Not that angry about today's loss

[ZooCougar]

It was such a stupid decision. We nothing at risk and everything to gain. It's like throwing deep on a 2nd and short. The team is missing the killer instinct because the coaches don't have it.

 

[Srqhusky]

You and Waylon and SRQ want to look the other way on what we have seen for 19 games knock yourselves out.

When you coach your team into a home loss against Temple up 14-0 in the first quarter there is nothing to defend - but
clearly that doesn't stop some.

Again - some of us knew immediately. Some knew after Vandy. Some after 2011 WMU. Louisville was the canary in the coal mine.

Some others finally came to grips with reality with the WMU, Buffalo and Temple games this season. It's hard to believe that anyone could possibly be blind to the situation now - but between a handful of posters here and Desmond
Conner some people need to be beat over the head with evidence. Can't wait to see who sees the light Friday night.

Where exactly am I looking the other way? Because I think there was more than one system failure? I'm not saying the coach Was immune from the loss. That would e looking the other way. For what its worth I share your criticism of the fourth and one

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Whaler's posts are an acquired taste. He was perhaps the biggest Edsall suckboy other than the twins and BL, but beyond that he knows what the heck he is talking about.

He was all over P early last season for his disorganization and bad clock management. It wasn't something we were accustomed to. Edsall was a pretty bad gameday coach but he wasn't so bad that he didn't know when to call a timeout, and we never EVER EVER looked so disorganized and directionless on the sideline as we do now. EVAR!

An Offensive Coordinator should not be a position coach too. Position coaches have more contact with the players than the Coordinators and the Asst. HCs. OCs and DCs coach the coaches and the players!

Good grief, I was reading the Syracuse Board this morning. And even they were remarking on how our line has gone downhill in the past couple of seasons.

I am a fan of whaler's posts. I see eye to eye with him more times than not. Yes, he's an @, but who isn't on this board?

 

[Srqhusky]

I am a fan of whaler's posts. I see eye to eye with him more times than not. Yes, he's an @, but who isn't on this board?

No balloon knots on this board. Not even observer

 

[UConnDan97]

Got side with Whaler on this one. At the time UConn punted on fourth and one, the "rout was on". UConn had all the momentum and was threatening to run the score to 21-0. I said it at the time. I said it at halftime. I certainly said it at the end of the game . . . . that was a terrible, chicken * call on P's part. This program needs momentum and excitement . . . and you have a retread,past prime, conservative coach single handedly stifling it's chance to get on a roll.

If I could have summoned the State Police to have PP arrested at that moment - in order to stop that cowardly decision from being his to make - I'd would have done it. I really do resent that man wrecking a program that I have - we all have - "worked so hard" to help it along becoming a real big time program in the world of other big time program. P??? He blows games to Western Michigan, Temple and almost Buffalo. Pathetic, fire him today.

That's ridiculous. Plainly and completely ridiculous. Up two touchdowns with a defense that would not let the other team breathe, and you want to risk giving the other team the ball on the forty-something yard line in the second quarter?? I've said it a million times; 98% of the coaches in the country make that same call, save perhaps Les Miles. And nobody talks about the fact that the punt should have been fielded inside the 10 but our player let it bounce and it went over his head for the touchback.

There are plenty of things to get on PP for. This ain't one of them...

 

[UConnDan97]

I'd prefer Ed Kastelic or Dave Semenko. You are wrong I'm an ******* - I'm self aware unlike so many here.

I was very tempted to list you as Dave Semenko, or even Tiger Williams, but I figured that there would be many on the board who would not remember those names. Man, I miss that team!!

It goes without saying that I don't agree with your punting assessment, but I guess to each his own. I don't believe you are an *******. I was thinking more of a mild *****.

 

[BlueMAB]

That's ridiculous. Plainly and completely ridiculous. Up two touchdowns with a defense that would not let the other team breathe, and you want to risk giving the other team the ball on the forty-something yard line in the second quarter?? I've said it a million times; 98% of the coaches in the country make that same call, save perhaps Les Miles. And nobody talks about the fact that the punt should have been fielded inside the 10 but our player let it bounce and it went over his head for the touchback.

There are plenty of things to get on PP for. This ain't one of them...

There'

With a defense that wouldn't let the other team breathe, where's the risk?

Going for it tells your offense you have the confidence they can pick it up, and your defense you have the confidence they will get a stop if the offense comes up short. It's playing to win the game. The fact that it went in for a touchback is an indictment of the decision because P had to know that was a likely outcome when you are punting from that position on the field.

