HCBD Bleeds Winning

[Colt house75]

Exactly.

Some people are more focused on winning the press conference than the fact we had no answer to Hill.

I doubt many if not most teams are going to have a tough time with Hill this season. We simply got beat. Time for some to come to the realization that the cupboard needed re-stocking and the newly stocked items don't taste or feel quite the same.....yet.
In HCBD I trust.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

LMAO

You're all admitting that he's using these games to prepare to win games later. It's obvious.

But I'm the dou7he for pointing out that the strategy employed now, may win games later, but they don't win games now, and that's frustrating as a fan in the stadium.

I'm supposed to pretend the coach really did everything in his power to win Friday night. Including employing a strategy that everyone agrees is designed to win "the last 9 games", "the conference", and "the next ten years". I'm supposed to believe that the coach really wanted to win against BYU and that's why he had a strategy for "preparation games" totally different from the other 9 games.

I can accept his strategy, but if you accept losing, you're a loser.

Yeah. This is getting ridiculous even for the Boneyard.

 

[BlueMAB]

If I thought that it was in the best interest of the program's long term health, and success...i would be fine with that.

Fine. I don't have a problem with his strategy. I have a problem with people calling out others for pointing out the obvious. Diaco was more concerned with evaluation, than he was winning. Otherwise he wouldn't have played 50+ guys in the first half.

If his strategy was designed to win Friday and not "the next 9 games", then he would continue it. That's the simple point you're missing.

You can't argue he was trying to win that game AND trying to win long term. He wasn't.

Thinking that BD doesn't want to win because he's evaluating the team is ridiculous.


That simple I think these guys are missing the point... I'm honestly done with this topic...

Who said BD doesn't "want" to win? He put evaluating ahead of winning. He wants to win long term, and he's potentially sacrificing opportunities in the short term.

Dou7chebags gotta Dou7che

Here's what I wrote earlier. If you were a man, you'd read it, understand that you completely fail to miss my point, and then delete your post. But Ive been around long enough to know you'll just ignore it and continue to ridicule anyone who you think disagrees with you.



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.

 

[BlueMAB]

Yeah. This is getting ridiculous even for the Boneyard.

 

[Irishfan]

Yeah - but....IRISH fan.the name enough is enough to draw authorized fire from any direction, for any reason. You don't go into the bleachers at Yankee Stadium wearing Red Sox gear, or vice versa at Fenway and expect to be treated like a sane, peace loving individual.

I figured it was a safe name for a UConn board that just got an ND coach. I wouldn't go to an SC board with that name. Actually, I would.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Irishfan came in with some unique insight into what BD's thought process might be. That was a great point. Yet you and Wing just went off on him.

What unique insight? That Kelly used 57 players in a blow out win over Rice?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Dou7chebags gotta Dou7che

Takes one to know one.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Fine. I don't have a problem with his strategy. I have a problem with people calling out others for pointing out the obvious. Diaco was more concerned with evaluation, than he was winning. Otherwise he wouldn't have played 50+ guys in the first half.

If his strategy was designed to win Friday and not "the next 9 games", then he would continue it. That's the simple point you're missing.

You can't argue he was trying to win that game AND trying to win long term. He wasn't.



Who said BD doesn't "want" to win? He put evaluating ahead of winning. He wants to win long term, and he's potentially sacrificing opportunities in the short term.



Here's what I wrote earlier. If you were a man, you'd read it, understand that you completely fail to miss my point, and then delete your post. But Ive been around long enough to know you'll just ignore it and continue to ridicule anyone who you think disagrees with you.



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.

FWIW: It's a reasonable position, I think, and it's position that I will stand by, the coaching staff did the best they could in balancing a plan to evaluate players, establish a continuing bond of trust, leadership and respect in the entire program, and balance it with a plan that they thought would be competitive. The only decision I have problem with, and I've been consistent about it, is the late field goal. That was a mistake, IMO, a losing decision, no matter what way you look at it, and something that should not be repeated, not in the game, or in the way it's discussed publicly after.

