I Gave Edsall Crap

[JaYnYcE]

About the offense under Tyler Lorenzen. Every play seemed like it was a run by either Donald Brown or Tyler Lorenzen.

If McCummings were to take the reigns, would there be a difference? Would my support of McCummings be a huge slice of hypocrisy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J187Money]

Yes.

I mostly want results and I don't care how they come. I've always wondered why people are so concerned with "style" points.

 

[JaYnYcE]

I don't know what style points are, I just wanted a balanced attack where our QB could beat you with his arms and legs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Huskies320]

I mean, they wouldn't be able to do what they did yesterday (not throwing at all) I don't think. He would have to be able to make some throws

 

[Palatine]

How you play is very important. Playing consistently well is the only way to become a great program. You can only play lousy and win infrequantly.

Calling playing well "style points" misses the point.

 

[noeynox]

Calling it style points misses the point. You see QBs who can throw the ball all over CFB. I would settle for a Ryan Nassib type. The last staff had a hard time identifying decent college QBs. For all the praise they get for identifying talent other missed, that was a major shortcoming.

 

[ZooCougar]

Yes.

I mostly want results and I don't care how they come. I've always wondered why people are so concerned with "style" points.

Not style points. It's about not being run dimensional.

 

[SAMCRO]

Not sure if it is hypocritical or not. I'd say it's more about having a realization that it is about winning. Whether it's running 90% of the time, or passing 90% of the time doesn't matter. It's about winning the games. Win ugly, win pretty, whatever, just win.

 

[J187Money]

How you play is very important. Playing consistently well is the only way to become a great program. You can only play lousy and win infrequantly.

Calling playing well "style points" misses the point.

I agree with you. But LOTS of people here complain about style of play after we win a game. That's my point.

Of course there is a style of play I'd prefer, but I'm not in charge, so mostly I care about winning.

(remember I debated with someone last season who thought it would have been better to NOT win the conference and NOT to go to the BCS game if we ended up ranked #18th after winning a meaningless bowl or something like that)

 

[J187Money]

Not style points. It's about not being run dimensional.

Once we are SURE that we have a legit 1A passing quarterback and we choose not to throw, maybe I'll chime in with the complaints. But I think the run/pass mix is decent at this point.

I'm happy McCummings got more action this week. Next, he needs to mix in some passes with the added reps so we can see if he is good as Chief00 thinks he is.

 

[Husky68]

I agree with you. But LOTS of people here complain about style of play after we win a game. That's my point.

Of course there is a style of play I'd prefer, but I'm not in charge, so mostly I care about winning.

(remember I debated with someone last season who thought it would have been better to NOT win the conference and NOT to go to the BCS game if we ended up ranked #18th after winning a meaningless bowl or something like that)

Well at least the AD would have saved the $2+million it cost to buy the BCS bowl slot required seats! Winning ugly relates to winning inconsistently. Only so many blocked punts, interceptions, kick returns for wins a team can make. Gets you to 7-8 wins, given usually have weak OOC games where win 3 or 4. If are winning ugly, don't be disappointed are losing to low level BCS conference teams and fighting to beat MAC teams; hopefully offset by an occasional ND, South Carolina win (and would like to see Rutgers win occasionally).

 

[J187Money]

Well at least the AD would have saved the $2+million it cost to buy the BCS bowl slot required seats! Winning ugly relates to winning inconsistently. Only so many blocked punts, interceptions, kick returns for wins a team can make. Gets you to 7-8 wins, given usually have weak OOC games where win 3 or 4. If are winning ugly, don't be disappointed are losing to low level BCS conference teams and fighting to beat MAC teams; hopefully offset by an occasional ND, South Carolina win (and would like to see Rutgers win occasionally).

1) The lost money had exactly what repercussion? Funny how everyone here is apoplectic about losing AQ status but actual BCS games are bad?
2) I'm in complete agreement with you, but it isn't a video game and you can't just "decide" to play better and win pretty. I think we'd all "like" it to be different, but coaches are paid to do what they think is best in order to win games. Install the run and shoot with these kids and we'd probably be 0-9.

 

[epark88]

Reminds me of the famous line from 'White Men Can't Jump': some people would rather "look good and lose than look bad and win."

Yup Lorenzen's wrist was shot and he couldn't sling it, but we won with him. Frazer couldn't chuck it straight to save his life, and guess what? We won with him too.

TBH I don't care if they put Kendall Reyes under center - whoever helps us win games, I'm cool with it. If that's McCummings and only 2-4 passes a game, then so be it...

 

[WestCoastHusky]

As long as we win, I don't care what style we play. We lack big time play makers right now at WR and QB. Until coach P can recruit those kind of players over to UCONN, we will continue to suffer at those positions. We do have Mccummings who is like an option QB and a decent RB. We might as well embrace the option style and let Scott run for it.

 

[lavuuk153]

Reminds me of the famous line from 'White Men Can't Jump': some people would rather "look good and lose than look bad and win."

Yup Lorenzen's wrist was shot and he couldn't sling it, but we won with him. Frazer couldn't chuck it straight to save his life, and guess what? We won with him too.

TBH I don't care if they put Kendall Reyes under center - whoever helps us win games, I'm cool with it. If that's McCummings and only 2-4 passes a game, then so be it...

The problem I have with this is I don't think Frazer helped us win games as much as he helped not lose them. Nothing against Frazer, he just didn't have the talent. If they win games with me under center, that doesn't mean everyone should be content and not want a better option.

