Once Again, It's What Have You Done for Me Lately?

[whaler11]

Did you watch the Stanford Army game? I did. I also watched the Air Force Army game. I noted they stopped them. I didn't watch Kent Wake or Rice, and I was at Rentschler for Army v. Yale.

Unless you want to credit all the defenses we, the UCONN offense face, with being able to stop us, when it comes to turnovers, ball security, and offensive procedural penalties...whatever.

Against Stanford, Army's offense themselves was a major contributor to stopping themselves. Army's mistakes and Stanford's ability to stay on the field with their own offense, and play disciplined football, with talented players on both sides is what kept Army to 200 yards rushing on the game and zero points, while they exploited the Army D.

Stanford has had a brutal schedule and is hovering on the edge of the top 25. Stanford exploited Army's defense, and benefitted from playing good defense and catching Army on a day when they made a lot of mistakes on O. We caught them on a day that they didn't make mistakes playing in Yankee Stadium, and our offense was for me disgusting to watch. I can't take it most times - the lack of consistency is maddening, and it's entirely on the coaching staff for approaching the game the way they do.

Stanford - Preparing for Army in the middle of their September schedule, can be argued to be a reason as to why they aren't a top 25 team right now. I respect all posters on here, but forgive me if I don't change my opinions based on what you're writing. As for our defense, academy football is always an exposition.

The reality is that our defense, is probably not that much different than a Wake, or Rice, or Kent - that sees army regularly - right now. Where a program like Kent makes up for athletic ability and recruiting with experience against the offense, Rice and Wake, are programs that are supposedly on a some sort of level....which I want to be on a much higher level - but it is where we are now.

With not much more than one single veteran DT, and a veteran SS to anchor on for the majority of the season, is not very strong, but we have young players that have great athletic ability that can develop, and we have been relying mostly on athletic ability at this point on defense, and it was exposed against Army. Badly. I don't believe for a second that players weren't coached to defend the option properly, but seeing it for the first time in real speed, and being so young and inexperienced across the board in general - we were biting like fish on the hook and getting gashed.

Our offense - and the inability to stay on the field, sustain a drive, and score points - which comes from both game planning, coaching, and play calling - the lack of any consistency, identity, or even a starting lineup - is what cost us the win, and the primary reason why we are 2-7 now.

I gave you a pretty damning fact. Army had been outscored in every single second half.

You in return gave me hundreds of words of nonsense.

I honestly can't wait for Fordham to beat Army. It will be one of the highlights of the season.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I gave you a pretty damning fact. Army had been outscored in every single second half.

You in return gave me hundreds of words of nonsense.

I honestly can't wait for Fordham to beat Army. It will be one of the highlights of the season.

Army gets outscored in the second half of games, because nearly every coaching staff on the planet tends to make coaching adjustments, and realizes that the best way to keep their offense from scoring, is to maintain possession of the ball with your own offense and play clock control football and put points up, and by the second half of most games, the lineman that Army plays with have been worn down physically against their opponents, as has their backfield, because most of the time, they're supposed to be getting hit.

I don't know where you get this idea that I think Army is some fantastic team. they are 3-6. They play a highly disciplined style of football, and are fundamentally sound in basics of blocking and tackling. They are ranked #6 in the country in rushing offense. They have not much of a passing offense, but what they do get, is usually for big gains built off the option run. Their defense sucks, because they do not have the athletes to compete in division 1. They are fundamentally sound in tackling though. They are fundamental sound as team in blocking and tackling. Their punter tackles better than half our team.

you beat army, not by trying to stop their offense cold - that's dumb. You beat them by keeping their offense off the field, physically punishing them, when they are on the field, and scoring points on their weak defense. We did none of that.

I am not justifying this loss to Army - it pisses me off that we lost.

 

[whaler11]

Army being ranked #6 in rushing and acting as though that means something just proves how pointless this conversation is.

That might be the most meaningless piece of information that has ever existed.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Army being ranked #6 in rushing and acting as though that means something just proves how pointless this conversation is.

That might be the most meaningless piece of information that has ever existed.

only if you're a gambler.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This is headed straight towards an old school Spackler/Whaler cat fight.

Going to go make some popcorn.

 

[whaler11]

only if you're a gambler.

It has nothing to do with gambling.

1. When you run every play
2. Against a bad schedule
3. And you are generally losing and teams don't much care if you run the clock like crazy and
4. don't lose rushing yards to sacks because you don't pass

You can't compare raw numbers with other schools.

Comparing raw numbers is dumb for schools that play similar schedules and styles. Comparing Army on raw rushing totals is so mind blowingly stupid it's painful.

Serve up another thousand words of vomit to further entrench yourself in the dumbest position since Matt's blog today.

 

[CTMike]

The stereotype of us being ornery, dissatisfied, no patience Nutmeggers has a shred of truth to it- it's just wildly misapplied in this case. After 4 years regression it's not reactionary, it's justified.

