Edsall changes his stripes ... and its a checkerboard!

[junglehusky]

He was the right guy for UConn for a time and he'll be the right guy for maryland for some time. I try not to post in every FHCRE thread, after a while it becomes similar to obsessing over your ex-girlfriend (Where is she? Who is she talking to? Why is she laughing with her new friends? I hope she's speeding on the way to the club, trying to hurry up to get to some baller or singer or somebody like that and try to put on her makeup in the mirror and crash, crash, crash.. into a ditch! (Just Playing!).)

 

[BlueMAB]

This is just one game. The larger sample speaks for itself. Edsall has a tendancy of taking a team that should handily beat an opponent and delivering a close win. Edsall's MO isn't to bury a team from the start...it is to wear them out and win at the end. Maybe that will change. But I will believe that when I see it. There are some positives to Edsall's gameplan (usually beat the teams you should beat), but there are negatives as well. Again, maybe things will change with him, but change has not been Edsall' strong suit. He thinks his way works and he sticks with it. We shall see.

There's a reason you didn't answer the questions, or try and explain why/how you were right about his gameplan. You used one game to make the argument this was a typical Edsall gameplan, now you're saying what exactly? This is just one game, and it was different from his larger sample??

Instead of moving the goalposts, you could have saved yourself some time and just admitted your first post was full of .

 

[Carl Spackler]

What systems do players need not execute in order to win? Really? I've failed miserably.....

Before I even try to answer that thoughtfully, I'd need to know if you think that Edsall is a player's coach, or if Pasqualoni is a player's coach, and why. Because it starts there.

But if you're looking at just the merriam webster line definition of the word 'execute', instead of using it in the context of the game, and how it applies to the two basic fundamental approaches to the game that you can take..

in that case - if you're thinking about the line definition, instead of the context, then it's an easy answer.

There are no systems where a player need not execute to win.

Here's a hint though, as to what I'm writing about, if you've got no idea.

The first thing any highly successful coach does, willingly and consciously or not, in buildingwinning teams regularly, is that they've got to make a choice, they've got to decide - got to decide first and foremost, if...

plays are more important than players, or players are more important than plays.

A lot of times, it's not until long after the methods and success has been attained, that a coach realizes where they stand.

I personally think, that Edsall has yet to learn where he stands, because in his history as a head coach, he's developed the trend of recruiting players for one way, and then coaching another.

 

[ZooCougar]

There's a reason you didn't answer the questions, or try and explain why/how you were right about his gameplan. You used one game to make the argument this was a typical Edsall gameplan, now you're saying what exactly? This is just one game, and it was different from his larger sample??

Instead of moving the goalposts, you could have saved yourself some time and just admitted your first post was full of .

He's been posting here for years. Who are you?

Excuses? Well there is the blanket "we came from trailers" for starters.

 

[BlueMAB]

He's been posting here for years. Who are you?

Excuses? Well there is the blanket "we came from trailers" for starters.

I'm nobody now that I know "who" posted it matters more than "what" was posted.

I was asking you to identify the excuses in my post (or even in this thread), since you said people don't need to make excuses anymore.

I didn't realize Maryland had trailers, I thought Under Armour money would help their facilities out.

 

[BlueMAB]

What systems do players need not execute in order to win? Really? I've failed miserably.....

Before I even try to answer that thoughtfully, I'd need to know if you think that Edsall is a player's coach, or if Pasqualoni is a player's coach, and why. Because it starts there.

But if you're looking at just the merriam webster line definition of the word 'execute', instead of using it in the context of the game, and how it applies to the two basic fundamental approaches to the game that you can take..

in that case - if you're thinking about the line definition, instead of the context, then it's an easy answer.

There are no systems where a player need not execute to win.

Here's a hint though, as to what I'm writing about, if you've got no idea.

The first thing any highly successful coach does, willingly and consciously or not, in buildingwinning teams regularly, is that they've got to make a choice, they've got to decide - got to decide first and foremost, if...

plays are more important than players, or players are more important than plays.

A lot of times, it's not until long after the methods and success has been attained, that a coach realizes where they stand.

I personally think, that Edsall has yet to learn where he stands, because in his history as a head coach, he's developed the trend of recruiting players for one way, and then coaching another.

I was being facetious and figured you wouldn't get the joke, so I deleted it.

 

[ZooCougar]

This has to be one of your best posts.

