HCBD Bleeds Winning

[UConn07]

http://the-boneyard.com/blog/bob-diaco-bleeds-winning/

 

[BNich]

HCBD was born a winner. He was coached by a winner, a motivator, and a great football coach. I love the things he has to say and the direction and goals he has for this program. If there are any naysayers, there is something wrong with you.

 

[warbler1055]

There is a lot to like about HCBD, but he has not won a game at UConn yet. Either he will be GA or JC has yet to be determined. PP had a very good resume and was a nightmare.

 

[Dooley]

THANK YOU, MATT. Honestly, anyone who thinks Diaco is not trying to win games, including the BYU game, is being unreasonable. Let's all take this absurd notion behind the barn right now. We are all allowed to question some moves/plays as armchair QBs and fans, but to question whether or not we are trying to win games, like Jeff Jacobs has done, is an insult to the program and our fanbase.

"When guys make mistakes?

“We aren’t having a kumbaya session, we aren’t having a sleep over party, so there’s coaching that’s happening, but there is no reason why the coaching shouldn’t be positive,” Diaco said yesterday. “Everyone’s trying, I think if there was somebody that wasn’t trying, you might see a little different piece. But the players don’t want there to be negative plays, they’re trying hard, they want to do well. To come to the sideline and get berated by me, what good is that going to do? Let’s just spend time talking about how we can get it corrected and do it in a positive way and then really reaffirm when something good happens. Those are the moments that probably look the most positive. That all seems to make sense to me. That was how I appreciated being communicated with and it feels right when I’m communicating with the players that way.”

Diaco also had this message for all reporters before taking his first question at his introductory press conference.

“Ask me whatever, if I can answer it, I will, if I don’t have the answer I’ll try to find it for you. Let’s begin this and have an open and engaging and free flowing conversation, so we can go ahead and move this thing in the direction that it needs to be. There’s not a person in this room that is not interested in UCONN being successful, or you wouldn’t be here. So let’s be sure we get that done.”

Taking a statement out of context is not going to equal success. If there is a question about a commitment to winning, it should be asked. Twisting words and spinning meaning, is not giving someone a fair shake."

 

[BlueMAB]

I didn't have a problem with Jacobs' piece. These are all fair questions.

"If the Huskies have a chance to take out Boise State, is Diaco still going to go for a field goal instead of a touchdown because he wants to give Bobby Puyol work from the right hash mark? Is he going to take until midway in the second quarter to get Geremy Davis the ball? Is he going to pull Casey Cochran out of a third quarter drive after he moved the offense quickly to the opponent's 17? Is he going to play 50 guys in the first half? If he does, he's the first coach in the history of sports to be that much of a slave to any process."

It's fair to ask WTF he was thinking with some of the decisions because while they may have made the team better in the long run, they didn't seem to give us the best chance at winning last Friday.

"Diaco says a lot of things. Between his process and the fluidity of the situation, for me, some of those words don't seem to follow his own logic at times. But it's early. And I'm at a remedial to 100 level of learning."

I completely agree with this sentiment. And I've been one of Diaco's biggest fans. I predicted 8-5 and I still think we're going bowling.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

THANK YOU, MATT. Honestly, anyone who thinks Diaco is not trying to win games, including the BYU game, is being unreasonable. Let's all take this absurd notion behind the barn right now. We are all allowed to question some moves/plays as armchair QBs and fans, but to question whether or not we are trying to win games, like Jeff Jacobs has done, is an insult to the program and our fanbase.

"When guys make mistakes?

“We aren’t having a kumbaya session, we aren’t having a sleep over party, so there’s coaching that’s happening, but there is no reason why the coaching shouldn’t be positive,” Diaco said yesterday. “Everyone’s trying, I think if there was somebody that wasn’t trying, you might see a little different piece. But the players don’t want there to be negative plays, they’re trying hard, they want to do well. To come to the sideline and get berated by me, what good is that going to do? Let’s just spend time talking about how we can get it corrected and do it in a positive way and then really reaffirm when something good happens. Those are the moments that probably look the most positive. That all seems to make sense to me. That was how I appreciated being communicated with and it feels right when I’m communicating with the players that way.”

Diaco also had this message for all reporters before taking his first question at his introductory press conference.

“Ask me whatever, if I can answer it, I will, if I don’t have the answer I’ll try to find it for you. Let’s begin this and have an open and engaging and free flowing conversation, so we can go ahead and move this thing in the direction that it needs to be. There’s not a person in this room that is not interested in UCONN being successful, or you wouldn’t be here. So let’s be sure we get that done.”

