HCBD Bleeds Winning | Page 3 | The Boneyard

HCBD Bleeds Winning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, I'm trying my damndest to bite my proverbial digital keyboard tongue on the field goal thing. I'll go philosophizer here to distract myself.

Based on the info I've gathered, I totally get what Diaco is doing I think, I'll try to put it as few words possible - don't hold your breaths - at this point.

Here's a question: What makes a person powerful? What makes a person respected? What is trust? Ok - it's three questions. Not 'a' question.

The answer is simple, it's the establishment of a fact, undeniably, that a person's words and actions match up. (this does not apply, to football coaches, speaking to the media. None of us should ever really trust what a football coach is saying in the media, and I think that is probably so far - that our young head coach, needs to speed up the learning curve on - the media's trust - is earned and shared in what the choose NOT to write, vs what they do report and write. But I digress.

What makes a guy like Saddam Hussein was? Powerful? The leadership of ISIS now? It's because when they say they are going to kill you, if you don't do something they want, they do actually kill you.

Diaco, made it very clear in the offseason that he found a football program that was divided. Coaches vs. players. That kind of environment doesn't really work well with 21st century football players. It's long gone. He's been working non-stop, to heal that, and build a program where everyone trusts each other, and trusts in their leader - and he's working to establish himself as that leader that people know proverbially here - lighten up everyone - if he says is going to kill you, is going to kill you.

It seems pretty clear to me, that the way he was set up his goals and stepwise achievement for this season, that there were things told to players about where, when, why and how they will play, prior to the game minimum, and most likely prior to the season, and Diaco is simply following through with that plan in game one. Chandler Whitmer's comments are what made it all click for me. He said something to the effect that it was difficult to be on the sideline to start the game, knowing that he would play, and wanted to contribute, but it was comfortable in knowing exactly when he would go in, and then he did go in.

Diaco, clearly, is earning the trust of his players, and establishing himself as their leader, because they can see and understand by his actions that what he says he is going to do, he is actually going to do. That's different than the coaching mess we had here in the past 3 seasons, and it's an effective way to build trust. My guess, is that if they're doing it with the QB position, they're doing the same thing every position group.

I think there needs to be a learning curve from everybody though, coaches and players, and that reviewing the BYU game, as a team, that players and coaches need to realize, that the trust step is there, and that the substitution patterns, can't be that strict anymore, in the flow of real game. It seems that would be the case, by what has been said about going into the Stony Brook, and again, if it's the case for the QB position, you'd hope that it's consistent through all the position groups.

Or maybe I just need a cocktail. Is it 5:00 yet?
 
Honest question: Can you call yourself a realist and say that?

Why can't we?

I don't see anyone like UCF or WVU in our way. We have the top teams at home. Why can't we win?

I doubt we can, but I would rather not thinking we can until we've played a few conference games.
 
Is maximizing our chance of beating BYU more important than maximizing the # of wins this season?

Would you rather go 5-7 with a win over BYU OR 7-5 with a loss to BYU?

That's a false choice.
 
The premise of that article and this thread is kind of silly. I don't know of too many Head Coaches that don't want to win. It is a question of whether they have the energy/drive and ability to do it. Pasqualoni didn't have the energy and drive to win anymore when he got here, and there are some questions whether Diaco has the ability. If it was easy to do this, everyone would do it. We shall see.
 
You should read what I wrote in the rest of the thread. Then get back to me. Pay special attention to my first three posts.

So what is your argument with IrishFan if he's making great points??
 
OK, as you might have read, I stated that Kelly at ND played 57 players in his first game this year. Diaco worked under Kelly or several years and probably feels that playing a large number of players is not a problem, and is actually a good thing. My comment about 50 being too many was based on another poster saying that playing 50 was a sign that Diaco wasn't interested in winning. My question being that if 50 was too many, what is an acceptable number? Is it 40? Is it mid 30's?

The question as to why is three games the number that should be used as preparation goes hand in hand with the question of how many players is an acceptable number in the first game. At some point you have to believe that the coach knows what he is doing. If you think he is clueless as to the number of players you are playing, and how to prepare for the season, then you obviously think UConn made a poor choice for coach.