I have questions about the game plans, not so much the offense, most specifically D, it didn't seem that we had specifically schemed for Hill and that seemed insane. It seemed almost like BYU took the pedal off a bit in the game, because after going up by 3 TD possessions on the score board early 21-0, both times we managed to put together a scoring drive after that, they immediately carved us up again for the remaining 2 TD's they scored, on the following possession. Primarily because it looked like we had no one on D who's primary role was to spy the QB. There is no way for me to know if that was actually happening, or not, but it's what my brain decide my eyes were looking at. If it did happen, that's crazy, IMO, in designing a game plan defensively against an offense like BYU. but it's irrelevant, the game is over, and they hopefully learned from whatever they did, because it didn't work on defense - at all. Fine line between genius and insanity so they say, so while I disagree with a lot of what understand about what's happening, it doesn't mean we don't finish the season in December, as winners.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here.

In the 1st half of a game in which we were 17 point dogs we played 50 guys.

Nobody is saying that he wasn't coaching as hard as he should or the back ups weren't playing as hard as they could, but by his actions he is showing winning that game vs BYU wasn't as important as his process.

I fail to see how anyone can argue that.

You don't play your best players on a given day, then you aren't doing everything in your capacity to win that game.

It's like nobody has ever watched an NFL Pre season game.

If that's his s strategy for BYU and Stony and he thinks it'll be for the better fine. But if we're not playing our A team vs Boise I'm going to be very disappointed.

 

[BlueMAB]

If that's his s strategy for BYU and Stony and he thinks it'll be for the better fine. But if we're not playing our A team vs Boise I'm going to be very disappointed.

It's possible he's using the press to get BSU to expect less than our A game, but he said that the mass substitutions would continue for the next 2 games.

 

[BlueMAB]

I fail to see how anyone can argue that.

I wrote the same thing. But this is the Boneyard after all. Not only are people arguing it, if you point out what was blatantly obvious, you're a dou7he.

 

[LRock34]

What are we arguing about? Diaco has already said everything you need to hear. The process is most important right now. Preparing ourselves is more important than preparing for opponents. Does he want to win...sure...does he care if we lose...probably...but more important than both of those things is building depth and establishing process. I'm not mad at that. He is building for the future of this program. Getting experience for the players that he recruited for his system is the most important thing for him. Is the 2014 season important...yes. But he's thinking about 2016. Again I'm not mad. Its going to take time to dig out the the hole that PP and RE dug for us.

 

[sdhusky]

LMAO

You're all admitting that he's using these games to prepare to win games later. It's obvious.

But I'm the dou7he for pointing out that the strategy employed now, may win games later, but they don't win games now, and that's frustrating as a fan in the stadium.

I'm supposed to pretend the coach really did everything in his power to win Friday night. Including employing a strategy that everyone agrees is designed to win "the last 9 games", "the conference", and "the next ten years". I'm supposed to believe that the coach really wanted to win against BYU and that's why he had a strategy for "preparation games" totally different from the other 9 games.

I can accept his strategy, but if you accept losing, you're a loser.

I have a bigger problem with nobody being able to slow down Hill and Max fumblin

Fine. I don't have a problem with his strategy. I have a problem with people calling out others for pointing out the obvious. Diaco was more concerned with evaluation, than he was winning. Otherwise he wouldn't have played 50+ guys in the first half.

If his strategy was designed to win Friday and not "the next 9 games", then he would continue it. That's the simple point you're missing.

You can't argue he was trying to win that game AND trying to win long term. He wasn't.



Who said BD doesn't "want" to win? He put evaluating ahead of winning. He wants to win long term, and he's potentially sacrificing opportunities in the short term.



Here's what I wrote earlier. If you were a man, you'd read it, understand that you completely fail to miss my point, and then delete your post. But Ive been around long enough to know you'll just ignore it and continue to ridicule anyone who you think disagrees with you.



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.

Sorry about the Dou7che comment. I was wrong to call you that.

 

[Dizzy21]

So do the first three games count?

Why not take the first 6 to prepare for the last 6?

The first three games essentially don't count, unless you thought we were gonna win a national championship. And just so you know, Diaco stated that he would not have done all this if it had been a conference game. So your statement, along with pretty much everything you write, makes little sense. You say you know his strategy and its to prepare for the conference games, but at the same time you ask "why the first three and not the first six". You call it a false choice when someone asks would you rather win byu and go 5-7 or lose byu and prepare, going 7-5, when anyone who has ever played football knows that what Diaco did on Friday has the distinct probability of producing more wins in the future, at the expense of that game, and I think you have even admitted that. And ultimately you continuously argue that you don't get the strategy, but then state that you totally understand it, and that's what you have been saying all along. I don't mean to be rude, but are there two different people typing on your account?

