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

[BlueMAB]

So I provide direct quotes, and you guys write them off as excuses or lies, or more evidence that he didn't mean what he said.

I ask for proof of what he actually said, and you provide nothing but your own words, thoughts, and interpretations.

 

[UCDaveD]

The quote you provided was BS. It was a response to being pressed on blaming only the players. Where do you think the accusation came from in the first place? Did the person who asked it just make it up out of thin air?

Here's Randy on why we lost to Michigan:

"As bad as we played to be able to have a situation where we can make it a seven-point game with two minutes to go in the third quarter showed we competed but we didn’t play like we should have.”

“A couple of the big runs, it was a matter of guys not getting over the top or guys not going down and pressing the blockers,” Edsall said.

“I didn’t think they were very good,” he said. “I think we got whooped on both sides of the line of scrimmage.”

All the players fault, no mention of his game plan not having a chance in hell to contain Robinson. It was just all on the players. Typical.​

And here's another after Lousiville:

"When you say effort, that's hard to say right after the game when you haven't watched the film," Edsall said. "Am I disappointed in the lack of the execution? Yeah. But I didn't see anybody quit out there. There's the difference. … Did I see guys not execute their assignments and do the things they were supposed to do? I saw that. Could we have played better? Most definitely."

"We had some defensive linemen that were free to the quarterback and couldn't make a play. I made the comment at halftime we looked slow. They had the days off during the bye week, but I can't explain that one. Maybe [Louisville is] that much more athletic."

 

[ZooCougar]

No, him actually doing what he was accused of doing is proof of the person's guilt. Just because he backpedaled at Usain Bolt speed when called on it doesn't mean anything.

And I'm not even a full-on Edsall hater. It is possible to respect his contributions to the university without worshiping the ground he walked on, you know?

Even I acknowledge that Edsall did some solid work here. But the guy was far from perfect, the worshippers seem to think Edsall is Jim Harbaugh or something.

 

[SAMCRO]

Even I acknowledge that Edsall did some solid work here. But the guy was far from perfect, the worshippers seem to think Edsall is Jim Harbaugh or something.

No, they really don't. Most of the "apologistas" have all stated in any number of posts that they appreciated what RE did for UConn during his time here, and that it was probably time for him to go (best for both parties) given his behavior around potential job openings. All were disappointed in how he handled his departure.

For me, I'm appreciative of the job he and his staff did while here. They brought this program to a credible BCS level in a much faster time frame then anyone could have realistically expected. I did not like the way his exit went down. Not the fact that he left (it was time), but in how he handled it. So, Im pretty apathetic about how Edsall/Maryland does. I'll root for or against them the same way I always have, based on who they are playing that week.

 

[BlueMAB]

The quote you provided was BS. It was a response to being pressed on blaming only the players. Where do you think the accusation came from in the first place? Did the person who asked it just make it up out of thin air?

Here's Randy on why we lost to Michigan:

"As bad as we played to be able to have a situation where we can make it a seven-point game with two minutes to go in the third quarter showed we competed but we didn’t play like we should have.”

“A couple of the big runs, it was a matter of guys not getting over the top or guys not going down and pressing the blockers,” Edsall said.

“I didn’t think they were very good,” he said. “I think we got whooped on both sides of the line of scrimmage.”

All the players fault, no mention of his game plan not having a chance in hell to contain Robinson. It was just all on the players. Typical.​

And here's another after Lousiville:

"When you say effort, that's hard to say right after the game when you haven't watched the film," Edsall said. "Am I disappointed in the lack of the execution? Yeah. But I didn't see anybody quit out there. There's the difference. … Did I see guys not execute their assignments and do the things they were supposed to do? I saw that. Could we have played better? Most definitely."

"We had some defensive linemen that were free to the quarterback and couldn't make a play. I made the comment at halftime we looked slow. They had the days off during the bye week, but I can't explain that one. Maybe [Louisville is] that much more athletic."

Since you think his response to the Temple questions were BS, why don't you read the rest of the article. The member of the horde (who had a contentious relationship with Edsall) didn't blame Edsall, in fact he defended Edsall.

