Ex-UConn coach Edsall a national punching bag - CT Post

[businesslawyer]

My initial post was in response to Nostical. Who s post I interpreted to care about our former coaches future success. I believed you took my response to him as an opportunity to tell me you don't care, and asked if that was allowed. I responded in kind.

I have no issue with you or wing ir anyone else. You guys keep the board readable even if I don't always agree with what you post.

Fair enough. Moving on ....

 

[jpm25]

False. Completely and utterly false. That isn't what I said at all, either you need a strawman to make a point, or your reading comprehension isn't worth . Have a good weekend.

My reading comprehension must be poor (sorry for the paraphrase)

Apologists: "All of those who have shown support for what he did at UConn have admitted he has weaknesses and made mistakes. All of us."

'Haters': "Any success we had must be marginalized. Failing that, it must be credited to "institutional and state support". If not them, then it was the assistants. Or "any coach" could have done what he did (coming off a 5-7 year with a coach with a much better resume this argument really takes the cake). If not them it was the players that came to UConn in spite of being recruited by a "ducking idiot" who didn't want to be at UConn anyway... There is no middle ground with you guys."

It's not you, it's me.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I re-read what I wrote above, and I'm not sure if I'm an apologista or a hater.

An apologista sounds like somebody that should be wearing a dress, and I don't think that there can be anything postive about being labeled a "hater".

I do know that Edsall made me not like him quite a bit with a lot of what he did with the football program, but he also won games and titles and did a great job with what he was hired to do, so I liked him a lot for that, and I did want him to stay, but just change the program for where it was at.

Maybe there's some kind of middle ground term we can come up with? Can I be switzerland on Edsall?

 

[mattp]

This is the problem with you guys.

NOBODY WORSHIPS HIM.

All of those who have shown support for what he did at UConn have admitted he has weaknesses and made mistakes. All of us. It's his haters that refuse to give him any credit at all for what went right. Find one poster who will say Edsall doesn't have weaknesses, please. Just one!

Any success we had must be marginalized. Failing that, it must be credited to "institutional and state support". If not them, then it was the assistants. Or "any coach" could have done what he did (coming off a 5-7 year with a coach with a much better resume this argument really takes the cake). If not them it was the players that came to UConn in spite of being recruited by a "ducking idiot" who didn't want to be at UConn anyway (ignoring the fact he had one of the longest tenures in the conference).

There is no middle ground with you guys. You can't appreciate what was done because you hate the man that was at the helm. You can't admit there was success, so you marginalize it. As if going from FCS to 2 BCS championships and 5 bowls in 10 years is easy! And you have to portray anyone who appreciates the strides the program made the last 10 years as someone who "worships" the former head coach. You're making a mockery of yourselves with this nonsense.

WingU, you're wasting your time. i've asked many times for any proof of any of the ridiculous things "haters" claim "apologists" have said. they never show it because most of the phrases they use were invented by them. on the other hand, i do vividly remember Waylon predicting a 2 win season the year we went to the Fiesta Bowl.

 

[mattp]

Final thought. Given time I believe Edsall could win 7-8, games there yearly. I don't think he is hapless as a coach. He has proven otherwise. Expecting much more than that would be a problem.

this is an odd turn of events. i'm an apologist and i don't think he'll win 7-8 games yearly at UMD. i think he would have here, but in the ACC i have him figured to eventually be a .500 coach, which is clearly not going to keep his job at UMD. the one nice thing we all seem to agree on, regardless if we wanted Edsall to bear our children or be exiled to Siberia , and that's that he was an awful hire by UMD for what they needed and wanted. i have a feeling Kevin Anderson's job stability is even worse than Edsall's. if not it ought to be

 

[Dann]

do i dare take ever rangoon thread and mash them all into 1 and pin it for everyone here? just crazy how much chat he gets 247 here. if u guys spent those 15 minutes a day talking/looking at recruit stuff instead of reading/responding to the same argument about RE everyday this board would have alot of great content and not yet another RE thread...

 

[Excalibur]

Maybe there's some kind of middle ground term we can come up with? Can I be switzerland on Edsall?

Absolutely. I'm a former supporter/borderline apologista who gradually softened and became indifferent after the RU game in 2010. He did some very good things here, but missed some opportunities as well.

 

[Excalibur]

WingU, you're wasting your time. i've asked many times for any proof of any of the ridiculous things "haters" claim "apologists" have said. they never show it because most of the phrases they use were invented by them.

He says it in his own post. "Every success must be "marginalized"'. He, or someone else, has said that a bunch of times. The 2010 team went to a BCS bowl, and lost two very winnable games against very inferior opponents. That's not marginalizing. The 2008 team went 7-5 with the best RB in the country, multiple first day draft picks, and a top 20 defense. That's not marginalizing. Some good, some bad. It's just facts.

 

[CTMike]

ZOMBIE EDSALL WON'T DIE!!!

 

[noeynox]

He says it in his own post. "Every success must be "marginalized"'. He, or someone else, has said that a bunch of times. The 2010 team went to a BCS bowl, and lost two very winnable games against very inferior opponents. That's not marginalizing. The 2008 team went 7-5 with the best RB in the country, multiple first day draft picks, and a top 20 defense. That's not marginalizing. Some good, some bad. It's just facts.

Basically this is the point. If we win the two winnable games and stroll in to the Fiesta at 10-2, does it change the outcome against OK? No, but it changes the perception of the program. If you believe, like I do, that those losses were more on Edsall than on the personnel on the field, your a "hater". It really isn't about knocking the accomplishments of the kids, but somehow, its been made it into that. To say nothing of the fact that former coach was a jerk to media and called out fans, while being super sensitive to any type of criticism. Whatever, I don't have the energy anymore. I'm glad he's gone, that is all. I will try to resist the temptation to post in anymore Edsall threads.

We need the spring game.

 

[John Greene]

View attachment 608
ZOMBIE EDSALL WON'T DIE!!!

Edsall will not go the way of the Edsel?

 

[businesslawyer]

Basically this is the point. If we win the two winnable games and stroll in to the Fiesta at 10-2, does it change the outcome against OK? No, but it changes the perception of the program. If you believe, like I do, that those losses were more on Edsall than on the personnel on the field, your a "hater". It really isn't about knocking the accomplishments of the kids, but somehow, its been made it into that. To say nothing of the fact that former coach was a jerk to media and called out fans, while being super sensitive to any type of criticism. Whatever, I don't have the energy anymore. I'm glad he's gone, that is all. I will try to resist the temptation to post in anymore Edsall threads.

We need the spring game.

Noey -- here's the point (at least my point) before I wish you a nice weekend and go home. I'm not saying that coaches don't ever win a game or lose a game, but it is only rarely that anyone will really know that a win or loss is really attributable to the coaches. For the most part, teams win games and teams lose games. Players and coaches, together. But, ultimately, more players than coaches. The coaches are responsible at the end of the season for the success or the failure, because that is there job, but they don't win and lose games.

That is my position with Edsall, with P, and with any other football coach. The first part of your post is 1000% true. Forget perception -- they year would have been better had we won at Temple and at Rutgers. But I don't have a lot of patience for those (not saying you) who think every loss is on Edsall and every win is because the players did their job. It's silly.

The program under Edsall was what it was. If it wasn't good enough for some, that is a reflection on everyone involved. It is Edsall's responsiblity, but of course it reflects on everyone who went through the door in every capacity. (Someone says that if I say Dom Perno wasn't a good coach does that mean Tim Coles sucked. Of course not. But it means that the teams, including those of the Tim Coles years, weren't good enough because if they were Perno would have been succeeding.) If you think it achieved, overall, a good amount, more than it "should have" over the period, that is also a reflection on everyone involved.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[noeynox]

Good post bizlaw. You probably won't read this, I'm pretty sure I posted in this thread (think it was this thread) that if given time, Edsall will deliver 7-8, wins consistently at UMD, he is not an incompetent idiot, when it comes to game of football (smarmy jerk, different story). I just believe his conservative approach to offensive and defensive football has a ceiling and is somewhat outdated in this era where high powered offenses are the norm. I disagree that coaches don't make a difference. Brian Kelly led Cincy to an undefeated regular season. We lost to that Cincy team by 2 points. You saw the difference in talent between Cincy and Florida in their bowl game. Long story short, the talent between our team and Cincy was a lot closer than it was between Florida and Cincy. The difference IMO, comes down to coaching, game planning, and scheming. I believe Edsall left a couple of wins on the field his last few years here, and I have a hard time time thinking of any one game, where I thought our coaching got us that win. Early in his tenure, against Navy, Wake Forest, Iowa State, I thought we had potentially a special coach on our hands, but at least for me, the feeling faded.