 

[Waquoit]

Yeah - but....IRISH fan.the name enough is enough to draw authorized fire from any direction, for any reason. .

Nah, it's always wrong to generalize.

 

[BlueMAB]

The first three games essentially don't count, unless you thought we were gonna win a national championship. And just so you know, Diaco stated that he would not have done all this if it had been a conference game. So your statement, along with pretty much everything you write, makes little sense. You say you know his strategy and its to prepare for the conference games, but at the same time you ask "why the first three and not the first six". You call it a false choice when someone asks would you rather win byu and go 5-7 or lose byu and prepare, going 7-5, when anyone who has ever played football knows that what Diaco did on Friday has the distinct probability of producing more wins in the future, at the expense of that game, and I think you have even admitted that. And ultimately you continuously argue that you don't get the strategy, but then state that you totally understand it, and that's what you have been saying all along. I don't mean to be rude, but are there two different people typing on your account?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

So just to recap. And also because I'm kind of a jerk:

Schovinsky blogs that it's dangerous to say that Diaco isn't trying to win these games.

People laud Matt for taking Jacobs to task.

A few people disagree with Matt and state why.

We argue about this for 3 pages only to find out that you all pretty much agree with Wing & I.

Do I have that about right?

 

[UconnFamily]

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.

And I'm sure

The first three games essentially don't count, unless you thought we were gonna win a national championship. And just so you know, Diaco stated that he would not have done all this if it had been a conference game. So your statement, along with pretty much everything you write, makes little sense. You say you know his strategy and its to prepare for the conference games, but at the same time you ask "why the first three and not the first six". You call it a false choice when someone asks would you rather win byu and go 5-7 or lose byu and prepare, going 7-5, when anyone who has ever played football knows that what Diaco did on Friday has the distinct probability of producing more wins in the future, at the expense of that game, and I think you have even admitted that. And ultimately you continuously argue that you don't get the strategy, but then state that you totally understand it, and that's what you have been saying all along. I don't mean to be rude, but are there two different people typing on your account?

Exactly, and Jimmy is blind too... sorry Jimmy!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

And I'm sure


Exactly, and Jimmy is blind too... sorry Jimmy!

Sigh. At least Dooley quickly realized we were in agreement. So we have that going for us.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

LMAO

You're all admitting that he's using these games to prepare to win games later. It's obvious.

But I'm the dou7he for pointing out that the strategy employed now, may win games later, but they don't win games now, and that's frustrating as a fan in the stadium.

I'm supposed to pretend the coach really did everything in his power to win Friday night. Including employing a strategy that everyone agrees is designed to win "the last 9 games", "the conference", and "the next ten years". I'm supposed to believe that the coach really wanted to win against BYU and that's why he had a strategy for "preparation games" totally different from the other 9 games.

I can accept his strategy, but if you accept losing, you're a loser.

Wing,
Do you feel better about the program right now than you did last year? and the year before that?
I do and we apparently have only one legitimate sub on the OLine. Its crazy, its frustrating, its wtf but I still feel better.

 

[Waquoit]

I didn't "go off" on him until he decided to attack the character of Bob Diaco by implying he was the reason ND's image has been tarnished.

Reread the thread. He didn't "attack" (at all really), until he was attacked.

 

[BlueMAB]

Reread the thread. He didn't "attack" (at all really),
until he was attacked.

I didn't say anything to him outside of the discussion until he went after Bob Diaco. I don't care if Jimmy provoked him or not. He chose to go after Diaco, I'm free to respond in kind.

 

[Waquoit]

I didn't say anything to him outside of the discussion until he went after Bob Diaco. I don't care if Jimmy provoked him or not. He chose to go after Diaco, I'm free to respond in kind.

Don't hide behind Jimmy. You guys are a tag-team here. Own it.

 

[BlueMAB]

Wing,
Do you feel better about the program right now than you did last year? and the year before that?
I do and we apparently have only one legitimate sub on the OLine. Its crazy, its frustrating, its wtf but I still feel better.

Absolutely.

This all started because Schovinsky said it was dangerous and inaccurate for Jacobs to claim Diaco wasn't trying to win Friday night.

If you read my first and second posts on the topic you'll see I'm still 100% in support of Diaco and the process. But let's call it what it is, rather than calling people names for stating the obvious.

 

[whaler11]

If seems hard to believe anyone could write thefirst three paragraphs in that post - including accusing other opinions of being inaccurate.