On 3rd and long situations, and establishing an indentity.....

[Carl Spackler]

The really strange thing is when you are winning, you don't actually have to score anymore to win the game.

That's the most pathetic thing I think I've read here.

I wonder if anyone really even realizes why that 3rd down was so important. I suppose, failing to realize it, is a HUGE reason as to why so many people have become conditioned that making such a call is actually detrimental to winning a game, rather than actually winning it. It's a bit frustrating actually.

Oh well.

Let's take a look, maybe this will help some understand why your football worlds are upside down and you might think that with 8 minutes to go in a game, and a touchdown lead, that playing prevent punt/field position/defense football is te way to go, even if your offense is stinking up the joint all game long.

Me - I'd rather just play offense, and build guys that can play offense, if you don't already have them, and go get more guys to play offense.

SO anyway :

http://www.cfbstats.com/2010/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category25/sort01.html

3rd down conversion rate:

2010 114 out 120 schools.
2009 55th out of 120 - this was a great year.
2008 100th out of 120
2007 99th out of 120 schools...

and it goes on and on.......

I say again, I'd rather build an offense on top of our special teams and defense.

I really miss talking football and getting good conversation.

oh well.

Game tonight!!

 

[businesslawyer]

Both of those events were entirely predictable given what had happened in the game to that point -- that is why the play call was a bad idea.

No they weren't predictable. Because Troy Aikmen is able to complete long passes to Michael Irvin. LMFAO.

 

[whaler11]

Hey, you win. There is no way that running the ball not getting the first down and punting to Vandy gave them a better chance of winning then throwing a Pick 6.

This conversation is beyond stupid for even the internet.

At this point I half expect a 15 page diatribe on why 2+2 only equaled 4 in the past because Edsall didn't have the correct synergies to make it 5.

That's the most pathetic thing I think I've read here.

I wonder if anyone really even realizes why that 3rd down was so important. I suppose, failing to realize it, is a HUGE reason as to why so many people have become conditioned that making such a call is actually detrimental to winning a game, rather than actually winning it. It's a bit frustrating actually.

 

[Carl Spackler]

i think there is a serious disconnect or lack of football knowledge going on here.

you do realize you don't have to get the first down in order for a play to be successful right?

do you have a knock a guy out on every punch you throw too?

What? Really? Last time I checked, success on third down is most commonly defined as converting to a first down.

And yes, absolutely, the goal is to knock down the other guy down if your boxing, and no, not every punch is thrown with the intent of knocking the opponent out.

But let me see - the analogy is that we should have thrown a 3 yard jab, and set Vanderbilt up for the knockout punt?

 

[businesslawyer]

What? Really? Last time I checked, success on third down is most commonly defined as converting to a first down.

And yes, absolutely, the goal is to knock down the other guy down if your boxing, and no, not every punch is thrown with the intent of knocking the opponent out.

But let me see - the analogy is that we should have thrown a 3 yard jab, and set Vanderbilt up for the knockout punt?

If you want a boxing analogy, it would be the following. If you are in the late rounds and are comfortable that you are going to win the fight on points, and the only way you are going to lose is to get knocked out, you don't have to keep going to knock the other guy out and open yourself up for the lucky punch that costs you the bout.

That would be the boxing analogy.

 

[whaler11]

No, the analogy would be...

It's the 12th round and you've got a big lead on the cards. You can try for the knockout and risk getting knocked out, or you can dance until the bell and take your victory.

 

[whaler11]

If you want a boxing analogy, it would be the following. If you are in the late rounds and are comfortable that you are going to win the fight on points, and the only way you are going to lose is to get knocked out, you don't have to keep going to knock the other guy out and open yourself up for the lucky punch that costs you the bout.

That would be the boxing analogy.

Damn you beat me by a few seconds.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Both of those events were entirely predictable given what had happened in the game to that point -- that is why the play call was a bad idea.

Thanks. You've been thoughful. I disagree. I know - shocking. I disagree because that was the first time in that game that the whole 3 second thing that took umpteen paragraphs to describe, that situation presented itself. I'll leave it at that. If you want to find a different play in the game and show me I'm wrong, please do. Let's do it elsewhere somehow.

I'm tired of discussing football with people that don't get it. I came on this internet about a year ago now, because our team was a freaking disaster and it killed me and I felt like maybe giving an emotional voice out there in the wind was just one little way I could help.