1) They did play awful. Fumble inside the Michigan 10, dropped pass in the endzone early...
2) Missed tackles, bad angles.
3) We did get whooped on both lines of scrimmage. Our lines were pathetic that day. We had chances to score and blew them, and we couldn't tackle Robinson, something a lot of teams have had problems with.

What was wrong with the gameplan? Why should we accept your premise that the gameplan was the problem, where do you coach?

I didn't see the Louisville game, so I can't comment on those answers, but did we not have lineman free to the quarterback? Did they look slow or not? Which plays is he wrong about?

Why should we just accept that he's wrong about those comments just because you say so? Or just because you don't like it?

I don't worship Edsall, he's an average recruiter at best. He's terrible with the fans and the media, he's too controlling, too hands-on, not aggressive or creative enough on offense or defense, and he left like a coward. But the way he's treated here one would think a blind monkey with a clipboard and 3rd grade sign language skills could have brought us from FCS to a BCS bowl.

 

[BlueMAB]

Even I acknowledge that Edsall did some solid work here. But the guy was far from perfect, the worshippers seem to think Edsall is Jim Harbaugh or something.

Nonsense. Nobody heaps praise on the man, they just defend the criticisms that they disagree with. I think the timing of the split was perfect, and best for both parties.

Are you going to tell us what excuses were made in this thread, or just continue to respond to posts that were products of your imagination?

 

[ZooCougar]

I already did. It flew over your head.

Nonsense. Nobody heaps praise on the man, they just defend the criticisms that they disagree with. I think the timing of the split was perfect, and best for both parties.

Are you going to tell us what excuses were made in this thread, or just continue to respond to posts that were products of your imagination?

Nonsense. Nobody heaps praise on the man, they just defend the criticisms that they disagree with. I think the timing of the split was perfect, and best for both parties.

Are you going to tell us what excuses were made in this thread, or just continue to respond to posts that were products of your imagination?

 

[Carl Spackler]

The quote you provided was BS. It was a response to being pressed on blaming only the players. Where do you think the accusation came from in the first place? Did the person who asked it just make it up out of thin air?

Here's Randy on why we lost to Michigan:

"As bad as we played to be able to have a situation where we can make it a seven-point game with two minutes to go in the third quarter showed we competed but we didn’t play like we should have.”

“A couple of the big runs, it was a matter of guys not getting over the top or guys not going down and pressing the blockers,” Edsall said.

“I didn’t think they were very good,” he said. “I think we got whooped on both sides of the line of scrimmage.”

All the players fault, no mention of his game plan not having a chance in hell to contain Robinson. It was just all on the players. Typical.​

And here's another after Lousiville:

"When you say effort, that's hard to say right after the game when you haven't watched the film," Edsall said. "Am I disappointed in the lack of the execution? Yeah. But I didn't see anybody quit out there. There's the difference. … Did I see guys not execute their assignments and do the things they were supposed to do? I saw that. Could we have played better? Most definitely."

"We had some defensive linemen that were free to the quarterback and couldn't make a play. I made the comment at halftime we looked slow. They had the days off during the bye week, but I can't explain that one. Maybe [Louisville is] that much more athletic."

Here - I'll say this again. Go read all of those quotes again. That - people - is a coach talking that thinks plays are more important than players, and if posed the question: What is more important? Plays or Players? That coach should 100% without a doubt answer - in a heartbeat.

Plays.

There's nothing wrong with that, some of the best coaches in the history of the game, held that belief. They also did everything according to that belief.

The problem I had with Edsall, is that I believe whole heartedly, that if he was asked that question, even right now - today, he would hesitate, and not know what to say, or he would actually flatly say.....

Players.

And there's so much in what all of that means, from recruiting, to game planning, to personnel decisions, to basic structure of your team, and understanding it all is a great big reason to understanding why we as a team under Edsall, never really seemed to play well when we were supposed to, but only when we had to.

 

[Carl Spackler]

When you say effort, that's hard to say right after the game when you haven't watched the film," Edsall said.

This is all you need to know to figure out what kind of coach Edsall is. A coach that answers that all important question I've stated previously the other way.....that players are more important than plays, that kind of coach can tell you exactly what kind of effort his team is putting out at any point during a game and after.

