is one difference between the two that I like off the rip is that Diaco is always selling UConn. I can point exactly to the interview where I soured on Edsall, but at this point who cares about him.

I believe in this coach, but there are things that can be questioned about his strategies. I do think he was a good hire and just the improvement in the physical conditioning of the team makes him an improvement over the last guy.

The offensive line is a major weakness. It limits a lot of things I get that. You have to incorporate more than one pass attempt for your best player.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
If you lose 28-0, you didn't have much of a chance at winning.

If you lost 17-14, you had a chance.

Of all the things that get argued about on this board. I understand people didn't like the strategy, I didn't. But arguing that a game plan that (for the sake of discussion) would cause us to lose by 4 touchdowns rather than a field goal; would have given us a better chance to win is absophuckinglutely crazy.

I'll ask you a pretty simple question:

What's a better strategy hypothetically?

1: You get blown out 90% of the time and win 10% of the time

2: You lose closely 95% of the time and only win 5%.

I'm guessing you'll say #1. Now if you want to argue there was no option 1 on Friday that's fine. That's a completely different argument than you've been making and hopefully you now understand the point people have been trying to make: That the risk of a blow out loss is worth the opportunity to win because 17-14 and 28-0 are the same outcome at the end of the day.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
20,513
Reaction Score
44,465
If you lose 28-0, you didn't have much of a chance at winning.

If you lost 17-14, you had a chance.

Of all the things that get argued about on this board. I understand people didn't like the strategy, I didn't. But arguing that a game plan that (for the sake of discussion) would cause us to lose by 4 touchdowns rather than a field goal; would have given us a better chance to win is absophuckinglutely crazy.
Just open it up late in the game when your down one score. Down two scores the last TD felt like window dressing.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
I'll ask you a pretty simple question:

What's a better strategy hypothetically?

1: You get blown out 90% of the time and win 10% of the time

2: You lose closely 95% of the time and only win 5%.

Corn mazes have fewer strawmen than the Boneyard these days.

You know what, you're right.

If I'm forced to accept the premise that a strategy resulting in a 28 point loss means we had a 5% better chance to win than one resulting in a 3 point loss. Yes, you're right.

However, that premise, is moronic.

Of course, Diaco hasn't coached every game the same. The play calling was significantly different against Boise St.

There's no reason to think that every game from here on out will be coached that way.

My argument is that it's not nearly as cut and dry as option 1 or option 2 as you and others think. I understand Diaco's decision. I didn't love it, I think he went too far. I think he could/should have passed it a few more times.

I don't think you can say, as some have, that he was "unwilling to compete". That's bullspit.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,115
Reaction Score
31,392
It's not crazy. If the strategy that leads to a 28-0 loss gives you a better chance to win than the strategy that dooms you to a close loss than it's a better strategy.

Maybe some people understand blackjack. You can stand on 16 against a face card and lose a lot of close hands. It doesn't give you the best chance of winning even if a good amount of the time you hit something that busts you.

It's either high risk, high reward, or low risk, no reward.

Diaco chose the latter.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
You know what, you're right.

If I'm forced to accept the premise that a strategy resulting in a 28 point loss means we had a 5% better chance to win than one resulting in a 3 point loss. Yes, you're right.

However, that premise, is moronic.

Of course, Diaco hasn't coached every game the same. The play calling was significantly different against Boise St.

There's no reason to think that every game from here on out will be coached that way.

My argument is that it's not nearly as cut and dry as option 1 or option 2 as you and others think. I understand Diaco's decision. I didn't love it, I think he went too far. I think he could/should have passed it a few more times.

I don't think you can say, as some have, that he was "unwilling to compete". That's bullspit.

I'm not saying those percentages are precise in this situation but if you don't agree with the concept you are projecting 'moronic'.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,901
Reaction Score
18,434
USF's 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.

Absolutely correct. A few more third down stops by our D and Diaco's strategy may just have worked, but in such miserable conditions it was USF's special teams that prevented it.
 

Bonehead

'Ollie North of the Cesspool'
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
9,360
Reaction Score
8,261
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.

Because next year it will be Davis - he likes the mobile QB...
Max Protection? Thats funny - there would be no one running a route!! So Boyle should play if we change the blocking schemems - classic.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,927
Reaction Score
17,124
News flash!!!!we're rebuilding,enjoy the ride up currently we are feeding on the bottom

I get this sentiment. I think what is frustrating (and I don't blame this on Diaco) is that I just didn't think that it would get this bad. There was more promise in 2003 when we opened the Rent than there is right now, even ignoring the conference affiliation issue. This isn't rebuilding, it is starting over.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,578
Reaction Score
16,671
I get this sentiment. I think what is frustrating (and I don't blame this on Diaco) is that I just didn't think that it would get this bad. There was more promise in 2003 when we opened the Rent than there is right now, even ignoring the conference affiliation issue. This isn't rebuilding, it is starting over.

Sadly, you are correct. The quality of athlete has declined. I fear it will decline further in our current predicament. My biggest fear is the program tanks and goes out with whimper. Year over year horrid performance will start wearing on even the more committed fans. Diaco walked into a tough situation with the clock ticking, but he's the one who said he could turn it around. Let's see how finish the season. I'm looking for improvement week over week at this point.
 

Bonehead

'Ollie North of the Cesspool'
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
9,360
Reaction Score
8,261
What's our record if we were allowed to use the 1985 Chicago Bears? Definitely better than 1-3.

1985 bears D today - 2-2. although Singletary looks like he could stop you with a look he has dropped some sideline to sideline speed in the last 30 years.
Bears D in 85? 3-1. Bad play calling costs us a game.

Lets really get this going - what would our record be if Boyle was the starter?
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
I'm not saying those percentages are precise in this situation but if you don't agree with the concept you are projecting 'moronic'.

In order for your argument to have any merit at all, those percentages not only have to be precise, they have to be guaranteed. But you literally pulled those numbers right out of your @ $ $

And on top of that you're making, or at least defending, the argument that he wasn't trying to win, because he didn't do something that would only give us, in your own words, only a 5% better chance at winning.

It's crazy, even for the boneyard. Criticize the lack of quick passing plays, criticize the refusal to use shotgun, screens, more creativity. Saying he wasn't willing to compete because he didn't give us a 5% better chance at a win based on arbitrary odds developed on nothing more than speculation and a desire to be right? Projecting moronic indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
2,364
Total visitors
2,516

Forum statistics

Threads
155,752
Messages
4,030,463
Members
9,864
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom