Edsall Has Big Job Ahead Rebuilding UConn Program (Altavilla)

[sdhusky]

Perhaps his haters should apologize for littering the board with the laughable claim that all we had to do was plug another coach in and boom, 10 wins every year.

One of the most repeated arguments against Edsall was "It can't be any worse"...

Wrong.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

One of the most repeated arguments against Edsall was "It can't be any worse"...

Wrong.

I remember saying that about Frazier. Boy was I wrong.

 

[noeynox]

"Spread people out. ... I want to be somebody who has an aggressive open attack that can score points. You've got to be able to score points in this day and age. I played the style of play back then because of who we were, and it allowed us to win." Randy Edsall

We were a team with mediocre (at best) QBs, mediocre (save 1 or 2) WRs, but (almost) always a solid OL, with quality and depth at RB. When we had a good QB he threw the ball over 35 times/game his last two season. Dan Orlovsky College Stats | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Edsall's problem wasn't his fear of throwing the ball, it was his inability to find/keep another QB that allowed us to open the offense up more. People complain about the vanilla offense, and then applaud the fact Brown, Todman, Sherman and a few OL have carved out nice professional careers alongside the defensive players. That was the best talent on the team, that gave us the best chance to win. Why is that hard to understand? Edsall failed at recruiting difference makers at QB, no argument there. Cody Endres had that potential (but refused to stop smoking weed). Lorenzen, before his wrist injury, wasn't terrible despite his ugly throwing motion. Frazer had been a 4-5 star QB in HS, but we just couldn't develop him to what we needed from him.

But this question is idiotic. "Why didn't we win more games?" WHAT? We won 33 games his last 4 years here. We've won 24 in the 6 years since. I don't know about some of the fans, but I'd love to "not win more" again.

His recipe may not have be visually pleasing to some of the fans, but there's no arguing it wasn't successful. If we mixed in 1 or 2 QBs who could match the talent that we had at RB and OL/LB, DL, and DB, we absolutely would have won a few more games. Ultimately, it's Edsall's failure, but while he isn't Vince Lombardi, we were far closer to being a 10 win program than we were to being a 3 win program. Right now, we're a laughingstock. So suck up your whining and moaning about 8 wins being a ceiling, when he actually won 9 on two occasions (2003, 2007). He's not a sexy pick, so what. We tried the old, we tried the young guy, we ended up in on life support. Edsall may or may not succeed, but it won't be because he isn't q

"Apologistas" have been saying for years that Edsall coached the team he had, not the one fans wanted to see. That nickname has come home to roost. We weren't "apologizing" for anything, certainly not 5 bowl games in 7 years. Perhaps his haters should apologize for littering the board with the laughable claim that all we had to do was plug another coach in and boom, 10 wins every year.

Question what makes him so bad at picking QB'S? We see quality ones in the mac all over the place. He struggled with at Maryland as well.

 

[SubbaBub]

Edsall's teams had future pros, but also had a lot of weak links, QB, DE, WR. TE, and it also took years for the secondary guys to develop. Butler wasn't Butler when he was first out there, Jones neither or any of the rest. That is how you can have 20+ NFL players roll through and not win. It's a team sport. If there is a hole in your squad the while thing doesn't work. Last night, Penn States QB could hit the long ball almost at will, had trouble throwing underneath to possess the ball. Had an absolute stud RB, with nearly 200 yds, but couldn't make enough first downs to control the ball.

USC ran out a freshman QB who dominated the Rose Bowl. No freshman at Uconn is dominating anything. That is the difference in level of recruiting. If we had any of those players, they wouldn't be as good because the players around them wouldn't be as good.

The 2010 team was good, but wasn't consistent enough to beat the league bottom feeders and finish 10-2.

The 2007 team was good, but got dazzled by the big game against WVU.

It's not fantasy FB. It's 11 on 11 in all 3 phases.

 

[businesslawyer]

"Spread people out. ... I want to be somebody who has an aggressive open attack that can score points. You've got to be able to score points in this day and age. I played the style of play back then because of who we were, and it allowed us to win." Randy Edsall

We were a team with mediocre (at best) QBs, mediocre (save 1 or 2) WRs, but (almost) always a solid OL, with quality and depth at RB. When we had a good QB he threw the ball over 35 times/game his last two season. Dan Orlovsky College Stats | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Edsall's problem wasn't his fear of throwing the ball, it was his inability to find/keep another QB that allowed us to open the offense up more. People complain about the vanilla offense, and then applaud the fact Brown, Todman, Sherman and a few OL have carved out nice professional careers alongside the defensive players. That was the best talent on the team, that gave us the best chance to win. Why is that hard to understand? Edsall failed at recruiting difference makers at QB, no argument there. Cody Endres had that potential (but refused to stop smoking weed). Lorenzen, before his wrist injury, wasn't terrible despite his ugly throwing motion. Frazer had been a 4-5 star QB in HS, but we just couldn't develop him to what we needed from him.