 

[rich1122]

Is anybody this happy??

 

[JaYnYcE]

Why not have a seperate hate Edsall board?

I second this!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rw005]

Is anybody this happy??

Calhoun has the fist pump, that says it all.

 

[JaYnYcE]

I just can't stomach when people throw the well he won two conference championships here. If you're going to say that, at least respect when some people respond with what happened as well in those seasons. Baring academic casualties or drug issues down the road, those trophies will stay in its case. I'm grateful for that, but I'm also aware of the circumstances and variables that went in to earning those trophies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jpm25]

Noey -- here's the point (at least my point) before I wish you a nice weekend and go home. I'm not saying that coaches don't ever win a game or lose a game, but it is only rarely that anyone will really know that a win or loss is really attributable to the coaches. For the most part, teams win games and teams lose games. Players and coaches, together. But, ultimately, more players than coaches. The coaches are responsible at the end of the season for the success or the failure, because that is there job, but they don't win and lose games.

That is my position with Edsall, with P, and with any other football coach. The first part of your post is 1000% true. Forget perception -- they year would have been better had we won at Temple and at Rutgers. But I don't have a lot of patience for those (not saying you) who think every loss is on Edsall and every win is because the players did their job. It's silly.

The program under Edsall was what it was. If it wasn't good enough for some, that is a reflection on everyone involved. It is Edsall's responsiblity, but of course it reflects on everyone who went through the door in every capacity. (Someone says that if I say Dom Perno wasn't a good coach does that mean Tim Coles sucked. Of course not. But it means that the teams, including those of the Tim Coles years, weren't good enough because if they were Perno would have been succeeding.) If you think it achieved, overall, a good amount, more than it "should have" over the period, that is also a reflection on everyone involved.

Have a nice weekend.

Have you played a team sport at a competitive level?

 

[UConnDan97]

I told myself I wouldn't chime in on the Randy Edsall thing, so naturally, here's a "chime"...

Randy Edsall was (and is) a good coach. In my opinion, he is a very good coach. He built a program up from a solid 1-AA team (solid, thanks to Skip Holtz) to a competitve team in a BCS conference. He convinced athletes (maybe not the top athletes, but athletes just the same, and you all know their names) to come to play at new upstart UConn, and he won games, including dominating his alma mater Syracuse which helped our regional image grow. We were supposed to be the bottom-dwellers; the new "old Temple", but we really never were (that title belongs to Syracuse!!).

Had he decided to stay here in the Land of Steady Habits, he could have chosen to end his entire career here. They almost certainly would have named a field or building after him; perhaps not because he was the greatest, but he was ours and he was really good.

Much of the venom people are sending his way now is due to the hypocritical and hurtful manner in which he left the program, and I feel what you feel. The train wreck that is his coaching career at Maryland is perhaps some sort of karmic justice. But had he left in a manner such as the manner Skip Holtz left (who wanted to be closer to his sick mother and coach with his dad at South Car.), we would be speaking about Edsall in a different manner.

In summation, I'm very grateful for what he helped to establish here at UConn..........and I hope Coach PP beats the hell out of him when we play Maryland....

 

[huskysupporter]

Have you played a team sport at a competitive level?

I have, and I don't disagree with Biz Law's post.

 

[noeynox]

I told myself I wouldn't chime in on the Randy Edsall thing, so naturally, here's a "chime"...


Much of the venom people are sending his way now is due to the hypocritical and hurtful manner in which he left the program, and I feel what you feel. and I hope Coach PP beats the hell out of him when we play Maryland....

