Jim Calhoun and Bob Diaco Philosophy

[Jimmy Serrano]

How have some forgot about last season is beyond me. FHCPP left this place a mess and fixing it will not happen overnight. Most of you complaining had not issue giving FHCPP time and yet you can't give him the same opportunity

Bill you know I love ya but this is nuts. Nobody has forgotten the last 3 years. I was predicting 4 or 5 wins this year while everyone else was making plans for a bowl game. We're not complaining about the results. We're questioning the decisions he's making during games and his approach to this whole season. It's legitimate criticism that Diaco can handle given his $2 million per year salary.

 

[noeynox]

How have some forgot about last season is beyond me. FHCPP left this place a mess and fixing it will not happen overnight. Most of you complaining had not issue giving FHCPP time and yet you can't give him the same opportunity

There were about three posters that I remember wanted to give P "more time". Most of us were in a conundrum, of course we wanted to see UConn make a bowl, but if they did it bought P more time which we didn't want.

 

[noeynox]

Judging this guy after only 4 games is like you or I being judged after a week on the new job. It's not fair to him.

Judging him and criticizing some of his decisions to date are not the same thing. When I think judging I think "this guy sucks, he is never going to win here". What we have here is more like "shut down the passing game till garbage time, really Bob?"

 

[Excalibur]

What we have here is more like "shut down the passing game till garbage time, really Bob?"

No, what we have here is "he quit".

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

No, what we have here is "he quit".

He quit trying to win that game. I stand by my comment. Maybe I'm hoping that is the case. Because if it's not, well......

 

[noeynox]

No, what we have here is "he quit".

Maybe he did, for that one game, for reasons he is totally comfortable with, you know the whole lose the battle/win the war thing. Fans are never going to be accepting of something like that when you are playing a team as horrible as USF. Their defense had been a sieve basically up to that point and we went into a shell, in what on paper looked like one of our most winnable games. If some people call it quitting I'm not going to be upset, he is going to have more than enough time coaching here to atone for the one time he "quit".

 

[Waquoit]

Judging him and criticizing some of his decisions to date are not the same thing..."

I disagree, it seems to be going part and parcel here. The guy has a plan and a vision and is making his decisions based on the overall plan. At this point in time, I don't think it's fair to go off on a particular decision in a vacuum, it should be considered as part of the overall plan. For instance, I hated the two QB approach. But I give him the benefit of the doubt because he did it for a reason, even if the reason isn't readily apparent to me. I'm going wait until the end of the season before I make a determination. That's all I and the non-bashers (I believe) are saying. He's not going anywhere, why shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt? And if his plan doesn't produce, I get the feeling he will learn and adjust. I have to admit I'm surprised by the depth, breath and sheer volume of the criticism here. He isn't going to turn this thing around with an off-the-shelf approach. But this is an example of why weak coaches go by the book all the time. If you dare to try something different and don't succeed, you get both barrells right away. I hope BD sticks to his guns, it's what's best for the program.

 

[noeynox]

@Waquoit, if that were the case there would be nothing discuss or banter about. Ever. Criticism of his decisions on the boneyard is neither going to affect his coaching decisions or his job security. What you're saying sounds a lot to me like what I talked about before if the boneyard likes the coach, any criticism of him is off limits. Didn't understand it when Edsall was here, don't understand it now.

 

[noeynox]

@Waquoit, It's like Nick Saban against Auburn last year, he challenged that out of bounds play that put one second back on the clock so that his FG kicker could attempt a kick he had no shot in hell of ever making. We all know how that turned out, do you think because of his past success Bama fans didn't have "the right" to second guess that boneheaded move?

 

[sdhusky]

Bob Diaco = Jim Calhoun. Got it.

Wow. you are stupid. The article was about following the same process, not them being the same person.

Really, are you that dumb?

 

[sdhusky]

I've made my position on Diaco pretty clear and have purposely stopped harping about it.

But the notion that people can't criticize his performance in his first four games is ridiculous.

Right. And the thought that we can't criticize the emotional logic of the critics is ridiculous too.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Right. And the thought that we can't criticize the emotional logic of the critics is ridiculous too.

No, that's called debate. We're not getting debate. We're getting things like, "it's too early to tell whether he will be a good coach long term".

 

[CL82]

?

Too many people think that the hole he inherited should be fixed over night.

Wasn't this the exact argument for keeping FUCHCPP for three years? Look Diaco isn't PP, I know that and I still support him but losing winnable games, blaming the players and promising that it is all part of the plan is painfully familiar. It worries me.

 

[sdhusky]

No, that's called debate. We're not getting debate. We're getting things like, "it's too early to tell whether he will be a good coach long term".

Right. Facts on one side and emotional foot stomping on the other side.

When you lose, every decision looks bad.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Wow. you are stupid. The article was about following the same process, not them being the same person.

Really, are you that dumb?

Trying to drop the halo of one of the greatest coaches in college basketball history over a HC that is struggling 4 games into his career is a little puzzling.

I am with Serrano in that Diaco may turn out great, but he is stumbling a bit and i was hoping for a shorter learning curve. We are where we are, so let's hope for the best. I would like to start seeing some wins over lousy teams soon. Temple is probably a bridge too far, but SMU and Tulane are on the schedule, and both are terrible.

 

[sdhusky]

Trying to drop the halo of one of the greatest coaches in college basketball history over a HC that is struggling 4 games into his career is a little puzzling.

I am with Serrano in that Diaco may turn out great, but he is stumbling a bit and i was hoping for a shorter learning curve. We are where we are, so let's hope for the best. I would like to start seeing some wins over lousy teams soon. Temple is probably a bridge too far, but SMU and Tulane are on the schedule, and both are terrible.

You really are stupid

If I said Calhoun drives a BMW and Diaco drives a BMW, only a genius (or it this case, you) would think I am saying they are the same level coach.

You really are getting tripped by the difference between process and comparing people.

 

[sdhusky]

I am with Serrano in that Diaco may turn out great, but he is stumbling a bit and i was hoping for a shorter learning curve. .

This is the ultimate nelsomuntz post - full of weasel words. A strong statement with all kinds of outs.

Do you think Dicao will ever win 10+ games at UCONN? Do you think he will be fired in 4?

Make a definitive statement for once.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Right. Facts on one side and emotional foot stomping on the other side.

When you lose, every decision looks bad.

What facts do you have?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This is the ultimate nelsomuntz post - full of weasel words. A strong statement with all kinds of outs.

Do you think Dicao will ever win 10+ games at UCONN? Do you think he will be fired in 4?

Make a definitive statement for once.

Nobody knows the answer to any those questions. Why do you ask questions like that? Anyone who answers that he will turn out to be great does so on blind faith. Anyone who answers he will be fired in 4 is coming to a premature judgement.

 

[Waquoit]

@Waquoit, if that were the case there would be nothing discuss or banter about. Ever. Criticism of his decisions on the boneyard is neither going to affect his coaching decisions or his job security. What you're saying sounds a lot to me like what I talked about before if the boneyard likes the coach, any criticism of him is off limits. Didn't understand it when Edsall was here, don't understand it now.

I know what you're saying, noe. It's not my intent to quash dissent, that's what makes a for a good board. I guess I'm efforting to get some of bashers to cut our new coach a little slack.

 

[mauconnfan]

I don't mind people disagreeing with my criticism. But there are plenty who have stated it's too early to criticize. What really annoys me is when people make strawman arguments.

No matter what how short the team is on talent I agree you can still criticize the coach and coaches no doubt. There is still coaching going on so that much can be discussed and I have seen many things I dislike too. But I also have to think some of that is because of the hand he's been dealt so I find it tough to analyze. But there are things he's done that make you hmmmmm? Agree

 

[rich1122]

O'Leary was 0-11 his first year at UCF. Since then not bad. It can be done.

 

[Hoophound]

Ultimately, Diaco will be judged by performance over 2-4 years. While we make our way to the end of the audition period the off the wall quotes and totally unconventional in game moves will set people off. He is either a nutty professor or a huge mistake. After the PP era people are going to be edgy.

 

[Jimdish255]

These things stick out to me about Coach D's approach being in the Cpt. Obvious category.

The process is a road-map for development that supercedes individual game outcomes.

The games are scripted to a high degree.

The risk of getting blown out (at this juncture) was too high in his mind to chance a couple of turnovers deep in our end even if it meant we almost certainly lose the game.

He's protecting Tim Boyle for the future.

Shutting down the passing game not only lessened the chances for winning, it lessened the chances of a blowout and protected Chandler as well. That's not playing to win. But we are playing to win - eventually. That's frustrating.

I'm fascinated by this approach but still nagged by the fact that he came from a place with such a deep group of high-level recruits that there may be something that wasn't accounted for in this equation. I didn't account for possibly being 1-4 and I'll bet Warde didn't either.

 

[Waquoit]

I didn't account for possibly being 1-4 and I'll bet Warde didn't either.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm sure Warde didn't expect wins against BYU ans BSU. And while winnable, beating a team on the road who beat us at home last year wasn't a gimme. At this point in time, aren't we what we thought we were?

 

[whaler11]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm sure Warde didn't expect wins against BYU ans BSU. And while winnable, beating a team on the road who beat us at home last year wasn't a gimme. At this point in time, aren't we what we thought we were?

This is what some folks aren't getting:

Losing games when you don't have good enough players is understandable and acceptable.

If it turns out there is less talent and ability on the team that was generally assumed not much anyone can do about that.

Having a good plan and sticking with it is essential for success.

Noting evidence that points to the issues with the 'plan' or the person responsible for the 'plan' should certainly be in bounds. If you have a problem that people are over emotional in communicating those comcerns that is fair. But it's a topic people are passionate about and it's a message board - that's how the internet works.

What happened on Friday might have some pretty significant impact on what happens going forward. Now some might say - who cares if he loses the seniors, the season probably wasn't going anywhere anyway - which I guess is fair - but I would disagree with.

Every coach in the country has to balance today with the future. Diaco can balance it in anyway he wants. The fans and media are going to react to how they perceive the balance he chooses.

He may not need to worry what John Silver or Jimmy Serrano or anyone else thinks. Personally, I think that is a mistake - the media still influences people and the program needs to keep every fan they have.

In short he's not being criticized for being 1-3. He is being criticized for decisions he has made and things he is saying.

Personally I think they need to think about adding someone to the staff next season who has been a head coach at the FBS level because for all the potential Diaco may have, he needs some help unlocking it.

 

[Jimdish255]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm sure Warde didn't expect wins against BYU ans BSU. And while winnable, beating a team on the road who beat us at home last year wasn't a gimme. At this point in time, aren't we what we thought we were?

After last week a loss to Temple would be a disappointment to most imo. Combined with the way we looked against SB we are not where many thought we would be. Haven't conceded this week at all but we need a win.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

He quit trying to win that game. I stand by my comment. Maybe I'm hoping that is the case. Because if it's not, well.

I still don't get how people can think this.

I view this (especially with how worried I was after the first series of how many turnovers we would have that game) as similar to a blackjack (for the sake of this argument, we can assume that there are no other players at the table) where you are holding 17 and the dealer is showing a nine. As the odds are very strong that he also has a face card and obviously, if he is holding 19 you won't win if you stand pat. Claiming that by standing at 17 you are not trying to win is quite a leap as while the odds may greatly favor the dealer having a better hand, you do not know this and with the risk involved in taking a hit at 17, you cannot know it will give you a better chance at winning unless you do know the outcome in advance. Claiming that it will give you a better chance is merely opinion and speculation.

Would I have liked to have seen a few more passes? Yes, but under the corcumastances not many more and solely low risk attempts. Does the fact that the head coach took a different approach than I would have liked indicate that he did not want to win the game? I don't see how any rational person can make that claim.

 

[CTMike]

I'm a pretty rational guy, and I don't think his objective was to win. I think it was to keep it close, teach, and not get Chandler killed cause there's a lot more season to play. If they had a chance to win at the end, all the better.

I don't think his objective has been to win any of our games, really.

I think he's more focused on season long development and teaching, with a win or a loss just a byproduct.

The thing is - it IS a rational approach given the cards he's been dealt. Just one that is frustrating as a fan. Hopefully next year we try to win though, I do miss that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I still don't get how people can think this.

I view this (especially with how worried I was after the first series of how many turnovers we would have that game) as similar to a blackjack (for the sake of this argument, we can assume that there are no other players at the table) where you are holding 17 and the dealer is showing a nine. As the odds are very strong that he also has a face card and obviously, if he is holding 19 you won't win if you stand pat. Claiming that by standing at 17 you are not trying to win is quite a leap as while the odds may greatly favor the dealer having a better hand, you do not know this and with the risk involved in taking a hit at 17, you cannot know it will give you a better chance at winning unless you do know the outcome in advance. Claiming that it will give you a better chance is merely opinion and speculation.

Would I have liked to have seen a few more passes? Yes, but under the corcumastances not many more and solely low risk attempts. Does the fact that the head coach took a different approach than I would have liked indicate that he did not want to win the game? I don't see how any rational person can make that claim.

Exactly. People said he was afraid of a blow-out. Isn't every coach? It is really hard to win when you are down 35-0 isn't it? He was trying to keep it close, because if you aren't close it isn't possible to catch up and go ahead. It's pretty simple.

Can we criticize? Sure...I thought he should have brought the passing game back sooner than he did. He waited too long, and that hindered our ability to win. But I completely respect the desire to not let USF get further ahead in the first half.