Not sure what this title should be but I think: Back Off

[whaler11]

Well, OK Whaler. I respect that. I'm not a fan of 2QB's either but too many folks love to beetcb about various aspects when we lose but never say boo about them if we win. Winning becomes a convenient antiseptic. At least you get high marks for consistency.

I have made this as clear as I possibly can. They got beat by a better team. In no way is that Diaco's fault. 35-10, 42-7, 38-23 - the score did not matter.

 

[Carl Spackler]

All of this is nonsense, really. I mean, you brought up the analogy of Alabama, yet you failed to mention that Blake Sims made all of the throws against West Virginia. I repeat; ALL OF THE THROWS! How on earth is your analogy even close to a system that replaces a QB once a team enters the red zone? It's a mistake. If you polled 100 coaches, I'm betting that over 95 of them would say that it's a mistake.

I'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore. We all know where we stand respectively. But nobody on this board or anywhere else is going to convince me that it is good for the team's present OR future to do this back-and-forth series nonsense with the two QB's. I believe in both of them. I'm hoping he sticks with one of them...

This is what I consider a coaching staff trying too much to control what happens on the field. The QB position in football, is simply unique in team sports. That is not a position that you rotate in and out depending on your plan. You don't rotate a company commander out of the middle of a battle. You don't rotate the officer on deck in the middle of a battle the same way you would on a watch at anchor in safe harbor. You don't rotate you QB'S in the middle of a game. Sometimes football coaches are just not so smart.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I remember reading an article (from a long interview with) Jim Calhoun shortly after the Dream Season in which he stated (I'll paraphrase) that when hired, Toner told him that year one should be devoted solely to 'stopping the bleeding, after that he could worry about wins and losses'. JC stated in that article (again I'll paraphrase) something along the lines of 'Normally winning every game we play is most important to me but if I took that approach that year things never could have gotten better'.

Could we have beaten BYU this past Friday? I doubt it. It would have been far different if we didn't turn the ball over on our first two possessions but I believe the answer was clear when after scoring to make it 21-10 with a little more than two minutes left in the first half, where a stop would have given us the second half kickoff and an opportunity to make it a one possession game, BYU carving us up in a little more than a minute put that thought to rest.

Basically, by not playing only our starters, we (at least in the eyes of some fans) sacrificed the opportunity to win Friday. I won't debate that at the moment but do fully believe that it is a debate that would make those who believe coaching did cost us the game look foolish. I will instead address what was lost by not beating BYU on Friday. Given our current station in college football, our only shot at making the final four (and this would have been a stretch even if we did pull it off) would have been to go undefeated throughout the regular season. Therefore, we lost the national title on Friday, no more, no less.

That said, I will happily debate whoever claims that the lack of a national title this year in football would be due to coaching. If someone is in the camp that believes we actually need to turn this ship around before we can compete for a title, there is no need to debate as I am in the same camp.

 

[whaler11]

I remember reading an article (from a long interview with) Jim Calhoun shortly after the Dream Season in which he stated (I'll paraphrase) that when hired, Toner told him that year one should be devoted solely to 'stopping the bleeding, after that he could worry about wins and losses'. JC stated in that article (again I'll paraphrase) something along the lines of 'Normally winning every game we play is most important to me but if I took that approach that year things never could have gotten better'.

Could we have beaten BYU this past Friday? I doubt it. It would have been far different if we didn't turn the ball over on our first two possessions but I believe the answer was clear when after scoring to make it 21-10 with a little more than two minutes left in the first half, where a stop would have given us the second half kickoff and an opportunity to make it a one possession game, BYU carving us up in a little more than a minute put that thought to rest.

Basically, by not playing only our starters, we (at least in the eyes of some fans) sacrificed the opportunity to win Friday. I won't debate that at the moment but do fully believe that it is a debate that would make those who believe coaching did cost us the game look foolish. I will instead address what was lost by not beating BYU on Friday. Given our current station in college football, our only shot at making the final four (and this would have been a stretch even if we did pull it off) would have been to go undefeated throughout the regular season. Therefore, we lost the national title on Friday, no more, no less.

That said, I will happily debate whoever claims that the lack of a national title this year in football would be due to coaching. If someone is in the camp that believes we actually need to turn this ship around before we can compete for a title, there is no need to debate as I am in the same camp.

FCF if you find one person who thinks coaching cost UConn the game on Friday night I will donate $500 to the athletic department.