I could care less about the way he left. I was glad he left for another job, because he was never going to lose his job here. I just once thought we had a special coach on our hands but as time went on, I realized we didn't. I feel his conservative nature cost us a few games where we were the better team

 

[sdhusky]

Basically this is the point. If we win the two winnable games and stroll in to the Fiesta at 10-2, does it change the outcome against OK? No, but it changes the perception of the program. If you believe, like I do, that those losses were more on Edsall than on the personnel on the field, your a "hater". It really isn't about knocking the accomplishments of the kids, but somehow, its been made it into that. To say nothing of the fact that former coach was a jerk to media and called out fans, while being super sensitive to any type of criticism. Whatever, I don't have the energy anymore. I'm glad he's gone, that is all. I will try to resist the temptation to post in anymore Edsall threads.

We need the spring game.

We also won some very losable games.

It not like we beat USF, Pitt or WVU by dominating scores. We could have easily been 5-7 that year too.

 

[UConnDan97]

I just once thought we had a special coach on our hands but as time went on, I realized we didn't. I feel his conservative nature cost us a few games where we were the better team

Was that before or after we entered our first BCS game against Oklahoma? (I'm guessing the week before that game, you weren't very vocal about his lack of coaching ability). Or maybe it was when we upset WVU along the way? Or maybe it was the time we beat South Carolina at a neutral site? Or maybe before that when we beat Notre Dame at ND?

His conservative nature may have cost us some games where we were the more athletic team, but it also won us some games when we clearly were not....

...again, I'm not going to build a statue for him. But I'm not going to act like he accomplished nothing here, either.

 

[sdhusky]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[[/quote]

 

[huskysupporter]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[

[/quote]

How do you know what a coaches peak is, if he is still coaching?

 

[UConnDan97]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

Make no mistake - we got in the Fiesta Bowl through contracts and legalities (someone had to come from the BE) and not through on field excellence.

Once we showed up there, it was obvious to the world that Randy's peak didn't belong on the same field as a "normal" BCS team.[

I haven't made a mistake; we got to the Fiesta Bowl because we won the Big East. Winning the Big East happens ONLY through on field excellence! If it was so easy, WVU would have been our representative every year!

We ran into a buzzsaw in Oklahoma, a team with more NFL players on the roster than almost any other team in the nation. Are you telling me that we should have been their equal? Are you telling me that it was Edsall's fault that we didn't win?? Not only were we the underdog, but we were still competitive even through the third quarter in a game where two separate balls bounced off of our receiver's chest and got returned for a pick-6. We were out-gunned and the ball bounced funny to make matters worse.

And did you say "a normal BCS team"??? A normal BCS team is riddled with 4 and 5 star recruits, and has been at it for about 100 years. For more on that, see LSU / Bama / Oregon / OSU / Texas / OU / USC / etc. Even the much heralded Notre Dame and Michigan are not "normal BCS teams" anymore...

 

[UConnDan97]

And let me beat you to the "Michigan won a BCS game last year" punch. They won an at-large BCS game against another voted-in team....from the ACC! The ACC: the home of BCS losers for a decade...

 

[sdhusky]

we got to the Fiesta Bowl because we won the Big East. Winning the Big East happens ONLY through on field excellence!

If you consider 8-5 & top 35 to be excellence, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I somehow feel excellence means more than being ranked in the 50th percentile of BCS teams that year.

 

[metsfan2323]

For me, it was when I realized that FUCRE's peak would be top 35 and 8-5.

quote]

I think the win over South Carolina in 2009 was the peak, and IMO that peak is only marginally higher than the team that took the field in 2003 and beat Indiana.

2003 is really the forgotton dream season, a solid team that is forgotton only because we were unfairly excluded from the meaningless bowl system. Only three losses that year, at Virginia Tech (when Caulley goes down), at NC state (Phillip Rivers), and home against BC in a very competitive game (still IMO the most energized crowd ever at the Rent). Edsall did a tremendous job getting us to that level in 2003.

 

[UConnDan97]

If you consider 8-5 & top 35 to be excellence, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I somehow feel excellence means more than being ranked in the 50th percentile of BCS teams that year.

Your comment was that we won the big east through "legalities" and not "on field excellence." Yes, that is definitely where we disagree. 5-2 in the Big East is not a legality. It was all done on the field, and in most people's opinions, with inferior talent than all the other Big East teams, save perhaps Syracuse...