Taking a statement out of context is not going to equal success. If there is a question about a commitment to winning, it should be asked. Twisting words and spinning meaning, is not giving someone a fair shake."

Dooley I disagree with this 100%. What Diaco says and what he does are 2 different things. Playing 50 guys is not necessarily trying to win the game. When Diaco mentions how he won't take shortcuts to the process, it's fair game to criticize the process as one that does not necessarily involve winning games.

Someone should absolutely ask Diaco point blank if he's treating these as exhibition games. I don't expect an honest answer from him, but I'd like to see someone ask the flipping question.

 

[BlueMAB]

I believe Diaco is trying to build a winning program. I believe he's trying to get players to win the daily battles... make it to every class, get your homework done, get good grades on your tests, get to the gym on time, make your lifting goals, get to practice, get your assignments right, have a better practice than the day before. Get better each day. That's all great, and I believe he will produce a winning program. I see similarities between him and Ollie, and I'm 100% onboard. He's got my support as long as the players are buying in because I believe the process will yield the results we all want.

That said. Playing 50 guys in one half isn't the best way to win a game. He went beyond the two deep, in the first half of a game where we were 17 point underdogs, without anyone getting injured.

Does anyone honestly think that gave us the best chance to win the game?

He's evaluating and getting guys some experience. That's how you build long-term, not short term. If 2016 comes, and we're 4 games into the season, does anyone really believe he'll be playing 50 guys in the first half? If he's still doing that in October, and we aren't winning games, he's not just going to lose some fans, he's going to lose his seniors. They came in on the heels of a BCS bowl and haven't been to a bowl game.

What is encouraging, is with all that shuffling of players, the players handed everything smoothly. Other than the 4th down conversion from BYU on the first drive, I didn't notice any confusion. To my untrained eye, the players are all buying in, and all focused not only the game, but on the moment, and are ready. Team sports require cohesion, and Diaco seems to have built that, so I agree with him when he says the foundation is being laid, you can see it.

 

[Irishfan]

Dooley I disagree with this 100%. What Diaco says and what he does are 2 different things. Playing 50 guys is not necessarily trying to win the game. When Diaco mentions how he won't take shortcuts to the process, it's fair game to criticize the process as one that does not necessarily involve winning games.

Someone should absolutely ask Diaco point blank if he's treating these as exhibition games. I don't expect an honest answer from him, but I'd like to see someone ask the flipping question.

I think Diaco is taking a page from Brian Kelly's play book. ND played 57 players in the Rice game. He likes to see how they play in game situations, and will change his two deep for the Michigan game based on how they perform in the Rice game. Losing to BYU and not learning anything about your team is no way to build a program.

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

Does anyone really think that the best way to go is NOT to have a long term objective?

Is a win vs BYU worth more than long term success, bowl games, winning seasons, a legit shot at a P5 bid ?

Who here really penciled in a win vs byu when predicting 6-8 wins (almost everyone's prediction) this season?

You cant possibly learn everything about a team in practice. The coaches need games to evaluate these guys fully.

I cant even imagine how a geoup of fans like us, who have experienced so much disappointment recently, cant be patient with someone who is finally looking out for the long term health of our program, and not just for his next job, or his retirement check.

The fact that we're even having this discussion is just so damn stupid

 

[Dooley]

I think Diaco is taking a page from Brian Kelly's play book. ND played 57 players in the Rice game. He likes to see how they play in game situations, and will change his two deep for the Michigan game based on how they perform in the Rice game. Losing to BYU and not learning anything about your team is no way to build a program.

Thank you. I think that UCONN took the field to win the game. I think the game was coached that way as well. We can all disagree with what is the best way to win games all we want. I wasn't a fan of subbing CW in for Cochran mid-drive at the BYU 17. I also wasn't a fan of the fake FG. I can see the logic behind kicking the 4th Q FG but understand the angst from others who disagree with that decision. Disagreeing with coaching decisions/plays is one thing. Saying that UCONN is taking the field with some sort of laissez-faire attitude about winning is completely different. And wrong. We were just outplayed by a better team on Friday night. Nothing more than that.

 

[BlueMAB]

Does anyone really think that the best way to go is NOT to have a long term objective?

Is a win vs BYU worth more than long term success, bowl games, winning seasons, a legit shot at a P5 bid ?

Who here really penciled in a win vs byu when predicting 6-8 wins (almost everyone's prediction) this season?

