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

[TouchdownHusky]

Running the ball on 3rd and eight against a stacked defense would have been stupid. It was an admission that we are gonna punt, hope for field position, and try and hang on as best we can. Nonsense with 8+ minutes left in the game, the approach should have been to attack, attack, attack. Keep moving the chains and running the clock, yes but. . . the best defense at that juncture was points. More points (a field goal at the least). Only thing harder than closing a 7 point gap, is closing a 10 point (or 14 point) gap. The classic example in UConn history of going inept on offense and hoping that your defense can win it was the North Carolina game in '09. UConn was the better team and should have won that game. The offense let them down by it's second half impotence.

As for Vandy, throw the ball on 1st down and maybe you catch them crowding the box trying to stop the all too obvious tendency for UConn to run on 1st and 10. Like it or not, modern college football offenses are about the passing game.

 

[21Huskies]

being successful is about knowing the odds and taking logical 'risks' when the odds are in your favor and also knowing when not to take those same risks. the odds of us completing a 3rd and 8 in that situation of the game were not good. the odds of us running and punting and holding them and winning the game were clearly higher.

if you make the right statistical choice based on the information that is known (talent, execution) and you let the chips fall where they may you will come out ahead more times than not. when you have limited talent that becomes even more important. the better the talent you have the more aggressive you can be and the more risk you can take.

the job of a coach is to be able to take into account probability and talent and make the right call. our talent hasn't proven enough to take chances like that.

 

[Excalibur]

The classic example in UConn history of going inept on offense and hoping that your defense can win it was the North Carolina game in '09. UConn was the better team and should have won that game. The offense let them down by it's second half impotence.

Lousy example, again. First, that UNC defense was very good. Second, we went into the Edsall soft zone and hoped that UNC would mess up. That wasn't relying on your defense, that was blind hope. Rushing 4 exhausted D-Linemen on 3rd and 19 with 4 minutes to go may have been the worst defensive playcall I've ever seen from a UConn team other than the Rutgers game later that year.

There was no reason to expect that our defense would play soft against a fairly impotent Vandy offense.

 

[businesslawyer]

Lousy example, again. First, that UNC defense was very good. Second, we went into the Edsall soft zone and hoped that UNC would mess up. That wasn't relying on your defense, that was blind hope. Rushing 4 exhausted D-Linemen on 3rd and 19 with 4 minutes to go may have been the worst defensive playcall I've ever seen from a UConn team other than the Rutgers game later that year.

There was no reason to expect that our defense would play soft against a fairly impotent Vandy offense.

I'm not even sure we went in a shell. They put together back to back long drives and we failed to move the ball in our one possession in between. I know some here can't distinguish inability to move the ball from going into a shell, but you can't conclude "shell" from one series.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Lousy example, again. First, that UNC defense was very good. Second, we went into the Edsall soft zone and hoped that UNC would mess up. That wasn't relying on your defense, that was blind hope. Rushing 4 exhausted D-Linemen on 3rd and 19 with 4 minutes to go may have been the worst defensive playcall I've ever seen from a UConn team other than the Rutgers game later that year.

There was no reason to expect that our defense would play soft against a fairly impotent Vandy offense.

Actually a very good example. UConn's defense that year was also quite good, just not good enough to win games by themself (see Rutgers game later on that season). They need help: long time consuming drives, move the chains, wind the clock down and . . . increase the margin of comeback need by 'Heels. Instead, we got a run dominated three and out, a run-dominated three and out.

Oh and I do agree with you on one thing, Randy was equally conservative on defense, so you point on 4 tire DLinemen was spot on. Never did occur to him to pressure the QB and they just left him back there to pick apart a contain secondary. Randy essentially took a very mediorce QB (perhaps not even that for the first 3 quarters of that game) and turned him into an All American for the fourth quarter.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You know what ten years of Randy Edsall football has done? It's made people believe that you're more likely to win a game in the situation we found ourselves in on third and long after a disasterous passing attack all day, by running the ball into the teeth of a defense on a very LOW percentage chance of getting a first down, and then playing the game by putting the ball into the opposing OFFENSES hands.