Your last point is gold. But the Execution issue has always been a friction point. The apologists and Edsall never believed that the coaches were responsible for the lack of it.

What systems do players need not execute in order to win? Really? I've failed miserably.....

Before I even try to answer that thoughtfully, I'd need to know if you think that Edsall is a player's coach, or if Pasqualoni is a player's coach, and why. Because it starts there.

But if you're looking at just the merriam webster line definition of the word 'execute', instead of using it in the context of the game, and how it applies to the two basic fundamental approaches to the game that you can take..

in that case - if you're thinking about the line definition, instead of the context, then it's an easy answer.

There are no systems where a player need not execute to win.

Here's a hint though, as to what I'm writing about, if you've got no idea.

The first thing any highly successful coach does, willingly and consciously or not, in buildingwinning teams regularly, is that they've got to make a choice, they've got to decide - got to decide first and foremost, if...

plays are more important than players, or players are more important than plays.

A lot of times, it's not until long after the methods and success has been attained, that a coach realizes where they stand.

I personally think, that Edsall has yet to learn where he stands, because in his history as a head coach, he's developed the trend of recruiting players for one way, and then coaching another.

 

[BlueMAB]

And Edsall's haters believe it's his fault when a player misses a tackle, takes a bad angle, throws a duck, fumbles the football, or drops a pass, because, if for no other reason, he recruited him.

 

[ZooCougar]

He also coached him. You can't just take credit for success. You need to execute when it comes to coaching too.

 

[BlueMAB]

He also coached him. You can't just take credit for success. You need to execute when it comes to coaching too.

Is that what Edsall did, only take credit for the success?

"It's not about what I did. It's what the kids did," Edsall said. "All I tried to do is come in and get them to believe that they could push themselves further than maybe they thought. They bought into the team concept."
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=312480120

Well, that's easy after a win. What does he say after a bad loss?
"We evaluate everything," Edsall said. "We evaluate our game plan. Could we have done something different? We don't put it all on the players. It's not all on the players."

"Nobody is putting this all on the players," Edsall said. "It's on all of us. We're three games in, we're 1-2. We've got a lot of season left, but again we all have to understand that we have to go out and execute the way we need to execute. Whether you win a game or lose a game you're going to come in here saying the same thing: There are always things you could have done better in the game. Always."
http://articles.courant.com/2010-09...925-20100924_1_edsall-michael-box-cody-endres

Are you going to quote the excuses you referenced, or have you been around long enough where you can make a statement that isn't based on reality and not be expected to back it up?

 

[gabect]

Randy deserves credit after the whooping we got from Temple last year. I vividly remember the 9-6 OT win 2 years ago during hurricane... was it Rita? They had a little rain here too, 350 yrds of passing... kid must be talented.

 

[zls44]

Is that what Edsall did, only take credit for the success?

"It's not about what I did. It's what the kids did," Edsall said. "All I tried to do is come in and get them to believe that they could push themselves further than maybe they thought. They bought into the team concept."
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=312480120

Well, that's easy after a win. What does he say after a bad loss?
"We evaluate everything," Edsall said. "We evaluate our game plan. Could we have done something different? We don't put it all on the players. It's not all on the players."

"Nobody is putting this all on the players," Edsall said. "It's on all of us. We're three games in, we're 1-2. We've got a lot of season left, but again we all have to understand that we have to go out and execute the way we need to execute. Whether you win a game or lose a game you're going to come in here saying the same thing: There are always things you could have done better in the game. Always."
http://articles.courant.com/2010-09...925-20100924_1_edsall-michael-box-cody-endres

Are you going to quote the excuses you referenced, or have you been around long enough where you can make a statement that isn't based on reality and not be expected to back it up?

Do you know that the 2nd part was in response to the Horde pushing Randy BECAUSE it seemed he was only blaming the players, or are you conviniently forgetting that?

You can't bring up a quote that was only said BECAUSE people saw he was only blaming the players as evidence that he wasn't only blaming the players.

 

[businesslawyer]

Of couse you can. He was told how people were interpreting his words and he responded by saying what he meant. Or is your position that what is important is not what someone means, but whether you can interpret what they said to fit your thesis.

As for gabect's post, you couldn't have a better example of the irrationality of the chest thumpers. Many actually believe that pointing out something that went wrong under Esdall is actually a winning rational argument as to any defense of him. No matter how irrelevant to the immediate point under discussion.

