Edsall Has Big Job Ahead Rebuilding UConn Program (Altavilla)

[Pudge]

Yeah I don't think we are disagreeing. You are right he was so good he could even pull a few kids who could contribute on day 1, but I think his best talent was pulling kids he thought he could mold that no one else knew existed. He just wasn't a guy in the past who was going to go out and sell many kids on picking UConn over BC or Syracuse - but he won even without that skill. Maybe since he's all in now he'll beat Temple and Memphis and USF on kids and dismantle them in the league.

The disparity in BRAND between UConn & BC/Cuse is far more narrow today than 2005 ... in spite of CR. That's largely because they have fallen increasingly. Maybe Babers changes that some. But, I'm willing to bet selling kids on UConn is easier today ... Than the immediate post-trailer days. Temple has proven a lot actually as well.

The formula is known. We compete for under the radar types in Ohio & Georgia & particularly Florida. Maybe Texas. Go for MD & NJ & PA kids (more Wesrern PA than either PP or Diaco) top 3* kids as well as gold nuggets. Get the best NE kids. Scout NY State & the City & LI & Quebec & Toronto for lesser recruited finds.

The other bigger trend? Prep Schools in NE are more important. NJ as well.

The things Edsall did are still very available - maybe in more success because of various factors. And he did get things good in MD on grabbing top guys from DVM.

 

[whaler11]

The disparity in BRAND between UConn & BC/Cuse is far more narrow today than 2005 ... in spite of CR. That's largely because they have fallen increasingly. Maybe Babers changes that some. But, I'm willing to bet selling kids on UConn is easier today ... Than the immediate post-trailer days. Temple has proven a lot actually as well.

The formula is known. We compete for under the radar types in Ohio & Georgia & particularly Florida. Maybe Texas. Go for MD & NJ & PA kids (more Wesrern PA than either PP or Diaco) top 3* kids as well as gold nuggets. Get the best NE kids. Scout NY State & the City & LI & Quebec & Toronto for lesser recruited finds.

The other bigger trend? Prep Schools in NE are more important. NJ as well.

The things Edsall did are still very available - maybe in more success because of various factors. And he did get things good in MD on grabbing top guys from DVM.

Well it did not prove to be the case for Diaco.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

I'll never understand people who are like "UConn sucks. Why do we never get good recruits?" WELL, BECAUSE WE SUCK!

 

[businesslawyer]

Randy needs to do two things differently than he did last time. First, he needs aggressive coordinators that make him better. He needs to accept that his OC needs to be able to do his job and that he is in charge of the offense because he is good at it. Randy can't handcuff him like he did with Moorhead and Ambrose. He must delegate to great coordinators. He can collaborate and consult but he can't try to do it all himself.

Second, he needs to recruit based on what UConn offers in terms of facilities, resources, education and most importantly, putting kids in the NFL. No more playing underdog all the time. Walk in and say "I'm Randy Edsall, I'm back at UConn where I won two Big East championships and played in the Fiesta Bowl. I've got a laundry list of kids in the NFL and none of them were as good as you are in high school. Come help us get back to that level and play right away".

I have no idea if any of this would work but I always feel like there is something lacking in the recruiting presentation. Why can certain schools in G5 conferences recruit so much better with so little brand equity, inferior attendance and inferior facilities? There has got to be a way to sell what we have. My feeling has always been we need better sales people (recruiters).

Explain to me how one tells someone else how to do their job, and then admits he has no idea if what he is telling the person to do would really work?

 

[businesslawyer]

Post makes no sense.

As we say in the Passover Sedar: "Why is this night different from all other nights."

 

[JMick]

Yeah I don't think we are disagreeing. You are right he was so good he could even pull a few kids who could contribute on day 1, but I think his best talent was pulling kids he thought he could mold that no one else knew existed. He just wasn't a guy in the past who was going to go out and sell many kids on picking UConn over BC or Syracuse - but he won even without that skill. Maybe since he's all in now he'll beat Temple and Memphis and USF on kids and dismantle them in the league.

I think him being back for good with no questions about his commitment will do wonders for recruiting in years 2-3. We still need to find those kids no one else knows about though. How Scott Lutrus had no offers besides Ivy's and UConn will always blow my mind.

 

[businesslawyer]

Point is: UConn should be more concerned about improving its recruiting to win in college. Gettting to NFL is a by product. I'm sure UConn has more players in NFL than many of the 11 teams in AAC that finished above them.

It's Edsall's fault that we've sucked under Diaco?

 

[businesslawyer]

Too many fans here tout Randy's recruiting "under the radars" and coaching them up into NFL'ers. So why didn't he win more? He may be able to coach kids up, but he was not a good recruiter. Wish UConn had brought him back as a D coordinator. What does he know about offense?

Has anyone since him done materially better at UConn recruiting since he left? Because if your answer is no, you ought to be intelligent enough to ask if it's likely that it's your expectations that are the problem. Why should we be able to outrecruit PItt, which has a longer history and is in an area where more FBC football players are produced, and is in a P-5 conference? Because you say we should?

 

[sdhusky]

Has anyone since him done materially better at UConn recruiting since he left? Because if your answer is no, you ought to be intelligent enough to ask if it's likely that it's your expectations that are the problem. Why should we be able to outrecruit PItt, which has a longer history and is in an area where more FBC football players are produced, and is in a P-5 conference? Because you say we should?

IN the last 25 years, Notre Dame has exactly 1 defensive player picked in the first round of the NFL draft. Same as UConn.

Edsall out recruited Pitt and had a winning record. That's why I think we should still be able to.

 

[HuskyHawk]

He will get the best kids he can get. Hopefully, if he can win some games with the kids he has, the quality of who he can get will improve. That's how it works. Any and all rebuilds are based on getting enough out of the lower regarded guys that you can land some more highly regarded guys.

Meanwhile, expect changes on offense. I'm surprise more people aren't mentioning this.

"He knows what it takes to be successful here. He has a handle on the recruiting. The game has changed a little bit, but he is going to identify the right kind of [assistants] that will come in to coach the type of prospects and students that we are able to get and help us be competitive in our league."​

 

[businesslawyer]

IN the last 25 years, Notre Dame has exactly 1 defensive player picked in the first round of the NFL draft. Same as UConn.

Edsall out recruited Pitt and had a winning record. That's why I think we should still be able to.

He may, but not the way TDH wants. We will not win our majority of head to head battles with Pitt, and we won't have classes on average as highly rated. That does not mean that we won't have teams that are comparable to Pitt's athletically up and down the roster -- we just have to rely more on evaluation and development than winning recruiting battles.

 

[sdhusky]

He may, but not the way TDH wants. We will not win our majority of head to head battles with Pitt, and we won't have classes on average as highly rated. That does not mean that we won't have teams that are comparable to Pitt's athletically up and down the roster -- we just have to rely more on evaluation and development than winning recruiting battles.

When I say out recruited, I mean having better players on the field and winning.

Not getting more stars or winning head-head battles.

 

[businesslawyer]

When I say out recruited, I mean having better players on the field and winning.

Not getting more stars or winning head-head battles.

You and I are on the same page. Not everyone is.

 

[HuskyHawk]

When I say out recruited, I mean having better players on the field and winning.

Not getting more stars or winning head-head battles.

Agree, but you won't ever know that until 2-3 year after those kids are recruited. So perception of how our recruiting is going is always going to be that we're losing to schools like Pitt (unless we do start winning head to head).

 

[BlueMAB]

"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.

 

[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.