It literally took one BYU drive to understand who was going to win the game. Parcells giving Ditka a piggy back ride could not have coached UConn to a win.

I do not see a single person who expects Diaco to turn water into wine. I am confused by posts where people make some leap that pointing out bad decisions means that they altered the results.

If someone wants to make the point who cares about decisions if they don't impact the result? Totally on board if I can expect good decisions going forward.

 

[Jimdish255]

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

Sounds interesting, but your heart really wasn't in it. I want to cut the new Coach some slack too, and I will in a number of areas. Just not in this one. I hope he changes course so Casey can get the snaps and the game experience he needs for us to be successful.

 

[metsfan2323]

FCF if you find one person who thinks coaching cost UConn the game on Friday night I will donate $500 to the athletic department.

I think coaching cost us the game.

 

[jdb50]

Deferring the opening kick to a Heisman candidate was lunacy and putting accepted strategy before reality but they won because they were way better.

 

[whaler11]

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

Speculation based on what we've heard about Diaco and Whitmer does not end well.

 

[itgoeslike]

I think coaching cost us the game.

On behalf of the Athletic Department, we thank you for your recent joint donation. . .

 

[mauconnfan]

25 point loss looks better than 28? Name the last coach that you liked at Uconn that played to make a loss look better?

I am concerned that Diaco had this down as a loss so WTF did it matter to run a fake and then get the kicker work when going for it sent a better message to the team and fans since a loss is a loss and I knew it was a loss before the game started.

Diaco a looked liked the rookie he is last night. Hope the learning curve is short and steep.

Watch the game again and focus on the play calling and strategy. Watch the substitutions on offense. And then tell me if I should shut up.

Ok, STFU……..you're an idiot. As I said before Kevin Ollie looked like a rookie for 8-10 games his 1st year if you know anything about basketball….even times after that. You know why, they ARE rookies and you're a damn internet coach…..I like Diaco's chances of being successful rather than the likes of you!

One game and the ignorance is rampant!

 

[noeynox]

Coaching did not cost us the game, but come on. Putting in Whitmer to replace Casey on the first drive of the second half, in the redzone was down right P and GDL like with McCummings.

Sometimes this is what makes the boneyard tough to read. There were decisions in that game that the board would have skewered P for. I'm all in with Diaco, think he can get the job done here big time. The team looked night and day better conditioned than they did opening night a year ago.

My only frustration really comes down to the use of Whitmer. I'm sure he is a great kid, but he still has the same tendency to keep dropping back further in the pocket at the first sign of pressure. That in turn makes the oline look worse as the ends usually disengage from their blockers completely and all hell breaks loose in the pocket.

Going back to the press conference the rotating qb nonsense felt like Coach was trying not to hurt feelings. I would prefer he chose one guy and only replaced him due to ineffectiveness but like said I'm all in. Just hard not to question the sanity of the rotating qbs when neither is a dual threat.

 

[businesslawyer]

Coaching did not cost us the game, but come on. Putting in Whitmer to replace Casey on the first drive of the second half, in the redzone was down right P and GDL like with McCummings.

Sometimes this is what makes the boneyard tough to read. There were decisions in that game that the board would have skewered P for. I'm all in with Diaco, think he can get the job done here big time. The team looked night and day better conditioned than they did opening night a year ago.

My only frustration really comes down to the use of Whitmer. I'm sure he is a great kid, but he still has the same tendency to keep dropping back further in the pocket at the first sign of pressure. That in turn makes the oline look worse as the ends usually disengage from their blockers completely and all hell breaks loose in the pocket.

Going back to the press conference the rotating qb nonsense felt like Coach was trying not to hurt feelings. I would prefer he chose one guy and only replaced him due to ineffectiveness but like said I'm all in. Just hard not to question the sanity of the rotating qbs when neither is a dual threat.

When Cody came in during the drive, the similarity to P and Mccummings was discussed in my section. If nothing else, it would have been nice if the new staff recognized how that was going to be perceived by those who sat through the last three years.

I am fine with anyone who thinks a coach needs to coach every game as if winning that game is the most important thing in the world. But, in truth, it's not. I think HCBD was coaching that game to build a team. So I think one has to give it time before one gets too upset over the incredible number of kids who played.