But this question is idiotic. "Why didn't we win more games?" WHAT? We won 33 games his last 4 years here. We've won 24 in the 6 years since. I don't know about some of the fans, but I'd love to "not win more" again.

His recipe may not have been visually pleasing to some of the fans, but there's no arguing it wasn't successful. If we mixed in 1 or 2 QBs who could match the talent that we had at RB and OL/LB, DL, and DB, we absolutely would have won a few more games. Ultimately, it's Edsall's failure, but while he isn't Vince Lombardi, we were far closer to being a 10 win program than we were to being a 3 win program. Right now, we're a laughingstock. So suck up your whining and moaning about 8 wins being a ceiling, when he actually won 9 on two occasions (2003, 2007). He's not a sexy pick, so what. We tried the old, we tried the young guy, we ended up on life support. Edsall may or may not succeed, but it won't be because he isn't qualified to get us back to being a program we can be proud to support.

"Apologistas" have been saying for years that Edsall coached the team he had, not the one fans wanted to see. That nickname has come home to roost. We weren't "apologizing" for anything, certainly not 5 bowl games in 7 years. Perhaps his haters should apologize for littering the board with the laughable implications that all we had to do was plug another coach in and boom, 10 wins every year.

Is it o.k. If I don't hold my breath for the apology? Has there been more than one post here even saying "Wow, I would have thought the last six years without Edsall would have gone a lot better than they have."

 

[Excalibur]

"Apologistas" have been saying for years that Edsall coached the team he had, not the one fans wanted to see. That nickname has come home to roost. We weren't "apologizing" for anything, certainly not 5 bowl games in 7 years. Perhaps his haters should apologize for littering the board with the laughable implications that all we had to do was plug another coach in and boom, 10 wins every year.

Safe to say that literally nobody was saying that . . .

The apologista label was reserved for those who felt that he should be immune from criticism. I probably was an apologista at least through the 2007 season. I believed that the 2008 and 2010 teams should have been better than 7-5 and 8-4, though I never called for his head. But god forbid that you suggest that maybe Randy shouldn't have let a true freshman QB sit back and pick us apart at RU in 2010 without even trying to pressure him, or rushed 4 exhausted defensive linemen on 3rd and 19 vs. UNC in '09 -- the response here was vicious, and predictable.

 

[BlueMAB]

Safe to say that literally nobody was saying that . . .

The apologista label was reserved for those who felt that he should be immune from criticism. I probably was an apologista at least through the 2007 season. I believed that the 2008 and 2010 teams should have been better than 7-5 and 8-4, though I never called for his head. But god forbid that you suggest that maybe Randy shouldn't have let a true freshman QB sit back and pick us apart at RU in 2010 without even trying to pressure him, or rushed 4 exhausted defensive linemen on 3rd and 19 vs. UNC in '09 -- the response here was vicious, and predictable.

Nonsense. People absolutely implied that Edsall laid a good foundation, and if we replaced him, we were likely to get over the hump. Nobody who wanted him gone would ever admit the possibility of what replacing him meant, and here we are, with a shell of a once proud program.

One poster has even bragged he was ahead of the curve saying that firing Edsall for 8-5 would have been entirely justified even with the benefit of hindsight. Mind-numbingly bizarre.

The apologista label is already being thrown at people who defend the hire, but can you quote anyone who has argued that Edsall should be immune from criticism? I'd love to see that post. Even posters who weren't happy with the hire, but had the nerve to defend his decision to finish his season with the Lions while taking over our program (not something I think he should do) were called apologists as if the mere defense of one decision is a clear statement that no criticism can be made.

 

[noeynox]

Safe to say that literally nobody was saying that . . .