The players on the 2010 squad that finished the season, will go down in history as some of the best and mentally toughest, because they reached a game very close to the pinnacle of college football, and they did it all their own, with their own will, and the stars aligned to make it possible.

We're on the right track now as an entire program.

 

[gioff23]

Thankfully, when someone here says "I'm done, I've said my peace" you can know they won't follow that up w/50 posts saying the exact same thing.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

The really strange thing is when you are winning, you don't actually have to score anymore to win the game.[/quote

So then what you are saying is that UConn actually beat North Carolina in '09 by the comfortable margin of 10-0. That's good to know because the offense was pretty inept that day. Maybe it was because they bought into the idea that "when you are winning, you don't actually have to score anymore to win the game". Who knew?

 

[SAMCRO]

I'm tired of discussing football with people that don't get it. I came on this internet about a year ago now, because our team was a freaking disaster and it killed me and I felt like maybe giving an emotional voice out there in the wind was just one little way I could help.

Us too!!

Coach P said in hind sight it was the wrong play to call in that situation. We were not in a MUST convert the 3rd down situation. Sometimes the smart play is to play for field position.

You are so deep in defending your argument that you're not even open to the idea that you might not be getting it. You are passionate about the game, that is great. You read a lot of books about the game and coaches, great. You can talk a lot about the game in the right language, wonderful, but you really don't get it here. It was a bad play call. Not just due to the end result of the play. I yelled at the TV as soon as he dropped back, before the ball even left his hand. That play did not protect/enhance our young QB's development or confidence at all. It did not give our team a better chance of winning the game. Theu juice was not worht the squeeze in this one specific instance. As much as you want to argue that it was great for his development/growth/whatever, it wasn't. You know what would have been great for his confidence, having him come home on the flight after just QB'ng his team to a win over an SEC team on the road. Then you take it to the film room and practice field to coach the kid up from the mistakes.

 

[businesslawyer]

Why? Why do you do this? Seriously TDH -- you know darn well you are not actually disagreeing with him here, because you know what he said is correct. You are disagreeing with the statement he did not make, which would have been "whenever you have the lead you don't have to worry about scoring more points because you've automatically won."

So I ask you, why do you need to pretend you're disagreeing with someone's point when in fact you're only disagreeing with what they aren't saying but is something you don't like as a UConn fan? This is very different than what Ghost is doing by the way -- he is actually disagreeing with people on a particular play call (I think -- the posts are so long that it's very hard to tell sometimes).

 

[CTMike]

And with that, my head has officially exploded. What a thread.

 

[Carl Spackler]

What happened with the third down play at the end?
"Talking about the critical third down at the end, the one that was returned for the score, I think it was a four seam route, and they blitzed, and whether he's going to the inside guy or the outside guy, the ball got compressed, got squeezed, and the DB just squeezed it and made the play."

"We discussed about three different plays in that situation, and felt like we had a good safe play, but it didn't turn out that way. The combination of the squeeze and the blitz kind of got us."

-Paul Pasqualoni
www.uconnhuskies.com

That's immediately following the game, and they're still not sure what happened specifically (four seam route - a route tree with 4 receivers centered on the hash marks) - he says they blitzed, b/c he clearly saw them come up to the line, but he hasn't seen the film yet that they only brought 5 and the LB's were dropping out of the blitz) and knew that a hot read (inside guy or outside guy) had to be coming out because they only had 6 people to block 7 at the line.

He realized the ball went the wrong way, too on the hot read, because the ball (the field) was "compressed". In that situation the hot read should have been on the seam on the short side of the field or outside to the far hash, or wider.

They discussed a couple different plays, and settled on that one "a good SAFE play".

No is P going to say it was a situation where they didn't need to get the first down in the media three days later, (even though I've yet to see it cited) when there are polls in the papers that are totally against the call, when the entire fan base has been conditioned to play P**SY football.

Nobody cites anything, everybody knows what happened, and should have happened, but nobody looks at the actual game, and when I do, frame by frame, as I did before, as many of the 22 as you can see on the TV feeds - my posts are too long. it gets tiring.

I've given you folks all a lot of glimpses, I've talked about what it takes. I've put up all kinds of stuff on te emotion and intensity that needs to go into this game, in the past year. It still kills me the reponse I got when I suggested that Todman wasn't going to get drafted very high. Hell Edsall thought he would go.