I wasn't following the team then, but I know many who were who thought Edsall could have one a few more games the first year or two if he was focused just on immediate wins, rather than building a team for when it would enter the Big East. But he did the latter, and we were ready upon arrival. Did Diaco do dumb stuff? Yes. But I think FCF is right. You can't judge him by how a decision looks if your only goal is winning that game if you accept that HE HAS OTHER GOALS BESIDES HOW MANY GAMES HE WINS IMMEDIATELY.

 

[freescooter]

If you aren't going to coach to try and win, then we really ought not bother. Take the team to the beach. Set up the volley ball nets and the grills. I understand playing the long game. I really do and I've seen lots of coaches do exactly that when the come into a program that is in trouble. But put you top 22 guys out there, or put your top prospects out there, or put a combination out there. But what ever you do, don't go into the game with no intention of winning it. You've got an explosive receiver. Take a shot down the field with 20 seconds left. You might need that as well as field goal practice in some close game this season. You can build for the future and still try to win. We didn't and I found it both disgusting and disheartening. Why and how can you root for a team that takes that approach? It wasn't a game we were likely to win. I've said that a million times. But the way we approached it was that we didn't really care. Our coaches were more concerned with not having somebody's mom yell at them in the parking lot because Jr didn't play.

 

[ATLDYKA]

C'mon freescooter, why do you think he played so many players. He's trying to figure out who our best 22 guys are. I don't care what guys do during practice. What they do during a game is a whole different story and what better way to get a sense of that but a game versus a top 25 caliber team. I don't think you get that from doing it during a 1-AA game this weekend. He's evaluating and giving everyone a chance and I think it will benefit the team in the long run. He is coaching to win, he's just realistic that it's not going to happen immediately. I saw nothing from Friday night that showed me he didn't try to win the game.

 

[Husky25]

This is depressing for those railing against the two QB system.

FWIW: I don't like it either and I'm in the pro-Cochran camp, but Coach Diaco has forgotten more about football than the collective Boneyard knows. It was game 1 with a new team vs. a very good football program/team. Coach Diaco deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point. I would rather come out of the game last night with a bunch of correctable mistakes than beat UMass by 37 knowing the team is not a good as the score.

Retweeted by UConn Football
Jeff Jacobs‏@jacobscourant 2m
Diaco: Thought two-QB system went well. 47 plays for Cochran, 36 for Whitmer.

 

[Husky25]

Jim Fuller‏@NHRJimFuller 37s
#UConn's Bob Diaco said substitution pattern including the one with the quarterbacks will change each week

Hopefully Cochran will get more of the split going forward.

Coach Diaco's positive attitude is infectious, but I'm not enthused about his inward looking comments. I have to assume the Staff is putting together a game plan for the opponents. As long as UConn is not in a 5CSMA conference, they are the cupcakes. They need to beat OOC opponents.

 

[Carl Spackler]

When Cody came in during the drive, the similarity to P and Mccummings was discussed in my section. If nothing else, it would have been nice if the new staff recognized how that was going to be perceived by those who sat through the last three years.

I am fine with anyone who thinks a coach needs to coach every game as if winning that game is the most important thing in the world. But, in truth, it's not. I think HCBD was coaching that game to build a team. So I think one has to give it time before one gets too upset over the incredible number of kids who played.

I wasn't following the team then, but I know many who were who thought Edsall could have one a few more games the first year or two if he was focused just on immediate wins, rather than building a team for when it would enter the Big East. But he did the latter, and we were ready upon arrival. Did Diaco do dumb stuff? Yes. But I think FCF is right. You can't judge him by how a decision looks if your only goal is winning that game if you accept that HE HAS OTHER GOALS BESIDES HOW MANY GAMES HE WINS IMMEDIATELY.

It is possible to do both at the same time in football, btw. Coach to develop a team and coach to win. There are plenty of decisions made during the game. The only decision that I have a problem with was the late field goal. Kicking the field goal in that situation does nothing to help the team get closer to a win, or even a tie. It's a bad decision in the overall strategy of the game, which is to win. It's a losing decision. The explanation was even worse. Kicking a field goal and watching it go through uprights, and having success doing that, when you're down 21 points and 11 minutes to go, does very little to help a player develop the ice water in the veins they need to nail a kick, with no time on the clock and the season on the line. If that was the goal, they should have run the fake kick late, and had him kick it early. Just poor decision making and explanation from a first time head coach.