Talk about percentages? Seriously? You're more likely to get a first down on a third and 8 by throwing the ball, than you are running it. Always. It's not a freaking running down. It's just not. Ever. You can certainly run in that situation, and make it work - but it's LOW percentage.

If you choose to run on that down, in that situation, and a scenario like that, and you do it regularly, it says a TON about the type of team you are, the type of players you are, and the type of coach you are.

And I completely agree with the other guy, and that North Carolina game is the perfect example, that the best way to win in the situatino we found ourselves in teh fourth quarter is to ATTACK!!! The way we choked away that game playing conservative offense with a 10-0 lead was reprehensible.

If you want players to perform, you want success under pressure, then you need to call their numbers, when it's time to perform.

I guarantee there's not a guy on this offensive squad, that would have that play call go any other way than it did, and are hoping, begging for it to happen again so that they can go out there and make it work, and I bet that if the coaches find themselves in a similar situation, they'll call it again. Becasue that's consistency. If the players can't get it done, they'll find players that will, and no player will walk off that field when they've either succeeded or failed, and felt like they didn't at least have the chance to give everythign they've got.

I also guarantee that the concept that they ,might be happier, not having their numbers called, and relying on watching somebody else have to win the game would make them want to puke. YOu don't think like that on the field.

Yes - absolutely, every single one of these guys would rather win the game than lose. You don't win or lose games on single plays, unless it's the last play of the game, and the score hangs on the outcome of that last play.

FOotball players need to have short memories. They can't think about the play before, when it's time to make the next play. The single play that you are in on, at any time, is all that matters.

Offensive football is cerebral. It's a mindset. It's proactive. You need to be thinking, and play with attitude, and you need to WANT that ball in your hands to make the play.

You don't get that attitude in players, when you're playing defensive conservative style ball on offense.

There are definitely situations where you'd want to play conservative style on offense, and I'm sure we will see them. But I agree 100% with the play call at the time, and I believe it's a major piece of building a new team identity on offense.

What I'm looking for now, is consistency, in the attacking mindset, and the ability of the players to go out and get it done.

 

[Excalibur]

I'm not even sure we went in a shell. They put together back to back long drives and we failed to move the ball in our one possession in between. I know some here can't distinguish inability to move the ball from going into a shell, but you can't conclude "shell" from one series.

Funny enough, 2 of the three plays on that "in between" drive were pass plays. On the first, UNC blitzed and Endres had to scramble. Then, on 3rd and 4 we passed, incomplete.

If we went into a shell, it was defensively.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

You know what ten years of Randy Edsall football has done? It's made people believe that you're more likely to win a game in the situation we found ourselves in on third and long after a disasterous passing attack all day, by running the ball into the teeth of a defense on a very LOW percentage chance of getting a first down, and then playing the game by putting the ball into the opposing OFFENSES hands.

Talk about percentages? Seriously? You're more likely to get a first down on a third and 8 by throwing the ball, than you are running it. Always. It's not a freaking running down. It's just not. Ever. You can certainly run in that situation, and make it work - but it's LOW percentage.

If you choose to run on that down, in that situation, and a scenario like that, and you do it regularly, it says a TON about the type of team you are, the type of players you are, and the type of coach you are.



And that is a fact, Jack. Well said.

 

[businesslawyer]

Funny enough, 2 of the three plays on that "in between" drive were pass plays. On the first, UNC blitzed and Endres had to scramble. Then, on 3rd and 4 we passed, incomplete.

If we went into a shell, it was defensively.

This is what makes rational debate on some of this impossible. People see the failure to get a first down, in and of itself, as going into a shell. It's never failure to execute. It's never the other team being better. The Pitt loss in '08 was the same. We ran six friggin plays -- six -- the last 20 minutes of the game, 3 were runs and 3 were passes, and because we didn't get a first down in either of the two key possessions the idiots decided we went into a shell.