I personally think they made a good choice.
Oh come on. Notre Dame played Rice and won 48-17 in a game that wasn't that close. think he's going to do the same thing this week vs Michigan? I think the answer is that there isn't a fixed number. Using 50 players in the first half against BYU shows that giving guys playing time was a higher priority than having your best team on the football field. When your up 38-10 midway through the 3rd quarter, as ND was, you can play all sorts of guys with little danger of it having an impact on outcome. If we are up 35-3 on Saturday, I really don't care if Diaco suits up the cheer squad and half the band in the 4th quarter As to the number of games, Diaco made a decision that there were other priorities than winning. I find that a very strange choice, since I subscribe more to the Parcells theory that if winning wasn't important they wouldn't have a score board. But at some point he has to make a transition from giving out pt to making winning games a priority. I think that should have been game 1. If you get beat you get beat with your best. I think you owe that to your team and you owe that to your fans and frankly you owe it to your opponent to put your best effort and your best team on the field every time you play.

One other thing. I like Diaco. I hope he turns out to be a terrific head coach. I hope this strange approach pays dividends down the line. I'm agnostic as to whether any of that happens though.
 
.-.
Oh come on. Notre Dame played Rice and won 48-17 in a game that wasn't that close. think he's going to do the same thing this week vs Michigan? I think the answer is that there isn't a fixed number. Using 50 players in the first half against BYU shows that giving guys playing time was a higher priority than having your best team on the football field. When your up 38-10 midway through the 3rd quarter, as ND was, you can play all sorts of guys with little danger of it having an impact on outcome. If we are up 35-3 on Saturday, I really don't care if Diaco suits up the cheer squad and half the band in the 4th quarter As to the number of games, Diaco made a decision that there were other priorities than winning. I find that a very strange choice, since I subscribe more to the Parcells theory that if winning wasn't important they wouldn't have a score board. But at some point he has to make a transition from giving out pt to making winning games a priority. I think that should have been game 1. If you get beat you get beat with your best. I think you owe that to your team and you owe that to your fans and frankly you owe it to your opponent to put your best effort and your best team on the field every time you play.

One other thing. I like Diaco. I hope he turns out to be a terrific head coach. I hope this strange approach pays dividends down the line. I'm agnostic as to whether any of that happens though.

I would feel better if you thought Diaco would fail just like you predicted failure from Ollie.
 
I'm not opposed to Diaco's strategy. I'm opposed to him calling these "preparation games" and then having posters excoriate some of us for saying what we already know. That winning these games isn't his priority. If it were, nobody would have to defend the strategy.
 
That's a false choice.

No. Maximizing winning for one game and maximizing the # of wins for the season is NOT a false choice.

A child would stomp their feet, hold their breath and want every thing, but diaco is in the real world and is working his process. I like it.
 
So what is your argument with IrishFan if he's making great points??

1) He's not making great points
2) He's contradicting himself
3) He's pretending that this strategy, obviously not designed to win each game (or else Diaco would employ it for the whole season) is still designed to win games. Because irishfan's definition of trying to win is "not trying to lose".
 
.-.
No. Maximizing winning for one game and maximizing the # of wins for the season is NOT a false choice.

A child would stomp their feet, hold their breath and want every thing, but diaco is in the real world and is working his process. I like it.

Your question was a false choice. You can play 50 plus players in the second half when the game was decided. You can throw it to Davis earlier than halfway through the 2nd quarter already down 21-0.

You don't know what our record would be if we played out the first game differently, so therefore, your question was a false choice. You cannot argue that Diaco's strategy is guaranteed to make us go 7-5, and that if he didn't take these first 3 games as preparation, we'd go 5-7. It's a false choice.

Regarding the nonce about a child stomping their feet, one of us is being petulant. Perhaps you read my first two posts in this thread and gain some perspective on my opinion on the matter.
 
No. Maximizing winning for one game and maximizing the # of wins for the season is NOT a false choice.