A coach that values plays over players, needs to look at the game film before giving any kind of opinion, because you can't see exactly what's happening with all 22 guys from the sideline, and the effort level for this kind of guy is going to be directly related to how well those 11 guys are executing their jobs against the other 11 on every play.

It's one of the things that makes football so interesting to me, in studying the history of the game. Because the development of the game, changed dramatically, when studying film became available and really valued.

If you are going to be the best, the very best, in whatever league you are playing - there are only two ways to play the game, to go about everything you do regarding the game, and it's either plays or players, and absolutely everything you do, every moment of every day needs to be consistent.

Most coaches that are highly successful, end up gravitating one way or the other, and don't even realize it as it's happening, but the guys that win the most games, and become undisputed champions, hall of fame type guys, always end up in one camp or the other, and are very clear about it.

Edsall wasn't consistent, and he'd only been a head coach at UConn, in transition through four different stages of league play, and never at any other level. It was evident, because many, many times, he was doing things in game plans, and especially with recruiting and moving players all over the field from position to position that just didn't jive with the fundamental philosophy, and I believe the basic conflict of reasoning was the basis as to why we were so emotionally flat as a team at many times, and only really well motivated when forced into that coming back after a loss, forced into a corner mentality, that really doesn't require much external motivation at all, if you've got a group of guys with any competitive spirit at all.

I looked forward very much, to seeing it change at UConn, and become more consistent, because with successful coaches, there's almost always a point in time where the coach consciously realizes it at some level, and that's when they really take off, and we were ready with Edsall. But he flew the coop.

I wonder if it will happen in Maryland. I hope it does for his sake.

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW: Coach P is a players more important than plays guy, without a doubt, and he's assembled a staff that's going to coach and recruit the same way, it's all about bringing energy and attitude and doing your job right with an attitude, and through 9 months of his work on this job, what's happened on the field and with the play books can't be more evident than the players are more important than plays.

It's the other side of the yin and yang than what we were heading toward with Edsall, and it can work just as well as the Edsall way.

just need to be consistent.

 

[Scoe]

To the previous poster who brought up the Utah fans chanting Meyer, he let his own team know he was leaving and was ready to hand over the coaching position to then assistant Kyle Whittingham. Before the bowl game he said he was leaving so its alittle different situation then Edsall. Meyer left with class and he wasnt even at Utah for very long.

I could just sense a different manner in Edsall's behavior days leading up the BCS game and during the game. There is no way he didnt talk to Maryland during the week of our BCS game, could have told Maryland to continue talks the next week and he would take the position. He owed it to his players to spend 100 percent of his time on game planning. Now im not saying we would have beaten or even made the game close against Oklahoma thats crazy, would it have made a difference in the game no, but did it affect preparation cant say it didnt. After the game it seemed he was more interested in hitting town then about his players or soon to be at the time former players. Honestly I can care less about us fans, its the players that he owed that week to and to tell them face to face of his decision.

 

[businesslawyer]

It was me who talked about Meyer.

You see nothing funny about your argument. The fact that Edsall stayed longer should be points in his favor, not demerits. The fact that Edsall stayed through the bowl game should be points in his favor, not demerits. Anyone who pretends they wouldn't have been up in arms if Edsall left before the bowl game is being totally disingenous.

Would it have been better if Edsall had told his team face to face? Of course it would have. Do any of us know that he really had that opportunity, as opposed to having the timing of the announcement being dictated totally by his new employer? No, we don't.

 

[Scoe]

We will never know the real story at least not any time soon anyways. How is my argument funny Edsall is human you think his mind wasnt on Maryland at all while preparing to get ready to play Oklahoma. He did owe it to his players to tell them face to face about his decision. I never said that Edsall should have told his players of his decision before the bowl game. Im sure he does regret how he left, we all have done things we regret. No one knows if Edsall had the time of the announcement, could he have waited another day or two we dont know, we do know he could have let his team know face to face end of discussion. Im not gonna get into an argument here we dont know the facts of the situation all we have is our opinions, this is the coaching profession. He has moved on and will do well and uconn will move on. We moved on after Holtz left and so did he, and I have no doubts we will be fine after Edsall.