 

[Jimdish255]

I don't believe for a second that players weren't coached to defend the option properly

Then you believe our defense is so barren of experience, skills or toughness that they should expect to get shredded against Army? I disagree.

 

[huskysupporter]

Again, only the most blind homer UCONN fans thought this team was going bowling before the season. I think what most of us want is to see improvement week to week. And there definitely have been some positives. One is that this team continues to play hard, even when faced with tough plays (i.e. turnovers on first possession by offense). I have also seen some improvement by the young players week to week (i.e. Knappe, Noel Thomas). From a player standpoint, I am excited about the future. But from a coaching standpoint? This has been the weakest area. Take Coach Diaco's awkward, odd, press conferences out of it. The lack of tailoring scheme to personnel, mismanagement of the game clock, and inability to make adjustments has been disappointing. This is his first year as a head coach so I expected bumps in the road. But I have not seen improvement from him yet. That does not mean I think he cannot turn this ship around. He just needs to have an honest self assessment in the offseason. In game coaching has been a huge problem. Sounds like offseason strength and conditioning has been solid, and I am on record as saying as I love the type of athlete he is recruiting.

 

[RioDog]

If it was played at an on-campus 60,000+ seat stadium with better helmets, with the block C helmets, UConn would have crushed Army.

Precisely

 

[UConnDan97]

Army got shut out by Stanford. Scored 6 against Air Force. 17 against Kent, 21 against Wake and Rice.

They scored a lot against Yale, Buffalo and Ball St.

Buffalo already fired their coach, Ball State hadn't beaten an FBS team since 2012 and this isn't the Yale that Carl
and Butch have wet dreams about.

CAN WE STOP WITH THIS NONSENSE YET?!

If I can add to this list (as if it needed additions!):

Vegas was so impressed by Army's performance against UConn that they now find themselves 10 point underdogs to Western Kentucky (4-5); a Western Kentucky team that lost by 49 points to Louisiana Tech two weeks ago. Let's let that one sink in for a bit, shall we?

 

[CTMike]

If I can add to this list (as if it needed additions!):

Vegas was so impressed by Army's performance against UConn that they now find themselves 10 point underdogs to Western Kentucky (4-5); a Western Kentucky team that lost by 49 points to Louisiana Tech two weeks ago. Let's let that one sink in for a bit, shall we?

And BYE is favored over us by 7.

 

[UConnDan97]

And BYE is favored over us by 7.

I know that some of the newer BY members must think I'm a negative dude, but you understand me more than most and I'm sure you'd attest to the amount of crap that it would take to shake my positive, undefeated spirit. Apparently, I hit that amount this week. I was looking for so much more leadership from my fearless leader. The losses, I can stomach (I used to be a Hartford Whalers fan). The lack of ownership? It's sent me off the deep end. I don't want to immortalize a coach who was 3-5 at UConn, but TJ Weist would not have treated these press conferences the way that BD has. Not a friggin' chance. I hope BD proves me wrong in time; nobody wishes that more than I. But my blue glasses have been shattered...

 

[jdb50]

For 3 and 3/4 years now we have been losing because of our ineptitude on offense. The 3 games we won last year it seemed we finally knew what we wanted to do and were able to do it. You could see it starting against SMU. This year every week it is something else that goes wrong to derail the offense. There is a new problem every week. At the 6 yard line against Army I was saying "run it" thinking Max or RJ would really bring it but we were not used to having to perform in that situation and the staff focused on the pass. There was plenty of time. I agree about TJ and the different track he would have taken in postgame interviews. We need a bit more Bill Parcells around here. Ahh growing pains. "When are you going to get sick of LOSING?"

 

[BlueMAB]

if you're calling Army a good team, and comparing Diaco to Bellichik, you've lost your goshdarn mind.
.

 

[MarkT]