I'm done. I'll continue to read like I always have and gobble everything I can up about this game I love, and my program. But I'm done, headed up to the stadium now. Looking forward to some old fashioned northeast football beating down those big old farmboys from Iowa.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Why? Why do you do this? Seriously TDH -- you know darn well you are not actually disagreeing with him here, because you know what he said is correct. You are disagreeing with the statement he did not make, which would have been "whenever you have the lead you don't have to worry about scoring more points because you've automatically won."

So I ask you, why do you need to pretend you're disagreeing with someone's point when in fact you're only disagreeing with what they aren't saying but is something you don't like as a UConn fan? This is very different than what Ghost is doing by the way -- he is actually disagreeing with people on a particular play call (I think -- the posts are so long that it's very hard to tell sometimes).

Wow, now I really don't know what I think. So after analysis "I'm not actually disagreeing with him, because I know what he said is correct, but I'm disagreeing with the statement he didn't make. I'm only pretending to disagree with someone's point . . . I'm disagreeing with what they aren't saying , but is something I don't like as a UConn fan? Huh?

What I'm absolutely sure I was doing, Biz, was responding to the quote: "The really strange thing is when you are winning, you don't actually have to score anymore to win the game". The UNC game was the case in point because. . . well . . . I felt it had some basis of comparison. And for the record, I was adhering to a strong belief that since you can't be sure with 8 minutes left in a close game (which that certainly was) that your "winning" margin (a mere 7 points in the Vandy game) is gonna hold up, the best thing a team can do is . . . score more points.

 

[whaler11]

You know damn well that I wasn't inferring that you never have to score. I was merely stating the obvious that seems to be ignored about 3rd and 7 against Vandy. They didn't need to convert it to win the game. You didn't need to risk a turnover in that spot because the defense was playing so well.

It has nothing to do with Edsall. It has nothing to do with the North Carolina game. It is a simple as someone picking plays who understands how to balance risk and reward. They blew it on that call. All the 10 paragraph frame by frame Zapurder like breakdowns of the game film doesn't change that basic truth. Putting the ball in the air there was stupid and in the end cost them a road W.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

What happened with the third down play at the end?
"Talking about the critical third down at the end, the one that was returned for the score, I think it was a four seam route, and they blitzed, and whether he's going to the inside guy or the outside guy, the ball got compressed, got squeezed, and the DB just squeezed it and made the play."

"We discussed about three different plays in that situation, and felt like we had a good safe play, but it didn't turn out that way. The combination of the squeeze and the blitz kind of got us."

-Paul Pasqualoni
www.uconnhuskies.com

That's immediately following the game, and they're still not sure what happened specifically (four seam route - a route tree with 4 receivers centered on the hash marks) - he says they blitzed, b/c he clearly saw them come up to the line, but he hasn't seen the film yet that they only brought 5 and the LB's were dropping out of the blitz) and knew that a hot read (inside guy or outside guy) had to be coming out because they only had 6 people to block 7 at the line.

He realized the ball went the wrong way, too on the hot read, because the ball (the field) was "compressed". In that situation the hot read should have been on the seam on the short side of the field or outside to the far hash, or wider.

They discussed a couple different plays, and settled on that one "a good SAFE play".

No is P going to say it was a situation where they didn't need to get the first down in the media three days later, (even though I've yet to see it cited) when there are polls in the papers that are totally against the call, when the entire fan base has been conditioned to play P**SY football.

Nobody cites anything, everybody knows what happened, and should have happened, but nobody looks at the actual game, and when I do, frame by frame, as I did before, as many of the 22 as you can see on the TV feeds - my posts are too long. it gets tiring.

I've given you folks all a lot of glimpses, I've talked about what it takes. I've put up all kinds of stuff on te emotion and intensity that needs to go into this game, in the past year. It still kills me the reponse I got when I suggested that Todman wasn't going to get drafted very high. Hell Edsall thought he would go.

I'm done. I'll continue to read like I always have and gobble everything I can up about this game I love, and my program. But I'm done, headed up to the stadium now. Looking forward to some old fashioned northeast football beating down those big old farmboys from Iowa.

Carl, perhaps a good place to start is to knock off the lecturing and recognize that there maybe other people here that may have an equally valuable and perhaps knowledgable opinion as you do.

 

[21Huskies]

i love that Carl is speaking to us as if none of us have ever watched a football game coached by anyone other than Randy Edsall