 

[Excalibur]

Reply to TDH:
Actually, it's disingenuous, unsophisticated and wrong. You play to your strengths. In that situation, your best chance to win was to not throw the ball when, to that point, it was an even split as to how many of our pass attempts hit our receivers' hands as opposed to the defense's. Not passing gave us the best chance to win. And in any event, if you do pass, don't throw right at the sticks where the DB's will jump the route. Either throw deep or try a screen if you think a blitz is coming. Either of those I could live with.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Funny enough, 2 of the three plays on that "in between" drive were pass plays. On the first, UNC blitzed and Endres had to scramble. Then, on 3rd and 4 we passed, incomplete.

If we went into a shell, it was defensively.

Everybody in that stadium was watching the clock and hoping it would go to zero, except for Butch Davis' team. That includes our players and coaches. I was there. That's the problem.

You play to win - always on every down.

The only people that should be monitoring the clock are the quarterback and the coaches.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This is what makes rational debate on some of this impossible. People see the failure to get a first down, in and of itself, as going into a shell. It's never failure to execute. It's never the other team being better. The Pitt loss in '08 was the same. We ran six friggin plays -- six -- the last 20 minutes of the game, 3 were runs and 3 were passes, and because we didn't get a first down in either of the two key possessions the idiots decided we went into a shell.

I think it's pretty clear summation you just made there counselor, about a complete failure to build a consistently successful offense that can be relied on in game time in pressure situations.

I'm just pointing out what I believe are ways I see that the seeds of building a successful offense are being planted.

 

[Excalibur]

This is what makes rational debate on some of this impossible. People see the failure to get a first down, in and of itself, as going into a shell. It's never failure to execute. It's never the other team being better. The Pitt loss in '08 was the same. We ran six friggin plays -- six -- the last 20 minutes of the game, 3 were runs and 3 were passes, and because we didn't get a first down in either of the two key possessions the idiots decided we went into a shell.

We didn't go into a shell vs. Pitt -- every time we put it in the air in the second half, a Pitt defender caught it.

 

[Colt45]

Reply to TDH:
Actually, it's disingenuous, unsophisticated and wrong. You play to your strengths. In that situation, your best chance to win was to not throw the ball when, to that point, it was an even split as to how many of our pass attempts hit our receivers' hands as opposed to the defense's. Not passing gave us the best chance to win. And in any event, if you do pass, don't throw right at the sticks where the DB's will jump the route. Either throw deep or try a screen if you think a blitz is coming. Either of those I could live with.[/quote]

+1

 

[21Huskies]

I think it's pretty clear summation you just made there counselor, about a complete failure to build a consistently successful offense that can be relied on in game time in pressure situations.

I'm just pointing out what I believe are ways I see that the seeds of building a successful offense are being planted.

Carl, all things are not equal.

if we had a capable, proven QB, who has shown the ability to convert that 3rd down than we might all be in agreement. We don't. Save the nonsense about 'believing in your players' and 'building a winner'. Last years team had all the 'intangibles' because they won games and for no other reason. Want to earn the ability to throw that pass on 3rd down late in the game with the lead? Make a few throws earlier in the game, earlier in the season, earlier in your career. Our QB's haven't and until they do they shouldn't have been put in that situation.

The idea that you need to make a first down on every 3rd down play in order to have a successful play is childish. Its not a video game... you can punt, gain field position and play the percentages.

 

[businesslawyer]

I think it's pretty clear summation you just made there counselor, about a complete failure to build a consistently successful offense that can be relied on in game time in pressure situations.

I'm just pointing out what I believe are ways I see that the seeds of building a successful offense are being planted.

The sseds of a successful offense -- how about recruiting and developing playmakers at WR and QB? As opposed to this crap about, to use a basketball expression, not playing within yourself.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I shouldn't be, but I am surprised this argument has gone 3 freaking pages.

I will just ask the Spackler and TDH crowd (which I think only comprises the 2 of you) this one simple question and I'd appreciate your response:

If we run on that down and punt the football, do we win that game? And if you're answer is no, what at that point in the game would lead you to draw that conclusion?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Reply to TDH:
Actually, it's disingenuous, unsophisticated and wrong. You play to your strengths. In that situation, your best chance to win was to not throw the ball when, to that point, it was an even split as to how many of our pass attempts hit our receivers' hands as opposed to the defense's. Not passing gave us the best chance to win. And in any event, if you do pass, don't throw right at the sticks where the DB's will jump the route. Either throw deep or try a screen if you think a blitz is coming. Either of those I could live with.