 

[UConnDan97]

With a defense that wouldn't let the other team breathe, where's the risk?

Going for it tells your offense you have the confidence they can pick it up, and your defense you have the confidence they will get a stop if the offense comes up short. It's playing to win the game. The fact that it went in for a touchback is an indictment of the decision because P had to know that was a likely outcome when you are punting from that position on the field.

The risk is exactly what happened that day; when they actually DO complete the 30 yard pass, or when Montrell DOES make a 25-30 yard run, then they are in scoring position and it puts undue stress on the defense (as if they need more). That's why the vast majority of coaches would play it that way. Again, that punt was good enough to pin them inside their 10 yard line (I think he had a chance to catch it on the 7 yard line, if I'm not mistaken), but he let it bounce and we lost 13 yards.

That is still playing to win the game! Field position is a big part of winning the game, and any football guy will tell you that...

 

[mattp]

It was such a stupid decision. We nothing at risk and everything to gain. It's like throwing deep on a 2nd and short. The team is missing the killer instinct because the coaches don't have it.

So am I to take this to mean you're not happy putting the wildcat in at 2nd and short to make it 3rd and long? As for going for it on 4th, I think almost whenever you're in the opponents half of the field, with 4th and less than 5, you're probably better off going for the 1st. More often than not the punt gives you 20 yards of field position, and I'd rather go for it. Obviously there's exceptions, but the default option should be to go for it. Speaking of punts, is it just me, or are we awful at returning punts this year? It seems like every time we receive a punt Nick is surrounded by about 6 opponents before the kick gets to him.

 

[UConnDan97]

So am I to take this to mean you're not happy putting the wildcat in at 2nd and short to make it 3rd and long? As for going for it on 4th, I think almost whenever you're in the opponents half of the field, with 4th and less than 5, you're probably better off going for the 1st. Obviously there's exceptions, but the default option should be to go for it. Speaking of punts, is it just me, or are we awful at returning punts this year? It seems like every time we receive a punt Nick is surrounded by about 6 opponents before the kick gets to him.

Every time we are ready to receive a punt, it looks like our unit isn't chipping anyone on the line. It almost appears by design that the hordes of opposing players are making it to Nick before he gets the ball, and I just don't understand why, since we aren't going after the block either...

 

[jdb50]

For those who think the 4th and 2 call was a non factor what if we had run a fake punt there instead of lining up and showing our intention to "go for it"? To me there was very little risk to try either option at that point in the game and the payoff for success would have been through the roof. If our preseason goals were to win the conference , have a winning season, and get to a Bowl then all those goals were on the line against Temple. A killer instinct from the Head Coach is something that brings confidence to players. I don't see that with our team.

 

[ZooCougar]

So am I to take this to mean you're not happy putting the wildcat in at 2nd and short to make it 3rd and long? As for going for it on 4th, I think almost whenever you're in the opponents half of the field, with 4th and less than 5, you're probably better off going for the 1st. Obviously there's exceptions, but the default option should be to go for it. Speaking of punts, is it just me, or are we awful at returning punts this year? It seems like every time we receive a punt Nick is surrounded by about 6 opponents before the kick gets to him.

What it means is that 2nd and short is typically when coaches take shots downfield. Best case you complete the pass, most likely outcome is that is incomplete and you have 3rd and short.

With our defense and with a shaky kicker, we should be making use of all four downs more often.

Good observation on Nick Williams.

 

[Doggie Style]

You have to understand that every 3 days, Whaler wants to fight (perhaps I should refer to him as Torrie Robertson, famous Whaler goon). You just happened to be in on the same thread on Day 3. Congratulations?

He's a decent enough guy on most occasions, but when he gets into his moods like this, he'll do anything to start a fight, such as calculating that someone not punting on 4th and 2 up 14 points is worse than someone or some special teams unit missing four field goals. So.....punting.....misses out on more than 12 points....

(for the record, I'm rooting for Christen to have a career-great game against Cuse)

Torrie Robertson was a key part of one my favorite lines the Whalers ever had. It was Robertson @ Left Wing, Greg Malone at Center, and Bob Crawford at Right Wing. They didnt have the most talent, but that trio gave the most effort out of everyone else on the team, most of the time.

