Diaco on Passing and Play Calling (Silver and Fuller)

[BlueMAB]

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.

 

[ZooCougar]

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]

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'.

 

[Nostical]

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]

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.

 

[J187Money]

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.

 

[BlueDogs]

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.

 

[freescooter]

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

What's our record if we were allowed to use the 1985 Chicago Bears? Definitely better than 1-3.

 

[Bonehead]

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?

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

 

[freescooter]

I think that Diaco has pretty much decided that this year wasn't going to be very successful and thus, he is trying to get guys reps, get a handle on who can help in the future, that sort of thing. If he wins a few games, that's fine. If not, well that's for the future. I actually think that it is a legitimate way to approach the situation he found. I'm not sure it is the approach I would have taken, nor is it one lots of other coaches would take. But you see it done this way. I'm somewhat of the opinion, though, that he is taking it to an extreme which I've never really seen. The play calling, the revolving door at running back and even the 2 headed quarterback, some of the other bizzare decisions all go beyond the "typical" rebuilding plan approach. the problem with the situation he's created, in my view, is that UConn wasn't in a situation where his approach can be done without serious damage to the brand and to the fan base. This isn't Rutgers c2001 where we've gone a quarter century between winning seasons where losing to 1AA teams was a regular occurrence. We had a history, brief though it may have been of competing with all but the very top of the football world. He's entitled to his approach to rebuilding. But he better be right. Because if he's not there won't be much left to rebuild by the time he is kicked out of here.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

While this is quickly devolving as an argument/discussion that has any relevance to football, it is entertaining. I haven't engaged, even though, the percentage thing written by whaler pulling those numbers out, was in response to a question I wrote, because it was just so far off the wall, that my interpretation was that it was just a purely emotional response, or even one of those unfortunate drunken writings, and getting into defending one of those, is always an unwinnable and unfortunate battle.

The question I had was this:

"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?"

it's a loaded question in retrospect, in that the assumption is that if we continued to try to pass the ball regularly, we would continue to allow players to come unblocked. Personally, I've seen it happen enough, where the entire offense breaks down in pass protections, that I didn't blink an eye, to the clear fact that we weren't going to pass the ball, and risk another turnover.

Reality, is whether or not you think the game would still have been close late, or not, what actually happened is that we packed away the passing part of the playbook, for the majority of the game after the first possession, and we were still in the game very late, and had chance to win.

 

[Bonehead]

While this is quickly devolving as an argument/discussion that has any relevance to football, it is entertaining. I haven't engaged, even though, the percentage thing written by whaler pulling those numbers out, was in response to a question I wrote, because it was just so far off the wall, that my interpretation was that it was just a purely emotional response, or even one of those unfortunate drunken writings, and getting into defending one of those, is always an unwinnable and unfortunate battle.




The question I had was this:

"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?"

it's a loaded question in retrospect, in that the assumption is that if we continued to try to pass the ball regularly, we would continue to allow players to come unblocked. Personally, I've seen it happen enough, where the entire offense breaks down in pass protections, that I didn't blink an eye, to the clear fact that we weren't going to pass the ball, and risk another turnover.

Reality, is whether or not you think the game would still have been close late, or not, what actually happened is that we packed away the passing part of the playbook, for the majority of the game after the first possession, and we were still in the game very late, and had chance to win.

Sincerely, Comma Crazy, Carl - (26 if I counted correctly!!)

 

[dtrumpet]

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.

Agreed. Calhoun went 9-19 in his first year, losing to St Peters, Yale and Harvard with darned good future NBA lifer on the team. Football is a monumentally harder sport to rebuild/start over.
Yes, Friday night was ugly, tough to watch and I'm sure even harder to play in. But its only 4 games. Its just too early to judge practically anything and worse to think it signals much of whats to come.

 

[CTBasketball]

I hope he doesn't destroy Geremy Davis's NFL chances.

 

[whaler11]

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.

Okey dokey buddy. I don't claim to have exact percentages, but in my opinion the tact he took gave them a very close to zero opportunity - so really almost anything would have been better.

 

[BlueMAB]

we packed away the passing part of the playbook, for the majority of the game after the first possession, and we were still in the game very late, and had chance to win.

they don't think we had a chance to win.

 

[Carl Spackler]

they don't think we had a chance to win.