Other than that single move in that game, everything that is being done to develop the program, is also consistent with doing your best to actually win games. I don't like the 2 QB system, and I don't like the rotations all over the field, and I think it' makes it really hard to develop the cohesiveness to win, that a football team of 11 guys on the field needs, but I can understand the "process".

At some point the "process" organization and team, needs to become a "winning" organization and team, and I am impatient.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I just don't understand what Diaco's angle is at QB. If he is using the two-QB system with an eye on the long-term, then why are those two QB's Cochran and Chandler rather than Cochran and Boyle? If he thinks Whitmer can be the answer this year, then he is trying to win this year, in which case this 50-man rotation makes no sense either.

 

[Excalibur]

I have no problem with the criticism. I'm just surprised and annoyed by the level of snark (already at P year 3 levels). I just wonder what some people expected with a guy who has never been a head coach. Lots of them do really strange things when they start, before they realize that there is a reason why nobody else does it that way.

I would have preferred that we not have someone that needs to learn on the job, but we're here now. I was satisfied with the effort and organization (which was way ahead of where it was under P, even in the second and third years). I have to hope that the odd decisions and desire to re-invent the wheel will iron themselves out over time.

 

[businesslawyer]

I have no problem with the criticism. I'm just surprised and annoyed by the level of snark (already at P year 3 levels). I just wonder what some people expected with a guy who has never been a head coach. Lots of them do really strange things when they start, before they realize that there is a reason why nobody else does it that wa

I would ave preferred that we not have someone that needs to learn on the job, but we're here now. I was satisfied with the effort and organization (which was way ahead of where it was under P, even in the second and third years). I have to hope that the odd decisions and desire to re-invent the wheel will iron themselves out over time.

Well said

 

[freescooter]

C'mon freescooter, why do you think he played so many players. He's trying to figure out who our best 22 guys are. I don't care what guys do during practice. What they do during a game is a whole different story and what better way to get a sense of that but a game versus a top 25 caliber team. I don't think you get that from doing it during a 1-AA game this weekend. He's evaluating and giving everyone a chance and I think it will benefit the team in the long run. He is coaching to win, he's just realistic that it's not going to happen immediately. I saw nothing from Friday night that showed me he didn't try to win the game.

Sitting on the football with a minute to play in the first half? Kicking a field goal with 11 minutes to go in the game down 28-7? Changing quarterbacks in the first drive of the 2nd half? Again, I'm not saying we would have or should have won the game. But Diaco's approach was not to even make much effort at it. Giving running backs a couple of carries each? If that's how you are going to approach it, send your team out in practice gear and let everyone in for $10. The best description of his approach I read was in the Tale of the Tape. He approached this game, against the biggest name opponent on his schedule mind you, as if it were the Spring Blue-White game. If he doesn't care whether he wins or loses, why should the fans show up? To try and keep track of who is playing where?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I remember reading an article (from a long interview with) Jim Calhoun shortly after the Dream Season in which he stated (I'll paraphrase) that when hired, Toner told him that year one should be devoted solely to 'stopping the bleeding, after that he could worry about wins and losses'. JC stated in that article (again I'll paraphrase) something along the lines of 'Normally winning every game we play is most important to me but if I took that approach that year things never could have gotten better'.

Could we have beaten BYU this past Friday? I doubt it. It would have been far different if we didn't turn the ball over on our first two possessions but I believe the answer was clear when after scoring to make it 21-10 with a little more than two minutes left in the first half, where a stop would have given us the second half kickoff and an opportunity to make it a one possession game, BYU carving us up in a little more than a minute put that thought to rest.

Basically, by not playing only our starters, we (at least in the eyes of some fans) sacrificed the opportunity to win Friday. I won't debate that at the moment but do fully believe that it is a debate that would make those who believe coaching did cost us the game look foolish. I will instead address what was lost by not beating BYU on Friday. Given our current station in college football, our only shot at making the final four (and this would have been a stretch even if we did pull it off) would have been to go undefeated throughout the regular season. Therefore, we lost the national title on Friday, no more, no less.

That said, I will happily debate whoever claims that the lack of a national title this year in football would be due to coaching. If someone is in the camp that believes we actually need to turn this ship around before we can compete for a title, there is no need to debate as I am in the same camp.