 

[UConnDan97]

For those who think the 4th and 2 call was a non factor what if we had run a fake punt there instead of lining up and showing our intention to "go for it"?

The point here is not that I would have been mad if he went for it on 4th and 2. I actually would not have faulted him (or others) for that. The point here is putting the blame on that moment (which most coaches would have done, again) as the reason why we lost a game where we were up 14 points is simply ridiculous. That's all...

 

[UConnDan97]

What it means is that 2nd and short is typically when coaches take shots downfield. Best case you complete the pass, most likely outcome is that is incomplete and you have 3rd and short.

100% agree. I don't want to ever see the wildcat again.....ever....

 

[mattp]

What it means is that 2nd and short is typically when coaches take shots downfield. Best case you complete the pass, most likely outcome is that is incomplete and you have 3rd and short.

I was being sarcastic. Most fans don't like going from 2nd and short to 3rd and long regardless of play call.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

So am I to take this to mean you're not happy putting the wildcat in at 2nd and short to make it 3rd and long? As for going for it on 4th, I think almost whenever you're in the opponents half of the field, with 4th and less than 5, you're probably better off going for the 1st. More often than not the punt gives you 20 yards of field position, and I'd rather go for it. Obviously there's exceptions, but the default option should be to go for it. Speaking of punts, is it just me, or are we awful at returning punts this year? It seems like every time we receive a punt Nick is surrounded by about 6 opponents before the kick gets to him.

Our return and coverage teams are terrible lately. Williams calls for way too many fair catches when he has room. Our coverage units have also struggled big time. This goes for both punt and kickoff coverage. I actually cringe every time we have to cover a kickoff. It's been a problem.

 

[whaler11]

That's ridiculous. Plainly and completely ridiculous. Up two touchdowns with a defense that would not let the other team breathe, and you want to risk giving the other team the ball on the forty-something yard line in the second quarter?? I've said it a million times; 98% of the coaches in the country make that same call, save perhaps Les Miles. And nobody talks about the fact that the punt should have been fielded inside the 10 but our player let it bounce and it went over his head for the touchback.

There are plenty of things to get on PP for. This ain't one of them...

God YES if the defense is playing that well what the hell do I care about 20 yards of field position.

If the defense is half as good as I read here - why would 20 or even 35 yards of field position matter.

They didn't learn a thing from Buffalo. That is scary.

 

[J187Money]

Finally finished rewatching the game all the way through this morning. My view (from Section 241):

- Great start, and great play calling on the first 3 drives - game planning was on point
- I like a team with guts, so I will reverse what I said before. In the flow of the game I think you go for it there. I wanted to at the time (and I was all pumped up and a little drunk), came off that position, but watching it again worth a shot. Up until that point the D was playing great.
- The D made a huge save stripping the ball at the end of the half. Otherwise it is 14-10 at half.
- Watching the 3rd quarter in rapid fire - all we did was pass. And all Whitmer did was either move the ball or get sacked. The coaches were NOT protecting a lead (ala Buffalo).
- D made great play after great play in the 4th quarter, even after being put in bad situations
- The play where Whitmer fumbled was atrocious. A THREE man rush got to the QB in about 2 seconds, while the C and two Gs stood around looking at each other. Might be the worst pass blocking I'd ever seen at any level on one play. I have no words for what that looked like, but the D bailed us out again. And before people start yelling about "zone blocking" and GDL and Foley, how about something called "effort"...they looked lost.
- The ball to Nick Williams was catchable. Not a perfect throw, but that is something you need to catch.
- We ran "ok" the entire game. Because we weren't running all the time, it was ok. Mix of decent gainers with getting stuffed. Not much to say there. Max earned himself more playing time and Joe should get some carries.
- The last possession - timeout needs to be called there. Whether that is 100% on the coaches or the defensive play caller on the field I'll let others decide, but they are often moving around and so it might not have been obvious to the coaches that the D wasn't where they wanted to be. If you watch how we operate, there are often late shifts and it looks like they are making the adjustments on the field and not from the sidelines. So I don't know if it is up to P to call a TO or up to the players. But a TO probably saves the game, even with all of the other miscues.

My overall assessment? Temple isn't a pushover, and we made too many mistakes. On the whole the D did their job (keeping them to 14 points). The O did their job in the 1Q and sporadically after that. Specials were a train wreck. The O Line needs to protect Whitmer. Ugly.