 

[Husky68]

1) The lost money had exactly what repercussion? Funny how everyone here is apoplectic about losing AQ status but actual BCS games are bad?
2) I'm in complete agreement with you, but it isn't a video game and you can't just "decide" to play better and win pretty. I think we'd all "like" it to be different, but coaches are paid to do what they think is best in order to win games. Install the run and shoot with these kids and we'd probably be 0-9.

Gee let me think, lost money has just what repersussions, hmmmmm - how about you have less money for coaches, compliance, new basketball facility, boys lacross (and the associated chick Title IX requirements), etc. Coaches get fired all the time, so guess what they think is best is often not good enough. Installing the run and shoot is your suggestion, not mine; I'd settle for a starting QB who doesn't run like a girl (sorry Maya, I mean doesn't run like Maria Conlon - most of Geno's girls are better at moving than him). Think it made a difference when fhcRE actually called passing plays to Easley in the 5th game of his red shirt senior season, who you put on the field, schemes/plays you call, all matter - doesn't have to be difference as between running the Navy offense vs. a Leach offense. Use what you have effectively, don't have a scared throw and duck QB throw on 3rd and long in Vandy territory when punt and one defensive stop (touchdown ahead) and you win.

I'll ask question, if Nebrich is the fastest QB and was # 2 in regular QB battle (not wild dog like SMc but actually throwing QB), what do you think the likelyhood that Nebrich being out there wouldn't cause defense to have to worry about wild dog package and at same time that QB might actually throw and also might get away from a crazy blitz where DL and others don't worry about gaps. Coach P is the one who keeps saying that Nebrich is getting better, getting practice snaps for both packages and is ready if necessary - I see 8 for 14 with two interceptions and a fumble as necessary. But that's just unreasonable me and dumb guys like Miles who take QB's out who throw interceptions and gain no yardage passing.

 

[CL82]

Not style points. It's about not being run dimensional.

Pun intended?

 

[coachRD]

Reminds me of the famous line from 'White Men Can't Jump': some people would rather "look good and lose than look bad and win."

Yup Lorenzen's wrist was shot and he couldn't sling it, but we won with him. Frazer couldn't chuck it straight to save his life, and guess what? We won with him too.

TBH I don't care if they put Kendall Reyes under center - whoever helps us win games, I'm cool with it. If that's McCummings and only 2-4 passes a game, then so be it...

Now THAT would make for an unstoppable package in a "Wild Dog" formation with him getting the snaps when we are within 3 yards of the goaline!

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Not style points. It's about not being run dimensional.

Tyler Lorenzen could run very effectively. He just wasn't a BCS passer. McCummings looks like he too will be an outstanding runner . . . but we don't really know if he can pass effectively. Let him throw the ball. Geez you have got do be able to do both

 

[DieHardHusky]

Just run the Gators offense with a broke man's Tebow/Leak

 

[Dann]

nick williams shoul just get shotgun snaps all dam day.

 

[Sean]

To the whole style thing, I think its just that we always want the next best thing. The order would be like this:

1.) Win and look good doing it
2.) Win and look bad doing it
3.) Lose and look good/lots of potential doing it
4.) Lose and look awful doing it.

This year, we've been in mostly #2 and #4. When the alternative is lose, you better believe we all would rather just win running the ball 800x a game.

 

[freescooter]

I don't know what style points are, I just wanted a balanced attack where our QB could beat you with his arms and legs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just want to win games...arms, legs, head, doesn't much matter as long as the final is UConn more, Opponent less.

I was actually thinking in the 4th quarter that it almost looked like DeLeone had found the 2007 playbook in the back of a closet somewhere and decided to give it a go since nothing else seemd to be working...

 

[freescooter]

Well at least the AD would have saved the $2+million it cost to buy the BCS bowl slot required seats! Winning ugly relates to winning inconsistently. Only so many blocked punts, interceptions, kick returns for wins a team can make. Gets you to 7-8 wins, given usually have weak OOC games where win 3 or 4. If are winning ugly, don't be disappointed are losing to low level BCS conference teams and fighting to beat MAC teams; hopefully offset by an occasional ND, South Carolina win (and would like to see Rutgers win occasionally).

I don't know...did you watch any of LSU-alabama? If LSU didn't win ugly, I'm not sure I know what the term means...Johnny Mac had more passing yards than the two LSU quarterbacks.

 

[IMind]

Tyler Lorenzen could run very effectively. He just wasn't a BCS passer. McCummings looks like he too will be an outstanding runner . . . but we don't really know if he can pass effectively. Let him throw the ball. Geez you have got do be able to do both

I think you're probably under selling Lorenzen a bit. He probably was a BCS quality passer in 2007 with a suspect WR core... in 2008... you're right. Tyler Lorenzen era would look a bit better if he wasn't playing as hurt as he was. We've had rotten luck at QB with injuries as well. Our passing offense over the last three or four years would have been improved if our QBs (and probably our WRs) managed to stay healthy. Lorenzen was a borderline NFL athlete who threw for over 3000 yards in one year in junior college.. Our offence in 2007 was pretty balanced. He threw for 2367 in 2007.... not world beating but with the running game we had respectable. In 2008 he dropped off the map (869 yards.. ouch!)

The other issue... you guys love to bang on the QBs... but by my count we've had maybe three or four above average wide receivers during the entire Edsall era...