A child would stomp their feet, hold their breath and want every thing, but diaco is in the real world and is working his process. I like it.
Well, somebody has now gone off the deep end.
 
1) He's not making great points
2) He's contradicting himself
3) He's pretending that this strategy, obviously not designed to win each game (or else Diaco would employ it for the whole season) is still designed to win games. Because irishfan's definition of trying to win is "not trying to lose".

Because he's saying that HCBD is evaluating the team and at the same time wants to win he's contradicting himself?

You can't evaluate and want to win at the same time?

I think one may out weigh the other (in this case evaluating out weighing winning) but you can want both. Thats not contradicting.
 
Because he's saying that HCBD is evaluating the team and at the same time wants to win he's contradicting himself?

You can't evaluate and want to win at the same time?

I think one may out weigh the other (in this case evaluating out weighing winning) but you can want both. Thats not contradicting.

I give up.
 
.-.
So I'll assume that means that the answer to my question was no, you don't know.
Since you insist -
http://fortheglorypsu.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-notre-dame-story-media-does-not.html
http://thedirty.com/2014/04/notre-dames-beloved-prince-shembo-got-away-with-rape/
http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/prince-shembo-sexual-battery-lizzy-seeberg/220575

I could go on but since the poor girl is dead, Shembo can say whatever he wants. And ND faithful will believe that is the truth.

Want to answer whether you think Winston is innocent?
 
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.

Yes i am
 
Well, somebody has now gone off the deep end.

I thought you weren't going to follow UCONN football because of the uniforms. Got over that tantrum, eh?
 
Because he's saying that HCBD is evaluating the team and at the same time wants to win he's contradicting himself?

You can't evaluate and want to win at the same time?

I think one may out weigh the other (in this case evaluating out weighing winning) but you can want both. Thats not contradicting.
Of course he "wants" to win. But he wasn't trying to win more than he was trying to evaluate and prepare for later in the season.

I get the strategy, and I suspect it will work.

That doesn't make it easier to stomach while sitting in the stands wanting to win far more than I want to evaluate.
 
I'm not opposed to Diaco's strategy. I'm opposed to him calling these "preparation games" and then having posters excoriate some of us for saying what we already know. That winning these games isn't his priority. If it were, nobody would have to defend the strategy.

So it's just a semantics issue? You're OK with the strategy. So if he had simply called the first three "win or die" games you'd be fine with it.
 
.-.
Your question was a false choice. You can play 50 plus players in the second half when the game was decided. You can throw it to Davis earlier than halfway through the 2nd quarter already down 21-0.

You don't know what our record would be if we played out the first game differently, so therefore, your question was a false choice. You cannot argue that Diaco's strategy is guaranteed to make us go 7-5, and that if he didn't take these first 3 games as preparation, we'd go 5-7. It's a false choice.

Regarding the nonce about a child stomping their feet, one of us is being petulant. Perhaps you read my first two posts in this thread and gain some perspective on my opinion on the matter.

I think Diaco believe that Whitmer could do a bit more in the red zone. He certainly wanted to find out.

That's not giving the game away, thats a coach who can't perfectly predict the future.
 
So it's just a semantics issue? You're OK with the strategy. So if he had simply called the first three "win or die" games you'd be fine with it.

Exactly.

Some people are more focused on winning the press conference than the fact we had no answer to Hill.
 
So it's just a semantics issue? You're OK with the strategy. So if he had simply called the first three "win or die" games you'd be fine with it.

I understand the strategy, that doesn't make it easy to stomach a coach not doing everything he can to win. Especially on national TV against a name program.

What are the first three games preparation for?
 
Exactly.

Some people are more focused on winning the press conference than the fact we had no answer to Hill.
Actually, I'm more focused on winning the games than the press conference. You're more focused on appearing to be right. You should go back to the first page and read my first two posts. But you won't.
 
I understand the strategy, that doesn't make it easy to stomach a coach not doing everything he can to win. Especially on national TV against a name program.

What are the first three games preparation for?

Winning the conference.

DUh
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,381
Messages
4,569,627
Members
10,475
Latest member
Tunwin22


Top Bottom