 

[BlueMAB]

The risk is exactly what happened that day; when they actually DO complete the 30 yard pass, or when Montrell DOES make a 25-30 yard run, then they are in scoring position and it puts undue stress on the defense (as if they need more). That's why the vast majority of coaches would play it that way. Again, that punt was good enough to pin them inside their 10 yard line (I think he had a chance to catch it on the 7 yard line, if I'm not mistaken), but he let it bounce and we lost 13 yards.

That is still playing to win the game! Field position is a big part of winning the game, and any football guy will tell you that...

Unless of course you pick up the first down and keep the drive moving. Then your defense isn't even on the field and they can rest up. At that point in the game, they weren't tired. IIRC Temple hadn't even gotten a first down, so they were very fresh and not under any stress to get a 3 and out up 14-0.

Punting guarantees your defense is on the field. Picking up 13 yards, 20 yards, 25 yards, it's just not that big of a deal to our defense which gets off the field far more often than they give up points. I'm not trying to get you to agree, but it's bullsh!t to say 98% of coaches punt in that situation. Because our offense struggles to maintain drives. So when we have the ball on their side of the field, with a very manageable 4th down distance, a defense that (IIRC) hadn't even given up a first down yet, and an offense that was having some success, many coaches would go for it in that situation. I'd guess at least half.

 

[jdb50]

UCFanDan you are right that blaming the loss on that one moment is wrong, I see that. One thing that has been consistent for two years is our guards having trouble finding who to block on pass pro or blocking anyone. Why they don't try a backup or shift things around I have no idea. Is Samra any quicker? Would Cruz get the job done? I know I'm not at practice. As far as punt returns our inside players aren't able to delay the blockers from releasing downfield. The snapper wasn't touched on the first 2 punts and was right in Williams face. Is this the strategy or are we not getting the job done? Maybe a Q for the press to ask.

 

[UConnDan97]

Unless of course you pick up the first down and keep the drive moving. Then your defense isn't even on the field and they can rest up. At that point in the game, they weren't tired. IIRC Temple hadn't even gotten a first down, so they were very fresh and not under any stress to get a 3 and out up 14-0.

Punting guarantees your defense is on the field. Picking up 13 yards, 20 yards, 25 yards, it's just not that big of a deal to our defense which gets off the field far more often than they give up points. I'm not trying to get you to agree, but it's bullsh!t to say 98% of coaches punt in that situation. Because our offense struggles to maintain drives. So when we have the ball on their side of the field, with a very manageable 4th down distance, a defense that (IIRC) hadn't even given up a first down yet, and an offense that was having some success, many coaches would go for it in that situation. I'd guess at least half.

If the defense was fresh and hadn't given up a first down to that point, then why wouldn't you expect them to force Temple into a 3-and-out on their own 7 yard line? Then, we get the ball back essentially around where we had just had it, but with FOUR downs to try to get the first down, and not one. If you fail to get the first down, you put them in great field position, and even if you 3-and-out them, you are going to get the ball back on your own 20 instead of their 45. It's all about putting your OFFENSE in the best position to succeed. God knows, they need it...

 

[huskymedic]

Finally finished rewatching the game all the way through this morning. My view (from Section 241):

- Great start, and great play calling on the first 3 drives - game planning was on point
- I like a team with guts, so I will reverse what I said before. In the flow of the game I think you go for it there. I wanted to at the time (and I was all pumped up and a little drunk), came off that position, but watching it again worth a shot. Up until that point the D was playing great.
- The D made a huge save stripping the ball at the end of the half. Otherwise it is 14-10 at half.
- Watching the 3rd quarter in rapid fire - all we did was pass. And all Whitmer did was either move the ball or get sacked. The coaches were NOT protecting a lead (ala Buffalo).
- D made great play after great play in the 4th quarter, even after being put in bad situations
- The play where Whitmer fumbled was atrocious. A THREE man rush got to the QB in about 2 seconds, while the C and two Gs stood around looking at each other. Might be the worst pass blocking I'd ever seen at any level on one play. I have no words for what that looked like, but the D bailed us out again. And before people start yelling about "zone blocking" and GDL and Foley, how about something called "effort"...they looked lost.
- The ball to Nick Williams was catchable. Not a perfect throw, but that is something you need to catch.
- We ran "ok" the entire game. Because we weren't running all the time, it was ok. Mix of decent gainers with getting stuffed. Not much to say there. Max earned himself more playing time and Joe should get some carries.
- The last possession - timeout needs to be called there. Whether that is 100% on the coaches or the defensive play caller on the field I'll let others decide, but they are often moving around and so it might not have been obvious to the coaches that the D wasn't where they wanted to be. If you watch how we operate, there are often late shifts and it looks like they are making the adjustments on the field and not from the sidelines. So I don't know if it is up to P to call a TO or up to the players. But a TO probably saves the game, even with all of the other miscues.

