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.
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.
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
Saying that UCONN is taking the field with some sort of laissez-faire attitude about winning is completely different.
Who said that?
Other than the 8-5 thing, which to my eyes is incredibly ambitious, I think you hit it about right.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.
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.
Other than the 8-5 thing, which to my eyes is incredibly ambitious, I think you hit it about right.
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.
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.
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.