Who do you mean by 'they'?

 

[BlueMAB]

Who do you mean by 'they'?

The people claiming the coaches quit.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The people claiming the coaches quit.

Ok. Yes, I agree then. THe concept that the coaches quit on this one is wrong.

They made the conscious choice to avoid turnovers on completely failed blocking from the offense, through the end of the first half, and it was working. Had we not gotten the pick 6? It would have been interesting to see what they decided to do win the 2nd half. But we did get, and we kept going with what they were doing on offense, as long as it was a one possession game.

I wrote this elsewhere. Soon after the game. The moment we went down by 2 possessions, we started passing the ball. Three straight passes. The first of which was the most costly, it was as deep slant/skinny post that hit Kamal Abrams in the chest and he dropped it. He had a wide open field to run to. Two more passes, one complete, the other incomplete and we punt for 38 yards.

When we were actually running the ball through the game, were advancing the ball at least minimally. The biggest reason we lost this single game, when it comes to a strictly tactical point of view, is the USF punting game. The kick that went 60+ yards and pinned us at the 1 yard line to start the 4th quarter. We couldn't advance out far enough, got a 40 yard punt, and put USF at midfield. To start, the defense held, but on a short field, they were able to kick a field goal.

The lesson as always, is that when you put the onus on the defense to win you games, you will fail more than you win, even if the defense plays a very good game, and holds when they can.

The very next possession, was the first time, that we had to get into a passing mode, and we did. And as noted, the key play that was there to be made, the ball was dropped. I don't like singling out players by name much, because you never know who's reading, but when it's warranted it's warranted. That Abrams drop was HUGE, for our chances to win this game. When the plays are there to be made, you got to make them. It's got nothing to do with coaching to win, or scheming to win, or any of that crap. it's the coaches job to put the players in position to win, and we were there. The players got to do it.

The single greatest contributor that USF put into this game, to get their win, is their punting game. Everything else we did, is correctable. Easily.

What kills me, is that I honestly can't comprehend, how we can practice to fix the things we need to fix, with the way we approach the game, with the multiple rotations and substitutions of offensive players. The defense, at least, seems to have tightened up the rotation a bit.

Uggg - I can't wait for Saturday to get the stink of that game off me.

 

[Bonehead]

so I got this straight - he didnt want to pass due to OL issues.

How about adjusting your pass play calling?
3 step drops?
Slants?
RB Screens?
WR Screens?
as opposed to just never passing again - I dont know - Bob you having me not understanding your thinking - not that I need to.

 

[SubbaBub]

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.

This. ^^^^

 

[Fairfield_1st]

How about adjusting your pass play calling?
3 step drops?
Slants?
RB Screens?
WR Screens?
as opposed to just never passing again.

I thought after the completed screen to Delorenzo that we would see more of that, but obviously we didn't. I saw nothing to try and loosen up the D. How about handing it to a WR or faking that handoff, anything to change up the look. It seems like our offense is either downfield pass or run, no intermediate play and no gimmicky plays. You've got to give the defense something to think about and to keep them honest.
Sadly, I felt like they gave up. When the 3 plays and punt continued to not work, I expected to see a new wrinkle, but it never came. I thought I was putting up with poor field play because he was changing the culture. What is the culture he's instilling? Friday did not come across as a positive culture day. I'll put it behind me and cheer at the Temple game, but even I'm starting to feel demoralized.
I would like to see more designed runs for Whitmer, but with only Boyle as a backup QB I don't think we can. Too bad, I thought the offense moved best against Boise (I think it was Boise) when he did those designed scrambles.

 

[SubbaBub]

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?

This too. ^^^^

 

[HomeKing93]

so I got this straight - he didnt want to pass due to OL issues.

How about adjusting your pass play calling?
3 step drops?
Slants?
RB Screens?
WR Screens?
as opposed to just never passing again - I dont know - Bob you having me not understanding your thinking - not that I need to.

Agreed. HCBD said he shut down the pass game as two of the pass plays in the 1Q resulted in a strip sack and an intentional grounding call. I noticed in both of those plays, CW took 7+ step drops. If the poor blocking from the OL and RBs continues, CW isn't going to have time to take 7+ step drops.

I'm hopeful that we'll see improvement in the Temple game. The weather should be better - that's a start.