Nobody is going to argue that the 2014 UCONN Huskies were national championship contenders prior to the season starting - well except the few people around here that has us at 13-0, and by bringing that up, you are changing the perspective and focus on what happened here. We weren't playing for a national title, we were playing our home opener vs. BYU. I would argue that playing our home opener, vs. BYU, should have been coached, and played no differently, than if we had been playing in a national title game, and should be coached no differently than a week 2 matchup with a 1-AA team. The great thing about Jim Calhoun, and similar coaches, is that they coach exhibitions vs. nobody, with the same intent, emotion and focus on winning, that they coach against the most storied programs in the country in national championship games.

Diaco has a plan, and it can work, we don't all have to agree with it, it's results that matter, and right now - we're 0-1, and everybody is learning how to win, and sooner that later, you actually have to win for it to work.

 

[Husky25]

Sitting on the football with a minute to play in the first half? Kicking a field goal with 11 minutes to go in the game down 28-7? Changing quarterbacks in the first drive of the 2nd half? Again, I'm not saying we would have or should have won the game. But Diaco's approach was not to even make much effort at it. Giving running backs a couple of carries each? If that's how you are going to approach it, send your team out in practice gear and let everyone in for $10. The best description of his approach I read was in the Tale of the Tape. He approached this game, against the biggest name opponent on his schedule mind you, as if it were the Spring Blue-White game. If he doesn't care whether he wins or loses, why should the fans show up? To try and keep track of who is playing where?

I have no problem with taking the points there. it was 4th & 12 and I had as much confidence in Whitmer picking up 12 yards as I would Feagles picking up 16....what he didn't? That's my point. Huge problem with the fake field goal. No problem with the attempt late in the game. Better to be down 18 than 21 and giving up the ball on downs.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I have no problem with taking the points there. it was 4th & 12 and I had as much confidence in Whitmer picking up 12 yards as I would Feagles picking up 16....what he didn't? That's my point. Huge problem with the fake field goal. No problem with the attempt late in the game. Better to be down 18 than 21 and giving up the ball on downs.

You are forgetting about the stage of the game, and the time on the clock. I disagree with you. Early in a game, first half, even third quarter, I would agree, take the points and move on. You've got plenty of offensive possessions left, early in a game. When you get later in a game, in the fourth quarter, you need to make decisions based on numbers of offensive possessions you have left - if you are down on the scoreboard. Going for three points there, did nothing to change the fact that we needed three more possessions to bare minimum TIE the game - with 11 minutes left in the game. I actually think that by kicking the field goal there, you make it more difficult to actually win the game, strictly speaking, in that given all the variables around a kickoff return, the percentages, and potential results of failure to convert the 4th, starting field position on a turnover on downs, and even a deep interception - which is likely covered, and not returned beyond the LOS , given the way our D had been playing in the second half up to that point, were better options, than taking the 3 points, and the message is clear, to fans, and players, and coaches and media all alike - I care what the scoreboard says, not now - but at the end of the game, and WE HERE TO WIN, and we're going to play like it til the final whistle blows. Bad decision, and IMO, the only real bad decision he made in the game that wasn't consistent with doing whatever you can to win.

 

[Husky25]

You are forgetting about the stage of the game, and the time on the clock. I disagree with you. Early in a game, first half, even third quarter, I would agree, take the points and move on. You've got plenty of offensive possessions left, early in a game. When you get later in a game, in the fourth quarter, you need to make decisions based on numbers of offensive possessions you have left - if you are down on the scoreboard. Going for three points there, did nothing to change the fact that we needed three more possessions to bare minimum TIE the game - with 11 minutes left in the game. I actually think that by kicking the field goal there, you make it more difficult to actually win the game, strictly speaking, in that given all the variables around a kickoff return, the percentages, and potential results of failure to convert the 4th, starting field position on a turnover on downs, and even a deep interception - which is likely covered, and not returned beyond the LOS , given the way our D had been playing in the second half up to that point, were better options, than taking the 3 points, and the message is clear, to fans, and players, and coaches and media all alike - I care what the scoreboard says, not now - but at the end of the game, and WE HERE TO WIN, and we're going to play like it til the final whistle blows. Bad decision, and IMO, the only real bad decision he made in the game that wasn't consistent with doing whatever you can to win.

Had it been 4th and 2, 3, 4, 5, or even 6, I'd agree. Not 4th and 12. Giving BYU the ball on downs without points would have been far worse. If that was a bad decision, I've seen worse (Insert Former Regime tendency here), including expecting a back-up punter to gain 16 yards on the ground.

