Hail to Jacobs! | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Hail to Jacobs!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carl Spackler said:
How dare you present rational thought when the rest of us are in a emotional disarray and lynch mob frenzy?
Expand ...

I don't believe that wanting this coaching staff gone is irrational thought.
 
We certainly have Jimmys and Joes with enough talent to be better than 112th in total offense so far this year. Last year we were 109th in total offense, so the trend is not encouraging.
 
Irish Loop said:
... You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap...

Assuming your are right then what is the excuse for the talent gap? Some people on this site think that the talent gap inherent and by nature. It is not. Recruiting is part of his job, for which he is paid extremely well, and yet we have seen no indication that the talent gap is going to close in the foreseeable future.
Expand ...
 
HomeKing93 said:
We certainly have Jimmys and Joes with enough talent to be better than 112th in total offense so far this year. Last year we were 109th in total offense, so the trend is not encouraging.
Expand ...

Correct. But the scheme is not flexible enough to put these kids' talents to better use or in the best position to win.
 
I can't fault Pasquoloni on the recruiting end. He came late in the recruiting season in 2011 and basically kept together an Edsall recruiting class that turned out to have few if any offensive players of note. maybe some linemen. Then we have the current class. Since most have seen limited or no action, it really is difficult to evaluate them at this point. Look, I have no problem criticizing the coaching staff for their play calling, schemes, preparation and so forth, but there really is no justification to criticize recruiting. Unlike basketball where freshmen step right in, football recruits rarely do that, it takes at least 1 and sometimes more years before a recruit is going to see significant playing time. It really is impossible to critique Pasqualoni's recruiting since he has had 1 class and they for the most part arrived on campus in August. A couple will show up on the 2 deep now, but most won't until next year.
 
.-.
Stinger92860 said:
Whitmer did not face Carder.

Carder played against our D which is NOT lacking in talent.

Whitmer faced a defense ranked 93 out of 120!

Note to self: The coaches were the primary reason we lost to WMU this year.
Expand ...

Which means that if we swapped QBs in the game we would have won by 40.
 
Stinger92860 said:
No, but if we swapped OC's.......
Expand ...

Then we still would have lost because Carder is a lot more talented and experienced than Whitmer and I believe that they still would have thrown all over us.
 
Husky25 said:
Correct. But the scheme is not flexible enough to put these kids' talents to better use or in the best position to win.
Expand ...

I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu
 
Carl Spackler said:
I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy.
Expand ...

Come back to us, Carl.
 
.-.
Carl Spackler said:
I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu
Expand ...

I think we are saying the same thing. Don't confuse strategy (Haphazardly running the Wildcat in an effort to trick the defense, killing all momentum in the process) with scheme (using undersized O-lineman to driveblock D-lineman giving up 50 lbs. instead of using their quickness).

The coaches are trying to fit these kids into a Pro-style offense when they may are better suited for a different style or scheme. Of course, this is just my opinion.
 
If anyone here really thinks that we don't have the talent to be better than what we're doing, even though we've all seen this talent perform better, than you're also saying that Randy Edsall must have been the greatest offensive mastermind of all time to achieve what he did. I liked Edsall a lot, but he wasn't an offensive genius, and his offenses were light years ahead of what we've had, and I don't think our talent is any less than when he was here. At least then we'd get 4-5 yards on our run-every-play offense most plays and it would wear teams down. Now it's 2 yards and a cloud of dust and frustration until you're forced to pass every play.
 
Carl Spackler said:
I disagree with that. I don't know who was writing yesterday about strategy and tactics, but I think they nailed it. We are playing with tactics and no strategy on offense.

I think the strategy is way TOO flexible with where and how the offense is going with the bal, so much so, that it appears we have no strategy. We have strengths, and we need to have the simple strategy to slog it out and win the small battles and then the big battles with them, as we develop the other parts of our offense......and when circumstances in a game allow that other players get a chance, they need to make good on it, if they want to be counted with those strengths and included into the strategy to develop more tactics. But you don't take chances on your weaknesses, when it's time to move the ball - say third and short, or third and goal, we need to play to our strengths, and not try to use tactics to outwit a defense and play to our weaknesses.

I really want to see us run the ball the way we did for a short while against Rutgers, for an entire game, and build a passing offense it. I don't want anymore tactics in game planning until we've got strategy that works.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu
Expand ...

Nice Sun Tzu quote, but your use of the term strategy to make your point is incorrect. A strategy isn't flexible, (it could be under developed) but it isn't flexible. A strategy defines your goals or end state. Tactics like plans on the other hand put the strategy in motion and can be flexible dependant upon the circumstances when they are developed and after they are undertaken.
 
Husky25 said:
I think we are saying the same thing. Don't confuse strategy (Haphazardly running the Wildcat in an effort to trick the defense, killing all momentum in the process) with scheme (using undersized O-lineman to driveblock D-lineman giving up 50 lbs. instead of using their quickness).