The apologista label was reserved for those who felt that he should be immune from criticism. I probably was an apologista at least through the 2007 season. I believed that the 2008 and 2010 teams should have been better than 7-5 and 8-4, though I never called for his head. But god forbid that you suggest that maybe Randy shouldn't have let a true freshman QB sit back and pick us apart at RU in 2010 without even trying to pressure him, or rushed 4 exhausted defensive linemen on 3rd and 19 vs. UNC in '09 -- the response here was vicious, and predictable.

Spot on. Randy performed after leaving as expected. Not terrible not great. He's back now, what left is there to say? Do I expect him to be 10 game winner? Hasn't done that in 18 years as a HC so no. Do I expect him to be lights out better than Diaco at the fundamentals of coaching, hell yeah.

 

[noeynox]

Nonsense. People absolutely implied that Edsall laid a good foundation, and if we replaced him, we were likely to get over the hump. Nobody who wanted him gone would ever admit the possibility of what replacing him meant, and here we are, with a shell of a once proud program.

One poster has even bragged he was ahead of the curve saying that firing Edsall for 8-5 would have been entirely justified even with the benefit of hindsight. Mind-numbingly bizarre.

The apologista label is already being thrown at people who defend the hire, but can you quote anyone who has argued that Edsall should be immune from criticism? I'd love to see that post. Even posters who weren't happy with the hire, but had the nerve to defend his decision to finish his season with the Lions while taking over our program (not something I think he should do) were called apologists as if the mere defense of one decision is a clear statement that no criticism can be made.

But he wasn't fired, he left. He was always looking for the next job, and when he got it he flopped, so what exactly is the argument about. We were lucky to have him and he was lucky to be here. His act wasn't going to play at other places and I think he would probably admit that.

 

[BlueMAB]

Question what makes him so bad at picking QB'S? We see quality ones in the mac all over the place. He struggled with at Maryland as well.

I think Endres, and Nebrich had the most potential but none panned out. Had Edsall/Moorhead stayed, I think Nebrich could have been our best QB since Dan O by far. Had Endres not smoked away his opportunity, ditto for him.

 

[BlueMAB]

But he wasn't fired, he left. He was always looking for the next job, and when he got it he flopped, so what exactly is the argument about. We were lucky to have him and he was lucky to be here. His act wasn't going to play at other places and I think he would probably admit that.

That anyone who supports the coach feels he should be immune for criticism.

There's a difference between disagreeing with the critics, and thinking criticism shouldn't be allowed.

The people who argued for years that if we replaced him, we were more likely to get better than worse because he was under-performing have been shown just how difficult it is to win in CFB, and at UConn. 6 years later, they've learned nothing, and are back to arguing that just because someone disagrees with some of the criticism, they think the coach should immune from all criticism.

Edsall had blind spots. Too controlling (he's alluded to learning that lesson). Could rarely, land/keep/develop a QB that would start at most other programs in the same conference. Too quick to blame execution, rather than take accountability for the overall results. Struggled to get upsets/beat top 25 teams.

That said, he's the best coach we've ever had. Hopefully he's not the best coach we'll ever have. Welcoming back the winningest coach in the program's history is not a proclamation that we hope to never be able to better than 9-4.

He may succeed, he may not, but we couldn't afford risky and unproven at this point. For every Fleck who builds a 10+ win team in less than 4 years (of which very few actually exist) there are a dozen or more who are fired within 4 years.

 

[SubbaBub]

But he wasn't fired, he left. He was always looking for the next job, and when he got it he flopped, so what exactly is the argument about. We were lucky to have him and he was lucky to be here. His act wasn't going to play at other places and I think he would probably admit that.

The biggest knock on his past tenure, other than recruiting and developing a QB. Presumably we can take him at his word that his name won't be floated for every open job east of the Mississippi. That solves issue 1.

Hopefully he has a plan to address issue 2.

 

[businesslawyer]

That anyone who supports the coach feels he should be immune for criticism.

There's a difference between disagreeing with the critics, and thinking criticism shouldn't be allowed.

The people who argued for years that if we replaced him, we were more likely to get better than worse because he was under-performing have been shown just how difficult it is to win in CFB, and at UConn. 6 years later, they've learned nothing, and are back to arguing that just because someone disagrees with some of the criticism, they think the coach should immune from all criticism.

Edsall had blind spots. Too controlling (he's alluded to learning that lesson). Could rarely, land/keep/develop a QB that would start at most other programs in the same conference. Too quick to blame execution, rather than take accountability for the overall results. Struggled to get upsets/beat top 25 teams.