 

[zls44]

Of couse you can. He was told how people were interpreting his words and he responded by saying what he meant

I don't see Randy Edsall as being remotely that calculated or subtle.

 

[UCDaveD]

Blah blah blah Edsall blah blah blah

I was really impressed with Golden. With all the distractions, suspensions, etc, he had his team in a position to win the game. He did a great job.

 

[ZooCougar]

Edsall rarely took responsibility for on the field stuff. Throwing kids under the bus was his MO.

ZLS nailed the context. The horde was fed up with Gump's deflections. They called him out.

 

[zls44]

I was really impressed with Golden. With all the distractions, suspensions, etc, he had his team in a position to win the game. He did a great job.

Exactly.

He was missing a ton of players, has the worst storm clouds a program could have surrounding him, had to game plan for a new coach/team/system (like Randy), and his kids did an amazing job. A lot of people thought they'd get smoked. All they did was show why he's such a great coach.

But get the man an umbrella.

 

[metsfan2323]

Edsall didn't even fly home with the team after the Fiesta Bowl.

If fans are jilted and feel like rooting against him its understandable, and not irrational at all. You can't tell me many Cincy fans weren't ecstating seeing Brian Kelly lose on Sat and you can't tell me that West Virginia fans didn't enjoy seeing Rich Rod flop at Michigan. Edsall made a smart move going to Maryland and UCONN fans are justified in rooting against him if they choose to.

I agree with Palatine, how did Edsall play Frazer over McEntee?

 

[BlueMAB]

Do you know that the 2nd part was in response to the Horde pushing Randy BECAUSE it seemed he was only blaming the players, or are you conviniently forgetting that?

You can't bring up a quote that was only said BECAUSE people saw he was only blaming the players as evidence that he wasn't only blaming the players.

I know why he responded. It, as you said, "seemed he was only blaming the players". He was challenged on it, and responded, with emphasis and repeatedly, saying the loss was not all on the players. If his response doesn't fit the mold you've created for him, then it's inconvenient for you, but the truth is the truth.

Edsall credited his players with last night's success, why didn't he take all the credit the way his haters claim he always does, because it doesn't fit your mold?

 

[weyuo]

It took Miami almost a full quarter to stop from laughing at the clown suits so chock up a couple points for Edsall on distracting his opponent. The only way they can top that is if next week the coaches come out with matching court jester hats...you know...the ones with the 3 tassels with bells.

 

[businesslawyer]

Sorry -- I don't accept that most people get bitter because a coach leaves. I sat in a Salt Lake City bar a few years ago while Urban Meyer, a year from having left Utah, coached Florida to a BCS championsip. People were chanting his name. No one was booing him.

 

[UCDaveD]

I know why he responded. It, as you said, "seemed he was only blaming the players". He was challenged on it, and responded, with emphasis and repeatedly, the the loss was not all on the players. If his response doesn't fit the mold you've created for him, then it's inconvenient for you, but the truth is the truth.

What do you think he was going to respond with? 'Yeah, I throw players under the bus, you got a problem with that?' Of course he's going to respond the way he did. It'd be incredibly bad business not to. Doesn't take away from the fact that the question had to be asked in the first place.

 

[metsfan2323]

Sorry -- I don't accept that most people get bitter because a coach leaves. I sat in a Salt Lake City bar a few years ago while Urban Meyer, a year from having left Utah, coached Florida to a BCS championsip. People were chanting his name. No one was booing him.

Edsall burned some bridges the way he left. He could have handled it better. He broke up with us by leaving a note on our car window.

 

[UCHuskies08]

Sorry -- I don't accept that most people get bitter because a coach leaves. I sat in a Salt Lake City bar a few years ago while Urban Meyer, a year from having left Utah, coached Florida to a BCS championsip. People were chanting his name. No one was booing him.

Same reason (much smaller scale) that people hate LeBron. It matters how you treat people. He showed he had zero emotional connection to the team and the university and by proxy, us. So, 'em.

 

[metsfan2323]

I just pulled this from the Scout Cincy board. It was easy to find.

"As I said in a different thread, I am feeling a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings after the Irish lost to the Bulls. First, I just love it when Notre Dame loses (call me hater, I don't care). Then, it was a great win for the Big East. Last and most importantly, I got to see the top of Kelly's head come off right there on tv. Love it.

Go Bearcats. Beat UT".