And therein lies the problem. UConn shouldn't be a run only program. That's not how the game is played in most quarters through the college landscape. It has become a passing game for the most part. Now, yes there are teams that certainly prefer the run to the pass, but still have to be able to do both. At some point you're gonna you will probably need to play catch up and . . . how do you suddenly become effective at something you avoid on a regular basis.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Everybody in that stadium was watching the clock and hoping it would go to zero, except for Butch Davis' team. That includes our players and coaches. I was there. That's the problem.

You play to win - always on every down.

The only people that should be monitoring the clock are the quarterback and the coaches.

Figured you had something to do with that loss, Carl (only kidding)

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I shouldn't be, but I am surprised this argument has gone 3 freaking pages.

I will just ask the Spackler and TDH crowd (which I think only comprises the 2 of you) this one simple question and I'd appreciate your response:

If we run on that down and punt the football, do we win that game? And if you're answer is no, what at that point in the game would lead you to draw that conclusion?

Honestly, I cannot say with any more assuridy than anyone else that running on 3rd and eight and punting does not enable UConn to win that game. Hindsight, sure! They run, get stuffed, punt, the defense holds and clock runs out. Or maybe the ballcarrier breaks a tackle at the LOS and finds nothing but green between him and the goal line. Six points, add the PAT, close out game & this thread never happens.

However, with Vandy stuffing the box, the odds are against the offense running for that first down. Besides my beef has not been with running vs throwing on that one play. My frustration is with a one-dimensional offense that has now fail to score a TD in its last 3 BCS games (dating back to last year). That is ineptitude defined.

 

[businesslawyer]

And therein lies the problem. UConn shouldn't be a run only program. That's not how the game is played in most quarters through the college landscape. It has become a passing game for the most part. Now, yes there are teams that certainly prefer the run to the pass, but still have to be able to do both. At some point you're gonna you will probably need to play catch up and . . . how do you suddenly become effective at something you avoid on a regular basis.

No one "wants" UConn to be a run only program. Who are you fighting with? Why do you have these hostile discussions with no one disagreeing?

The discussion, the one that people are actually having, is whether we increased our chances of winning by throwing the 3rd and long pass with 7 minutes left. As I told ghost, if you think we did, great. Most everyone thinks you are wrong, but there is no way for anyone to prove right or wrong and you are entitled to your opinion. But please recognize that our failure to recruit better QBs than Bones and DJ seven years ago, or even better than we did between 3 and 4 years ago, is totally irrelevant to whether, faced with the reality of the situation, we should have thrown the ball there or ran, punted and won with defense.

Please also remember, ghost's "strategy" of drowning everyone in cliches notwithstanding, if you think we did increase our chances of winning by throwing there saying it once and then walking away would be a good strategy BECAUSE IN FACT WE TRIED DOING THAT AND IT BLEW UP IN OUR FACE. Just sayin.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The sseds of a successful offense -- how about recruiting and developing playmakers at WR and QB? As opposed to this crap about, to use a basketball expression, not playing within yourself.

Really? You think things haven't changed regarding recruiting? The focus on developing playmakers? Oh wow. Yes - I agree how about focusing on that.

I'm pretty sure somewhere along the way, I've discussed exactly those things. How the hell do you get a QB to want to come and play at UConn, if you don't throw the ball in a situatino where you want a QB to throw the ball? I suggested this elsewhere, and people, don't remember who, immediately jumped on me for suggesting that I might think thgat's more important than winning the game or some horsesh*t like that.

Focus on developing playmakers? how the hell do you do that, if you don't call their numbers in pressure situations in games, to go out and do what they've done in practice?

Is that maybe lost on some here? Does anybody think these coaches are calling plays that they haven't practiced?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Save the nonsense about 'believing in your players' and 'building a winner'.

??????? Nonsense ??????