 

[Husky25]

I have no problem with the criticism. I'm just surprised and annoyed by the level of snark (already at P year 3 levels). I just wonder what some people expected with a guy who has never been a head coach. Lots of them do really strange things when they start, before they realize that there is a reason why nobody else does it that way.

I would have preferred that we not have someone that needs to learn on the job, but we're here now. I was satisfied with the effort and organization (which was way ahead of where it was under P, even in the second and third years). I have to hope that the odd decisions and desire to re-invent the wheel will iron themselves out over time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to the Diaco hiring, most (if not all) people's golden boy was Pat Narduzzi, who has just as much head coaching experience as Coach Diaco.

 

[Carl Spackler]

deleted - never mind.

 

[noeynox]

@businesslawyer , I guess I just don't see the goal in playing Whitmer, if you're playing for the future, when his skill set is so similar to Cochran's. Whitmer is a senior who has gotten a real chance in his first two years here. If he outplayed Cochran in camp play him. If he didn't play Casey. To my eyes they are trying utilize Whitmer as a dual threat, who could beat you with his legs. I don't think he is remotely fast enough for that game. The last staff thought so much of Whitmer's ability to run they would replace him with Mcummings, but then again the last staff sucked.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The team is MUCH better than it was last year at the same point. There were plenty of improvements, but we all have PTSD so things look way worse than they are.

That said, there were some very unsettling things done by our new young head coach.

• The QB swapping was an utter disaster, and removing CC at the end of an early 3Q key drive in the red zone was a MONUMENTAL error that killed any chance we had of gaining momentum and allowing us to compete for the game. It was the height of insanity.
• Next, the whole key to the BYU offense was the QB. It seems incredible that they did not have a Defensive scheme designed for containment of a highly mobile dual threat QB.
• There was no spy on their QB. There was no inside blitz pressure. The backs were not playing up and jamming, thus not giving the d-line more time to penetrate and disrupt route timing. Inside out with edge contain is the only strategy that will work with QBs like that. I don't get it.
• I did not mind the fake field goal, but the play design was terrible for the distance. A naked run for 15+ yards was stupid. If it was a pass play then pass the ball and throw it up on 4th. Not well coached or prepared.
• Egregious decision not to take the ball on kick-off. NEVER give a Heisman candidate QB the chance to strike first and steal momentum out of the box and put you in a hole. D-lo's fumble is a direct result of coming under immediate pressure to perform.

I really like HCBD, but I think he mght be eating too much of his own BS with the whole "we are playing our game, and trying to get better" mantra. BYU was not a scrimmage. It was game to try and win.

You hit on something here, that I've purposely left out of my rants, but I would love to know what the defensive game plan for BYU was. It did not seem that we had anyone who's entire responsibility was to key the QB - I agree with you there, that is foolish, if it did happen, and is not designing a game plan that has potential to win. It seemed to me that BYU took the pedal off a bit, when they got way up. The moment we had gained some momentum to make it 21-7, they came back and scored immediately and carved us up again. They did the same thing after we scored the field goal late. Not sure what happened there, not enough film to go by, but we didn't look good early on defense, and we didn't look good later on D, on both possessions immediately following a score, after we had gotten down 3 TDs.

I do agree, that the team in itself mentally, was light years ahead of where we were last 3 seasons, and that is fantastic, but reality is that it gets harder and harder to maintain that, when you're not actually winning.

I hope that the game plan for Stony Brook, has without a doubt, been designed to win, and that we win by 4 TD's.

 

[businesslawyer]

@businesslawyer , I guess I just don't see the goal in playing Whitmer, if you're playing for the future, when his skill set is so similar to Cochran's. Whitmer is a senior who has gotten a real chance in his first two years here. If he outplayed Cochran in camp play him. If he didn't play Casey. To my eyes they are trying utilize Whitmer as a dual threat, who could beat you with his legs. I don't think he is remotely fast enough for that game. The last staff thought so much of Whitmer's ability to run they would replace him with Mcummings, but then again the last staff sucked.

I'm not defending playing Whitmer. I think it's nuts given what both of them showed last year (and nothing I saw Friday night changed my conclusion). But if he went into camp thinking he needed to tell his players that "if you show any chance of being good enough to start, you will get a shot the first few games" I'm not going to bash HCBD for thinking that had to run to the QB too.

Changing QBs in the middle of the drive was batsh** crazy and I never want to see that again. But it was his first game as a head coach and it is what it is.