The coaches are trying to fit these kids into a Pro-style offense when they may are better suited for a different style or scheme. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Expand ...
That is my thinking too. We are insisting ontrying to do things that we don't have the right players to do.
I hate to bring him up, but does anyone think that Edsall would be 3-3 with this team? We'd be 4-2 at worst even if McCummings was the full time quarterback.
 
.-.
Kingspoint said:
Nice Sun Tzu quote, but your use of the term strategy to make your point is incorrect. A strategy isn't flexible, (it could be under developed) but it isn't flexible. A strategy defines your goals or end state. Tactics like plans on the other hand put the strategy in motion and can be flexible dependant upon the circumstances when they are developed and after they are undertaken.
Expand ...


True. I get that. Strategy to me, is a plan of action in conflict/some kind of combat, such that you define how you're going to get to the goal - and the goal is always victory - and that strategy isn't going to change depending on localized/individual battle circumstances. Tactics are developed out of that strategy, to meet the localized, individual battle environment. In football it's pretty simple, there are really only a limited number of general offensive strategy decisions (run to set up pass, or pass to set up run) (zone approach vs. man/man approach)....etc.

I started down that writing path because I wonder if we have a consistent strategy at all on offense, and it bothers me that I have to think that. It seems that the coaching staff seems all too willing to game plan week to week, such that they will do literally almost anything, at any time on O, and send the players and ball in any direction/manner they see fit, if they think there might be a weakness somewhere in the opponent that can be exploited.

Therefore the strategy to reach the goal - to win, appears to simply to find the weakness in the opponent, and do whatever we can devise to attack it.

In pro-football, where teams are so evenly matched across the baord, that makes sense. But college ball is different, lots of difference between maturity, talent, and skill level from week to week within your own team, and in the team across from you.

We'll see what happens the rest of the way.

Sun Tzu - pretty clear about what happens with tactics only, and no strategy.
 
Waquoit said:
Just trying to help. You and Butch are losing your marbles. You guys could use a Boneyard fast. Stay away for a week. Don't even lurk. You'll feel much better.
Expand ...

Are losing my marbles? Now? I'll take that as a compliment. I thought I lost my marbles years ago.
 
Waquoit said:
Just trying to help. You and Butch are losing your marbles. You guys could use a Boneyard fast. Stay away for a week. Don't even lurk. You'll feel much better.
Expand ...


BUt to be clear, you wanted me to come back, and now you want me to go away? Very female. Make up your mind.
 
Irish Loop said:
That's an excellent question. But let's look at one difference between Rutgers and UConn. How many times did Jamison get hit and stay up and get a few extra yards? Now ask yourself that same question about McCombs, Hyppolite, and DeLorenzo.

You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap. And I honestly saw a significantly more talented Rutgers team across the field. I don't like it. And I don't think it absolves the coaches of poor decisions. But all coaches make bad choices from time to time, I think (they're human, after all). But people on this board are acting like this is 100% on Pasqualoni and DeLeone, and I think that's a naive way of looking at it, personally.
Expand ...

I understand that talent gap. I also think PP and DeLeone are maximizing it with the play calling. We don't have a bruising OL, or a rugged RB that can get yards after contact. The solution to that problem is obvious, throw. Spread out the D and throw. Use screens and a short precision passing game. Do not utilize a power running game that you cannot execute. The predictability magnifies the talent problem, allowing the D to focus on the run on every first down. That's why this is so maddening.

Proper scheming makes the Rutgers game a 3 point loss. A game where any mistake by RU turns it into a win. Same with NC St. It makes WMU a clear win, and keeps Buffalo from being close.
 
.-.
Irish Loop said:
That's an excellent question. But let's look at one difference between Rutgers and UConn. How many times did Jamison get hit and stay up and get a few extra yards? Now ask yourself that same question about McCombs, Hyppolite, and DeLorenzo.

You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap. And I honestly saw a significantly more talented Rutgers team across the field. I don't like it. And I don't think it absolves the coaches of poor decisions. But all coaches make bad choices from time to time, I think (they're human, after all). But people on this board are acting like this is 100% on Pasqualoni and DeLeone, and I think that's a naive way of looking at it, personally.
Expand ...

You do know that Uconn was 1st and goal down 6 points and was within 1 score into the 4th qtr. You do know Hyp and De have less career carries than LM has in one game and that last year Jamison averaged less than 4 ypc - so experience does matter. Give Hyp and De five games of experience before Rutgers and you see different running and cutting. You did notice tht Jamison was running best in 4th qtr after he had done some pounding, how did Hyp and De do in the 4th qtr; PP probably waiting for the pounding by 160 lb LM to take its toll on the Rutgers defense before bringing them back in.

All coaches make bad decisions from time to time - and the ones who coach a BCS team to 112th offensively are making bad decisions all the time and get fired.