You cant possibly learn everything about a team in practice. The coaches need games to evaluate these guys fully.

I cant even imagine how a geoup of fans like us, who have experienced so much disappointment recently, cant be patient with someone who is finally looking out for the long term health of our program, and not just for his next job, or his retirement check.

The fact that we're even having this discussion is just so damn stupid

1) Nice straw man, nobody said that.

2) Winning today =/= sacrificing the future. Nice straw man.

3) Nobody is criticizing the fact we lost. They are questioning the decision making during the loss. Care to address why those specific questions aren't fair instead of building straw men in response?

4) I missed the #firediaco thread. Can you provide a link?

5) Your responses might mean that you're missing the point of the discussion.

 

[BlueMAB]

Saying that UCONN is taking the field with some sort of laissez-faire attitude about winning is completely different.

Who said that?

 

[ddent68]

We don't need to ask. We have our answer. Right now process is number one and frankly I agree with it. I understand the criticism, but at this point I'm giving HCBD my total support. His definition of winning doesn't just include the scoreboard. He is breaking this whole thing down to the smallest of details. Each one done correctly is a win. Which builds on another etc. etc.

We all endured the last three years with what seemed like no plan whatsoever. I think we have to come to grips with how bad things really were when he got here.

He wouldn't call what he is doing treating this like preseason even though it may appear that way to fans. From comments I've read from players they felt they won in at least some aspects. They seem focused, excited, still ready to run through walls for their coach and his staff. In the past they would have been looking around with that WTF look on their faces.

I think we are on the right track and I like what I'm seeing over all. Time will tell if coach is right or wrong and my money is on him being right.

 

[Dooley]

Who said that?

Change my "saying" to "suggesting" from the quoted reply. Semantics. I think some are suggesting that we are taking a laissez-faire approach to winning and treating games like exhibitions instead of trying to win them.

 

[freescooter]

I didn't have a problem with Jacobs' piece. These are all fair questions.

"If the Huskies have a chance to take out Boise State, is Diaco still going to go for a field goal instead of a touchdown because he wants to give Bobby Puyol work from the right hash mark? Is he going to take until midway in the second quarter to get Geremy Davis the ball? Is he going to pull Casey Cochran out of a third quarter drive after he moved the offense quickly to the opponent's 17? Is he going to play 50 guys in the first half? If he does, he's the first coach in the history of sports to be that much of a slave to any process."

It's fair to ask WTF he was thinking with some of the decisions because while they may have made the team better in the long run, they didn't seem to give us the best chance at winning last Friday.

"Diaco says a lot of things. Between his process and the fluidity of the situation, for me, some of those words don't seem to follow his own logic at times. But it's early. And I'm at a remedial to 100 level of learning."

I completely agree with this sentiment. And I've been one of Diaco's biggest fans. I predicted 8-5 and I still think we're going bowling.

Other than the 8-5 thing, which to my eyes is incredibly ambitious, I think you hit it about right.

 

[BlueMAB]

Change my "saying" to "suggesting" from the quoted reply. Semantics. I think some are suggesting that we are taking a laissez-faire approach to winning and treating games like exhibitions instead of trying to win them.

If it's semantics, then there's no point in changing from "saying" to "suggesting" because the intent is the same.

Here's the problem... Diaco's words don't match his actions. He says he's all about winning. And I believe him. But he also said the first three games are the "preparation phase". "Preparation" for what? The season? The season started last friday, not 9/19. Preparation for winning? Okay, I can actually buy that. But, by definition, he's preparing to win later in the season, by making decisions that don't give him the best chance to win these three games. He can't have it both ways.

"when asked Tuesday how long those massive substitution patterns will last, he answered: two more weeks. He said the first three games are a "preparation phase."
"I broke the season down to particular quarters," Diaco said. "The first quarter is about preparation and that's where we are at as a program. … This is going to be a long, long deal. There's a lot to fix. It's going to get fixed. The team is going to win. How long that takes, we'll see."

I have patience, I understand his line of thinking, I support him and the team, and I believe it will pay off in the long run. That won't make it any easier to sit in the stadium watching us do things that don't give us the best chance to win the game. God forbid we lose to Stony Brook. A loss to them is not worth getting 50 guys experience. Period.

 

[BlueMAB]

Other than the 8-5 thing, which to my eyes is incredibly ambitious, I think you hit it about right.

It absolutely is, but I think this team has more talent than we've been led to believe.

Unfortunately I may have underestimated our DE's ability to play in his schemes. The LBs and secondary are really going to have to step up.