My overall assessment? Temple isn't a pushover, and we made too many mistakes. On the whole the D did their job (keeping them to 14 points). The O did their job in the 1Q and sporadically after that. Specials were a train wreck. The O Line needs to protect Whitmer. Ugly.

I feel better (i know nobody cares)...

 

[BlueMAB]

If the defense was fresh and hadn't given up a first down to that point, then why wouldn't you expect them to force Temple into a 3-and-out on their own 7 yard line? Then, we get the ball back essentially around where we had just had it, but with FOUR downs to try to get the first down, and not one. If you fail to get the first down, you put them in great field position, and even if you 3-and-out them, you are going to get the ball back on your own 20 instead of their 45. It's all about putting your OFFENSE in the best position to succeed. God knows, they need it...

You're making assumptions and rewriting history.
1) You've given them the ball at the 7. They got the ball at the 20. You can't rewrite history. They didn't get it at the 7, you can't "expect" them to get the ball at the 7, because you are just as likely to get a touchback punting from that close to the endzone. And that's what happened.

2) The prior drive we made it to the 50 and punted. They got it at the 15, went three and out, were sacked on 3rd down, punted from their own 7 yard line. We got it back at our own 38. You can't "expect" us to get the ball back in the same spot, when the fact is they punted from the 7 in the prior drive, and we got it back at our 38, not their 43, like you claim we would have.

3) They marched down the field and scored a TD starting at the 20. So they likely would have if the 4th down attempt failed and they had the ball 23 yards closer to the endzone. The risk of giving them the ball back with field position didn't matter because they scored from further away anyway. Conversely, had we gotten the first down, we keep the ball moving with the chance to go up 3 scores. You "expect" a 3 and out, when in reality they drove down the field and scored a TD.

I went back and checked. We had given up 1 first down up to that point. We punt from the 50, 3 and out. Get it at our 38, go to their 43, punt, touchback, they go right down the field and score a touchdown. We go three and out, they come down and if not for a great play by Smallwood, would have had a field goal, down 14-10 with all the momentum.

It was a chicken call that led to a shift in the momentum. Temple was playing with confidence the rest of the game.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=322870041&period=2

 

[UConnDan97]

You're making assumptions and rewriting history.
1) You've given them the ball at the 7. They got the ball at the 20. You can't rewrite history. They didn't get it at the 7, you can't "expect" them to get the ball at the 7, because you are just as likely to get a touchback punting from that close to the endzone. And that's what happened. Just as you are giving UConn a first down from 4th and 2, even though we all know a run was coming up the middle, and I'll let you figure that out...

2) The prior drive we made it to the 50 and punted. They got it at the 15, went three and out, were sacked on 3rd down, punted from their own 7 yard line. We got it back at our own 38. You can't "expect" us to get teh ball back in the same spot, when the fact is they punted from the 7 in the prior drive, and we got it back at our 38, not their 43, like you claim we would have. When a team is punting from their own endzone (without the same run up for the punter), teams normally expect the ball around midfield.

3) They marched down the field and scored a TD starting at the 20. So they likely would have if the 4th down attempt failed and they had the ball 23 yards closer to the endzone. The risk of giving them the ball back with field position didn't matter because they scored from further away anyway. Conversely, had we gotten the first down, we keep the ball moving with the chance to go up 3 scores. You "expect" a 3 and out, when in reality they drove down the field and scored a TD. Playcalling from a team on their own 7 is VASTLY different from playcalling from the 20, and we all know it. You cannot assume that they score the TD if the ball is properly fielded at the 7 yard line. It was a simple catch, but he let it bounce...PP's fault, I assume...

I went back and checked. We had given up 1 first down up to that point. We punt from the 50, 3 and out. Get it at our 38, go to their 43, punt, touchback, they go right down the field and score a touchdown. We go three and out, they come down and if not for a great play by Smallwood, would have had a field goal, down 14-10 with all the momentum.

It was a chicken call that led to a shift in the momentum. Temple was playing with confidence the rest of the game.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=322870041&period=2