Jacobs Article is up - Sheds some light on Warde's thought process

[SubbaBub]

My completely uniformed opinion why the Oline isn't doing well: too light, not strong enough, and unsuited to do what they are being asked to do.

Talent level has nothing to do with it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[J187Money]

My completely uniformed opinion why the Oline isn't doing well: too light, not strong enough, and unsuited to do what they are being asked to do.

Talent level has nothing to do with it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

Not trying to be argumentative, but doesn't size and strength count on the OLine? How is that not part of talent? That's like saying that running back has a lot of talent, he just isn't big, strong, or fast, and can't break tackles.

Listen - I'm not defending the coaching, but I just can't buy the argument that LM is as good as JT and the OLine is basically the same, and the only thing that is different is the coaching. I'd put it at 30% talent, 70% coaching.

If JT or DB ran behind that same line, they have 2-3-400 more rushing yards last year. The combination of a struggling OLine with a small back is a very bad one.

 

[SAMCRO]

Kentucky plays in the best conference in America. GT has been a leader at times in a much stronger all sports conference than UConn. And you don't want to emulate them. I get it, UConn did beat UMass and Buffalo in the same season. Nothing says "emulate us" like those results.

You nailed it. Great assessment, as usual.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

If this is true then Warde Manuel needs to go, is this guy blind. You could give Pasqualoni the NY Giants roster and he still wouldn't win, the guy is just a horrible coach at this point.

Someone has probably pointed out that the piece quoted above was not a quote at all. The idea (number of coaches/type of recruit) was not even attributed to the AD. It was JJ conjecture.

 

[whaler11]

Not trying to be argumentative, but doesn't size and strength count on the OLine? How is that not part of talent? That's like saying that running back has a lot of talent, he just isn't big, strong, or fast, and can't break tackles.

Listen - I'm not defending the coaching, but I just can't buy the argument that LM is as good as JT and the OLine is basically the same, and the only thing that is different is the coaching. I'd put it at 30% talent, 70% coaching.

If JT or DB ran behind that same line, they have 2-3-400 more rushing yards last year. The combination of a struggling OLine with a small back is a very bad one.

I hate the coaching staff. The offensive line is causing 80% of the problems this team has. Even I admit it's not all coaching - this offensive line wouldn't be good no matter who was coaching them. They would be better - but not good.

 

[Mr.Phat]

I might be wrong about this, but in my opinion UCONN gained prominence by sheer luck. They got lucky and hired two Hall of Fame coaches. Where the school is now, versus where it was when I showed up in 1989 is night and day. And we have a president that wants to make today look like 1989 (maybe I'm exaggerating a little but not when you hear her talk about it). And she is NOT an anti-sports person (I know there are some presidents that don't care about sports at all). So I expect her to be successful in ALL things. SHE expects to be successful in ALL things. From what I hear inside the school, she is the first president to lay the wood to people for wanting to keep the "status quo" - she is not from the "land of steady habits" as it were. I fully expect her to get judged for the decisions she makes, athletics included. All I'm asking is let's not ask for her to be hung because her predecessor hired the wrong coach. You want to bang on PP today, absolutely. But to put her in the same boat? Not fair at this point. Football is NOT the only thing on her plate.

I agree that she isn't a politically connected hack tied to state dem politics (which is most of politics in CT). She is an outsider with a great pedigree. Your last sentence supports precisely my point; she has more to do than worry about athletic success. And more important things to do.

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree that she isn't a politically connected hack tied to state dem politics (which is most of politics in CT). She is an outsider with a great pedigree. Your last sentence supports precisely my point; she has more to do than worry about athletic success. And more important things to do.

We've had a Democratic Governor for two years out of the last what -- twenty six or so? Yes, one party is responsible for all state bureacrats. Sheesh.