Do you think there is a talent gap between Uconn and NCST; is there a talent gap between NCST and FSU?
Uconn is 115th in Div 1 in # of 1st downs per game - RIGHT BEHIND MEMPHIS! Boy I wish we had Memphis type talent.

You do know that Tulane is averaging 9 PPG yet put up 12 on Rutgers? And its not like Rutgers scored 80 on Tulane so 12 pts didn't matter, score was 10-6 Rutgers early in the 4TH, Rutgers 24-12.

This coaching staff is so bad, even Kragthorpean isn't descriptive enough.
 
Husky68 said:
You do know that Uconn was 1st and goal down 6 points and was within 1 score into the 4th qtr. You do know Hyp and De have less career carries than LM has in one game and that last year Jamison averaged less than 4 ypc - so experience does matter. Give Hyp and De five games of experience before Rutgers and you see different running and cutting. You did notice tht Jamison was running best in 4th qtr after he had done some pounding, how did Hyp and De do in the 4th qtr; PP probably waiting for the pounding by 160 lb LM to take its toll on the Rutgers defense before bringing them back in.

All coaches make bad decisions from time to time - and the ones who coach a BCS team to 112th offensively are making bad decisions all the time and get fired.

Do you think there is a talent gap between Uconn and NCST; is there a talent gap between NCST and FSU?
Uconn is 115th in Div 1 in # of 1st downs per game - RIGHT BEHIND MEMPHIS! Boy I wish we had Memphis type talent.

You do know that Tulane is averaging 9 PPG yet put up 12 on Rutgers? And its not like Rutgers scored 80 on Tulane so 12 pts didn't matter, score was 10-6 Rutgers early in the 4TH, Rutgers 24-12.

This coaching staff is so bad, even Kragthorpean isn't descriptive enough.
Expand ...

I'm still trying to get a sense of where you are comng from... other than the coaches suck.

huskymedic said:
Husky 68 - what % of the problem do you target as "coaches/play-calling" related and what % is "execution/player related"?
Expand ...
 
Irish Loop said:
That's an excellent question. But let's look at one difference between Rutgers and UConn. How many times did Jamison get hit and stay up and get a few extra yards? Now ask yourself that same question about McCombs, Hyppolite, and DeLorenzo.

You can't scheme your way out of a talent gap. And I honestly saw a significantly more talented Rutgers team across the field. I don't like it. And I don't think it absolves the coaches of poor decisions. But all coaches make bad choices from time to time, I think (they're human, after all). But people on this board are acting like this is 100% on Pasqualoni and DeLeone, and I think that's a naive way of looking at it, personally.
Expand ...

I see your point, but Jamison runs about 20 to 30 times a game to showcase his talents... hyppolite and max share 5 carries a game to showcase their talents... Now who's fault is that? Coaches! They barely get time to showcase what they can do! Now McCombs in the other hand gets about 3o to 40 carries to show his talents and I think he drops after first contact about 100% of the time... Now why does he get 30 to 40 carries??? because of the coaches... So let's not defend the coaches here... about almost alll schools in the country rotate their RB's and we don't... But why don't we??? McCombs hasn't shown anything this year to receive all those carries I'm sorry! But the coaches still manages to treat him like Barry Sanders.. Coaching change please!
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
We are playing well below our talent level. Way below it.

I've posted recently in the last few weeks that the players should not be absolved for what is going on here. But the coaches are not putting them in the best position to succeed (on offense). Running LM up the middle on dives as much as we have is not putting him in the best position to succeed. Having CW throw on 3rd and long most of the time is not putting him in a position to succeed. Continuing to ask OLinemen to play a scheme that they are A) incapable of grasping and B) incapable of executing is not putting them in a position to succeed. Not utilizing a proven commodity at TE is not putting him in position to succeed.

I can go on about clock management, burning redshirts when you don't have to, losing close games, not winning 2 games in a row, and other things that haven't shown any improvement in year 2, but why bother. Go read the Cuse board. We are saying the same things they said 10 years ago. GDL will not be fired by P. The good news for us is that by time we get to the Dome we'll have about 26 timeouts in our back pocket.
Expand ...

Agree 100% there's a lot of talent here and the coach's are suppose to put them in a position to showcase that talent... In order for players to execute you have to put them in a good position to do so... We have way better talent than ULM and how come there offense is playing dynamite? the coaches put their players in the best position to execute... Constantly running 1 RB a game and not rotating is ridiculous... Then having that 1 RB run up the gut 80% of the time at 5'8 166 lbs is ridiculous... This offense is a joke and when fans say it's the player's not executing... Im sorry, but that's a joke as well...
 
UconnFamily said:
This offense is a joke and when fans say it's the player's not executing... Im sorry, but that's a joke as well...
Expand ...

So all the players are executing?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Husky 68 ~ what % of the problem do you target as "coaches/play-calling" related and what % is "execution/player related"?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,327
Messages
4,564,200
Members
10,463
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom