Jim Calhoun and Bob Diaco Philosophy

[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.

 

[Waquoit]

This is what some folks aren't getting...

Well, I get it and I still say it's too soon to tell. Folks are making grand pronouncements of a very small sample size. If Friday was a horse race, it would be a toss-out.

 

[whaler11]

Well, I get it and I still say it's too soon to tell. Folks are making grand pronouncements of a very small sample size. If Friday was a horse race, it would be a toss-out.

I guess the disagreement is I'm not seeing any grand pronoucements other than the odd thread about firing the offensive coordinator.

 

[Waquoit]

I guess the disagreement is I'm not seeing any grand pronoucements other than the odd thread about firing the offensive coordinator.

FWIW, I had this in mind: "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."

"He needs" vice "he may need" after just 4 games? That's where I'm coming from.

 

[Waquoit]

I guess the disagreement is I'm not seeing any grand pronoucements other than the odd thread about firing the offensive coordinator.

FWIW, I had this in mind: "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."

"He needs" vice "he may need", after just 4 games? That's where I'm coming from.

 

[whaler11]

FWIW, I had this in mind: "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."

"He needs" vice "he may need" after just 4 games? That's where I'm coming from.

Well I said I think they need to think about it... but it's not really much of a grand pronoucement that he needs or may need help - it's not like support isn't pretty standard across professional undertakings.

 

[BlueMAB]

IMO, there's a huge difference between saying winning wasn't the priority in the first few games, and saying the coaches quit.

 

[Waquoit]

Well I said I think they need to think about it... but it's not really much of a grand pronoucement that he needs or may need help - it's not like support isn't pretty standard across professional undertakings.

Isn't the support/mentor role filled by Patterson? And you're saying this after losing on the road in a deluge by a field goal. What did you say when we were losing at home by 8 touchdowns to Middle Tennessee? That guy didn't have a former HC looking over his shoulder. Perhaps BD should have bought himself more time by running a bunch of kids off the team.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

And here we go......I'm out. Time for a break from the BY. See you guys next year.

 

[whaler11]

Isn't the support/mentor role filled by Patterson? And you're saying this after losing on the road in a deluge by a field goal. What did you say when we were losing at home by 8 touchdowns to Middle Tennessee? That guy didn't have a former HC looking over his shoulder. Perhaps BD should have bought himself more time by running a bunch of kids off the team.

You say you understand the points people are trying to make and then post stuff like this that reflects the opposite.

 

[Excalibur]

This is what some folks aren't getting:



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.

It's not the plan that's being criticized. It's the short term decisions/results.

 

[BlueMAB]

And here we go.I'm out. Time for a break from the BY. See you guys next year.

See you Sunday.

 

[Waquoit]

You say you understand the points people are trying to make and then post stuff like this that reflects the opposite.

I guess you are right. because you lost me with this one.

 

[Waquoit]

Bob Diaco = Jim Calhoun. Got it.

It was a Tony Robbins reference. "If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the results you want and copy what they do and you'll achieve the same results."

 

[FAIRTIDES]

It was a Tony Robbins reference. "If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the results you want and copy what they do and you'll achieve the same results."

Interesting. I once heard Bill Parcells talking about his approach to games that threatened to get away in the early stages. His first step was stopping the oscillator and the poop thrower. Reestablish equanimity by not doing stupid stuff that goes with trying to immediately catch-up. I specifically remember him saying that while things are being settled down, "A punt is never a bad thing." He was talking about a playoff game (Jets/Denver) when the Jets had had everything possible go wrong in the 1rst few minutes; ending up being down by multiple scores. The Jets ended up being one dropped pass from winning the damn game.

While he might be a hair conservative for me, RD did accomplish two things with his approach to USF. He reestablished equanimity and, in the end, the team had a chance to win.

 

[whaler11]

You say you understand the points people are trying to make and then post stuff like this that reflects the opposite.

I'm not reacting to losing to South Florida by a field goal.