 

[Carl Spackler]

We tried doing it and it blew up in our face. Yup. It seems to me that many around here would rather stop trying to do it, or not try it all, because they're afraid that it would blow up in their face. That attitude left in January, but it's left a stain.

Just trying to wash it off.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

The discussion, the one that people are actually having, is whether we increased our chances of winning by throwing the 3rd and long pass with 7 minutes left.

No, we did not increase our chances of winning by throwing the 3rd and long pass with 7 minutes left. Should I ask for a receipt, Biz? Never disagreed with that. At that point everyone knew that UConn would have to throw the ball for a first down or be forced to punt. There was no element of surprise. Where we would have increased our chances of winning by throwing was on first and second down when Vandy was most assuridly defending against the all too predictable runs.

Sort of like debating whether a fastball or slider or change up was the right pitch with the count full on the hitter while ignoring that the pitcher was up 0-2 and made lousy decisions on what to throw and where to throw it that ultimately turned into his undoing.

 

[businesslawyer]

We tried doing it and it blew up in our face. Yup. It seems to me that many around here would rather stop trying to do it, or not try it all, because they're afraid that it would blow up in their face. That attitude left in January, but it's left a stain.

Just trying to wash it off.

.I am really finding it difficult to not use unflattering adjectives at this point. Whether Bill Walsh or Randy Edsall was our coach last year, the only reason anyone here is calling P's decision dumb is because the best way to win the game on third and long was to run, punt and defend. For the fifth time at least, if you disagree, fine, but this incessant belief that throwing cliches out strengthens your argument is absurd. Are you afraid to succeed because you won't bet on a number on a roulette wheel where you're given 10 to 1 odds and there are thirty numbers? No -- you are choosing to do the sane, rational thing to maximize your gain. Even if the guy behind you starts calling you a chicken and telling you you've been conditioned by Randy Edsall.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Honestly, this thread has had more strawman arguments interjected into it that I simply don't know if we're even arguing or discussing the same thing anymore. Maybe it's time to put this to bed and focus on tomorrow night.

 

[businesslawyer]

Honestly, this thread has had more strawman arguments interjected into it that I simply don't know if we're even arguing or discussing the same thing anymore. Maybe it's time to put this to bed and focus on tomorrow night.

That's fair Jimmy. People can start focusing on why if we lose tomorrow night, no matter how, that will be on Edsall as well.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Run, punt, defend huh? That's great. with 8 minutes still on the clock, and a 7 point lead. That makes me want to go out and play. Not.

Go tell a football player who's job it is to play on the offensive side of the ball that's how we're going to do things when it comes to pressure situations on offense in tight games.

Unbelieveable. And since recruiting was brought up, I wonder if there's a correlation to why were hitting the field right now, playing with the hand we've got on the offensive side of the ball.

The call was the right one to make, to give the team the best chance to win the game, because players are more important than plays. The call did not cost us the game, and the idea that running 8 minutes of clock down on defense and special teams is insane, and it's easier to score points when you've actually got possession of the ball, than on special teams and defense.

The fact that our defense and special teams are where they are and the offense is where it is makes me completely bananas when I think about it. Any sort of semblance of a balanced offense and this program could be so much farther along than it is.

As much as defense was forgotten in the 1990s when Skippy was here, the entire concept of offense has gotten lost while Edsall was here.

And players are more important than plays, we will find players, and we will make players out of the ones we've got, and these coaches are going aobut their business, and these players are hungry to get better and perform.

Whine all you want about run, punt, defend. That's not how I look at football. We disagree.

On to Iowa State.

 

[nimzovich]

the discussion can go on forever.
but there really isn't any reason for it

did anyone listen to coach P on WTIC last night?
http://nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0...5561563149513244229_dYdSsitxprMz1aKXjJUP14BoQ

he said he made a mistake throwing the ball on that play.
"the decision on my part was probably a little over-aggressive."
"that play was the deciding factor in the game"
"i've got to not get carried away and maybe play it a little closer to the vest in that particular situation in that particular style of game"

If that isn't enough to convince everyone that it was a mistake to throw the ball on that play, then there is no hope