 

[BNich]

I am going to post this story again because I don't think enough of you took the time to read it. This isn't a one off-season overhaul/rebuild. Change takes time. Change takes a plan. Change takes a 100% effort from all involved. This is a great read and I highly recommend to all.

Do yourself a favor and read this.

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/20...tball-coaches-programs-bob-stoops-bill-snyder

 

[freescooter]

ibleedblue,
Are you really going to try and argue that coaches can't evaluate players based on practice? Despite the fact they've been doing it since there have been organized sports? Some folks surely go to extremes to defend their positions.

 

[BNich]

And for the guy who thinks the Stony Brook game is going to give this team "false confidence", this quote is for you. This is year two following a 1-10 season going 0-7 in the Big 8 conference under Bill Snyder year 1.

"KSU lost all seven of its conference games in 1989 (average score: Opponent 36, KSU 12) and finished 1-10. But Snyder's scheduling began to pay off in 1990. For a program in need of confidence, so desperate for reasons to feel good about itself, Snyder scheduled the weakest possible opponents in non-conference slots. The tests would come in the Big 8, but the confidence would come in September."

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Thank you. I think that UCONN took the field to win the game. I think the game was coached that way as well. We can all disagree with what is the best way to win games all we want. I wasn't a fan of subbing CW in for Cochran mid-drive at the BYU 17. I also wasn't a fan of the fake FG. I can see the logic behind kicking the 4th Q FG but understand the angst from others who disagree with that decision. Disagreeing with coaching decisions/plays is one thing. Saying that UCONN is taking the field with some sort of laissez-faire attitude about winning is completely different. And wrong. We were just outplayed by a better team on Friday night. Nothing more than that.

I haven't read one post that claimed we lost the game because of the coaching decisions. Not one. When you play 50 guys in one half of football your first priority is not to win that game. If Diaco thinks that was our best chance to win, we have bigger problems right now.

 

[BNich]

And this quote seems to embody HCBD's philosophy to a "T".

"My thoughts are, don't forget how you got there. When we started out, I talked to my coaches, and I said we could go out and go after those four- or five-star guys, and I don't know what that means, honestly. We can chase those guys, and we may get some of them to visit. We may get into the kid's top five or four or three. But our reality is that we have more losses than anybody in college football history. We have 13,000 average attendance. We'd be wasting a lot of time and effort, which would be better served by going after those guys just underneath. Those are the fallback players the well-established schools fall back on, but those schools don't spend a lot of time getting to know them."

 

[Irishfan]

If it's semantics, then there's no point in changing from "saying" to "suggesting" because the intent is the same.

Here's the problem... Diaco's words don't match his actions. He says he's all about winning. And I believe him. But he also said the first three games are the "preparation phase". "Preparation" for what? The season? The season started last friday, not 9/19. Preparation for winning? Okay, I can actually buy that. But, by definition, he's preparing to win later in the season, by making decisions that don't give him the best chance to win these three games. He can't have it both ways.

"when asked Tuesday how long those massive substitution patterns will last, he answered: two more weeks. He said the first three games are a "preparation phase."
"I broke the season down to particular quarters," Diaco said. "The first quarter is about preparation and that's where we are at as a program. … This is going to be a long, long deal. There's a lot to fix. It's going to get fixed. The team is going to win. How long that takes, we'll see."

I have patience, I understand his line of thinking, I support him and the team, and I believe it will pay off in the long run. That won't make it any easier to sit in the stadium watching us do things that don't give us the best chance to win the game. God forbid we lose to Stony Brook. A loss to them is not worth getting 50 guys experience. Period.

Based on this, it sounds like his words DO match his actions. Just because the first three games are considered preparation games doesn't mean he plans on losing them. Some players tend to step it up during games versus practice, you won't know which ones until you see them in the actual games. I don't see his words indicating that he plans to go 0-3 to start the season.

 

[BlueMAB]

@BNich

If you want to respond to what people are saying, it's best to quote them and respond to what they are actually saying.

What you're posting, is missing the mark. I don't see anyone who has refused to acknowledge the hole this program is in, and the process to climb out of it.

 

[Irishfan]

I haven't read one post that claimed we lost the game because of the coaching decisions. Not one. When you play 50 guys in one half of football your first priority is not to win that game. If Diaco thinks that was our best chance to win, we have bigger problems right now.

How many players can be played before you determine that winning is not a priority. Obviously 50 is too many. Is 40 too many? Or do we have to go down into the mid 30's.