That said, he's the best coach we've ever had. Hopefully he's not the best coach we'll ever have. Welcoming back the winningest coach in the program's history is not a proclamation that we hope to never be able to better than 9-4.

He may succeed, he may not, but we couldn't afford risky and unproven at this point. For every Fleck who builds a 10+ win team in less than 4 years (of which very few actually exist) there are a dozen or more who are fired within 4 years.

Exactly this. The apologistas were never saying every play call or personnel decision was right. What a silly standard that would be for anyone in any profession. They were saying that it shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to determine that, overall, his first tenure here was a real success given what he inherited and what he turned it into. It's the anti-apologistas who couldn't understand that running the ball three straight times from your own goal line in '2008 in Piscataway and having it not work was not cause for determining that Edsall's tenure wasn't very successful.

 

[noeynox]

I think Endres, and Nebrich had the most potential but none panned out. Had Edsall/Moorhead stayed, I think Nebrich could have been our best QB since Dan O by far. Had Endres not smoked away his opportunity, ditto for him.

That's pretty sad though for as long as he was here. Some of the kids he brought in Mike Box, Casey Turner, transfered down a level and didn't exactly light the world on fire. Box looked so tentative when he got in. The kid who probably could have done something but couldn't learn the playbook was Cundiff.

 

[kris1]

Last night, Penn States QB could hit the long ball almost at will.....

Funny how a kid that every other FBS who recruited him had pegged as a WR or LB led his team to the Rose Bowl....as a QB

 

[RSTuthill]

So, from 50,000 feet I will make this observation. Back in the "oughts" I used to travel to Clemson quite a bit for technical meetings, stayed in their beautiful meeting center hotel, would have played golf on their beautiful course if golf was my game, just really enjoyed the small town atmosphere and the technical meetings we had there. When you drive into Clemson on a road that could pass for state route 195 into Storrs, you started seeing painted giant tiger paw prints painted in the road. The whole area was just 100% committed to their FB team.

Yet, they weren't any better than UConn at the time. Clemson and UConn had a couple common opponents and I realized the Huskies had done better than Clemson had against them. Go figure.

So that is all I want HCRE to do and I will be satisfied. Get UConn back to where Clemson is again. Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?

 

[Huskygamble19]

Is it too early to ask Richard Levy to be OL coach?

 

[BlueMAB]

That's pretty sad though for as long as he was here. Some of the kids he brought in Mike Box, Casey Turner, transfered down a level and didn't exactly light the world on fire. Box looked so tentative when he got in. The kid who probably could have done something but couldn't learn the playbook was Cundiff.

I'm not going to even try to defend his record with QBs not named Dan Orlovsky. It's the one thing that kept us from transforming from good to great. Hopefully he finds a QB coach and OC who can help make up for his weaknesses there.

 

[Pudge]

I think ... it is just hard to (a priori) pick a solid talent at QB.

Last night, you are referencing, Max Browne was supposed to be the all-everything and he flopped early this year allowing Darnold the spot.

We saw good QBs in Tracy replaced by Orlovsky, with a little K Henry (and would have thought we could equal that level at some point) followed by Bonislawski, Hernandez then Lorenzen - none of them were truly stellar QB talent. Lorenzen, though, had a little extra: Leadership. That guy could move the chains. Frazier points out the amazing in that his throwing motion was awful but he still was a 4 star rated guy. Box Cundiff Endres.

Then ... you leave ... and I watch the walk-on McEntee get the position.

Nebrich McCummings Whitmer Cochran Boyle Davis Shirreffs Anderson

I can't say any of these guys blossomed from coaching. It is the sorry nature of this Program. Never had anyone come near Orlovsky. Shirreffs, we were saying, had a chance to be near #2 on the list when we discussed in August. I think he got hurt far worse than we know.

This will be our key going into the new era.

 

[sportsart]

I think if Randy opens up the offense and we get a read/spread type offense, we might attract a QB who has some talent. While it certainly wasn't the main reason, having a run first and second offense, tends to keep away the QB's that like to throw and or run.

Here's hoping.

 

[ktuck911]

One thing Diaco left Edsall with is a BIG team. Don't think Edsall run teams didn't have this much size

 

[RSTuthill]

Don't think Edsall run teams didn't have this much size

Or this much slowness and lack of agility. The trend these days, even in the pros, is lighter, quicker, and more agile.

 

[BlueDogs]

Edsall Has Big Job Ahead Rebuilding UConn Program

Went back and read the article again and it dawned me just how broken college football is with this Power 5 nonsense. If there is one thing America loves its underdogs. Stacking the deck and have a perennial Power SEC team v. First Tier ACC or Big10 team national championship might be great for the conspiring conferences but not for the game of football. They will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Watch viewership and attendance continue to decline.

 

[gars44]

I think it's fair to say he was a incredible judge of potential other than he was a great recruiter.

Yeah. To be a great recruiter, you have to have a couple of things RE never had: (1) a destination to recruit to (we don't) or (2) an administration that will look the other way (we don't). Some have both. Hello FSU. Before, RE at least had a BCS conference to sell. What's he got now? I'm concerned. I know his heart's in it. He better bring in a real spit fire of an offensive coordinator. Young guns. And the admin better give him a lot of leeway on the academic side. A lot. There's a lot of kids of good character that don't have the academic background. Not their fault.

 

[31GuardTrap]

Yeah. To be a great recruiter, you have to have a couple of things RE never had: (1) a destination to recruit to (we don't) or (2) an administration that will look the other way (we don't). Some have both. Hello FSU. Before, RE at least had a BCS conference to sell. What's he got now? I'm concerned. I know his heart's in it. He better bring in a real spit fire of an offensive coordinator. Young guns. And the admin better give him a lot of leeway on the academic side. A lot. There's a lot of kids of good character that don't have the academic background. Not their fault.

A history of putting players into the NFL over the past 14 plus years. 2 Conference Championships and a BCS Bowl. Folks, there are many....many coaches out there that would kill to have this resume. And he did this without 1 single 4 star or 5 star recruit. Imagine if he actual gets a few here that perform at that "ranked" level along with his developed guys. At some point...it will finally happen.

 

[BlueMAB]

A history of putting players into the NFL over the past 14 plus years. 2 Conference Championships and a BCS Bowl. Folks, there are many....many coaches out there that would kill to have this resume. And he did this without 1 single 4 star or 5 star recruit. Imagine if he actual gets a few here that perform at that "ranked" level along with his developed guys. At some point...it will finally happen.

Technically he did land at least a couple 4 star recruits. Dwayne Difton, and the Linebacker (from NC?) whose name escapes me. Frazer was a 4 (or 5) star QB that transferred in.

But ironically, the few 4 stars he landed never panned out.

 

[31GuardTrap]

Technically he did land at least a couple 4 star recruits. Dwayne Difton, and the Linebacker (from NC?) whose name escapes me. Frazer was a 4 (or 5) star QB that transferred in.

But ironically, the few 4 stars he landed never panned out.

I'm sure you get my point.

 

[BlueMAB]

Yes, I did, and I agree.

 

[CL82]

Nonsense. People absolutely implied that Edsall laid a good foundation, and if we replaced him, we were likely to get over the hump. Nobody who wanted him gone would ever admit the possibility of what replacing him meant, and here we are, with a shell of a once proud program.

One poster has even bragged he was ahead of the curve saying that firing Edsall for 8-5 would have been entirely justified even with the benefit of hindsight. Mind-numbingly bizarre.

The apologista label is already being thrown at people who defend the hire, but can you quote anyone who has argued that Edsall should be immune from criticism? I'd love to see that post. Even posters who weren't happy with the hire, but had the nerve to defend his decision to finish his season with the Lions while taking over our program (not something I think he should do) were called apologists as if the mere defense of one decision is a clear statement that no criticism can be made.

I thought Randy had taken us as far as he could and we needed a change to get to the next level. With right hire, that probably would have prophetic. Unfortunately, we did not have the right hire... twice.

Welcome home Randy.

 

[BlueMAB]

I thought Randy had taken us as far as he could and we needed a change to get to the next level. With right hire, that probably would have prophetic. Unfortunately, we did not have the right hire... twice.

Welcome home Randy.

Sure, anything is possible. But he wasn't ever going to be fired for winning at the clip he was (no matter how much his most vocal detractors try to discredit it). I never thought firing him was worth the risk. There was a better chance we struck out than there was we hit a home-run. He owns his entire coaching record, but considering the starting point for UConn football, and where he brought it, if you fire him for that you better hire the next Saban, Meyer, or Harbaugh. Instead we got Grumpy Old Men, followed by Cadillac Man.

Edsall was never a home run, but he was a solid double. Maybe he can get us back there, and this time we can set a succession plan to keep the momentum.