I think it was a well written, honest, but misunderstood blog. In no way do I think he is placing blame on the fanbase. I think he is making a glaringly obvious statement about the reactions of our fanbase thus far. I apologize for the length, also my opinions differ from many on the board but hey that's what makes the world go round.
First, he addresses that coach Diaco is in his first yr as a HC and has made some mistakes but is learning (same goes for the staff). Matt also mentions that this head coaching job was about more than just X's and O's - and that a coach had to come in and change the culture and attitude of the team (the mentality they need both on and off the field) as well as implement a new system and weight training program and re-teach them the fundamentals i.e. tackling and blocking. Before becoming a good team, all the aforementioned need to be learned and implemented which takes time - it can take a whole season to just learn the system and even then, you need to have the right players for the system to be effective which is why it can take 3-4 yrs to turn a program around (we may have a few players that have talent but they need to fit the system-this isn't basketball where you can win with a few talented players). I also think Diaco has done a better job recruiting than PP and will continue to do about as good a job recruiting as one can expect given the circumstances he is surrounded by. His recruiting class may not currently be as highly rated as PP but in terms of recruiting people that will fit in the system he is implementing, he is doing a better job (not comparing Diaco to Pete Carroll-I'm just using it as an example cause Carroll has had a lot of success drafting 3rd n 4th rounders that fit his system over the superstar picks). I'm actually really excited about his 3rd-4th yr when his first batch of recruits are Juniors/Seniors (i.e. Ron Johnson, Alec Bloom, Luke Carrezola, Vontae Diggs, Arkeel Newsome and Jamar SUmmers have all got time and I think all can be effective by their Junior/Senior yrs) and we will hopefully also have solid QB play (I believe Davis will be the starter).
In regards to the fanbase, I think Matt is noting that due to some early success in our short time as an FBS member that the fanbase has some unreasonable expectations. Lets be honest, outside of a handful of guys (Geremy Davis and some promise shown from Cochran before retiring) he wasn't left with the most talented team (and no QB) and had to take over a program with almost no history and in a state with very little football talent. On top of this, it hasn't even been a full season and fans are already insinuating that this was a bad hire. Sure we have lost some games we could have won, but we have been competitive and played hard throughout the course of the game (next yr with another yr in the system and a yr under the coaches belt - we win some of those games). I think the important thing is that we have improved through the course of the yr and will continue to improve (may not all result in wins, especially if we continue to play down to the competition but learning to win is part of the process). I think Diaco will turn out to be a good hire, however I believe it is a stepping stone job for him and with some success he will leave a UConn fanbase upset about his departure.

 

[Bonehead]

I think it was a well written, honest, but misunderstood blog. In no way do I think he is placing blame on the fanbase. I think he is making a glaringly obvious statement about the reactions of our fanbase thus far. I apologize for the length, also my opinions differ from many on the board but hey that's what makes the world go round.
First, he addresses that coach Diaco is in his first yr as a HC and has made some mistakes but is learning (same goes for the staff). Matt also mentions that this head coaching job was about more than just X's and O's - and that a coach had to come in and change the culture and attitude of the team (the mentality they need both on and off the field) as well as implement a new system and weight training program and re-teach them the fundamentals i.e. tackling and blocking. Before becoming a good team, all the aforementioned need to be learned and implemented which takes time - it can take a whole season to just learn the system and even then, you need to have the right players for the system to be effective which is why it can take 3-4 yrs to turn a program around (we may have a few players that have talent but they need to fit the system-this isn't basketball where you can win with a few talented players). I also think Diaco has done a better job recruiting than PP and will continue to do about as good a job recruiting as one can expect given the circumstances he is surrounded by. His recruiting class may not currently be as highly rated as PP but in terms of recruiting people that will fit in the system he is implementing, he is doing a better job (not comparing Diaco to Pete Carroll-I'm just using it as an example cause Carroll has had a lot of success drafting 3rd n 4th rounders that fit his system over the superstar picks). I'm actually really excited about his 3rd-4th yr when his first batch of recruits are Juniors/Seniors (i.e. Ron Johnson, Alec Bloom, Luke Carrezola, Vontae Diggs, Arkeel Newsome and Jamar SUmmers have all got time and I think all can be effective by their Junior/Senior yrs) and we will hopefully also have solid QB play (I believe Davis will be the starter).
In regards to the fanbase, I think Matt is noting that due to some early success in our short time as an FBS member that the fanbase has some unreasonable expectations. Lets be honest, outside of a handful of guys (Geremy Davis and some promise shown from Cochran before retiring) he wasn't left with the most talented team (and no QB) and had to take over a program with almost no history and in a state with very little football talent. On top of this, it hasn't even been a full season and fans are already insinuating that this was a bad hire. Sure we have lost some games we could have won, but we have been competitive and played hard throughout the course of the game (next yr with another yr in the system and a yr under the coaches belt - we win some of those games). I think the important thing is that we have improved through the course of the yr and will continue to improve (may not all result in wins, especially if we continue to play down to the competition but learning to win is part of the process). I think Diaco will turn out to be a good hire, however I believe it is a stepping stone job for him and with some success he will leave a UConn fanbase upset about his departure.

Or with little success he will leave UConn not on his own accord and be a D coordinator somewhere - I want him to succeed but learning curve time is OVER for him and us.

Going back to an earlier quote from him in the year - if he asked anyone for insight or something to that affect - NO was his response, his coaches have vast experience or something like that - if so there should be no learning curve. Nothing wrong with admitting mistakes and asking for help but if you think you know it all and fail, own it.

 

[Nostical]

I think with some success Diaco will one day leave a UConn fan base upset about his departure.

I certainly hope you're right and one day we indeed find ourselves clamoring to retain Diaco. But whether that happens or not, the fact is that even though many will no doubt question his approach, we need to support him and hold to the belief that he's on track (even if at times it seems mystical) toward building team success on the field. That's all we can do. He's not going anywhere for a while.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

With every game, it is becoming more apparent that UConn should have hired Weist as HC. There is NO WAY that Weist loses to Army. This is the second straight time UConn had a choice between two candidates that wanted the job and picked the wrong one.

Diaco and staff are in over their heads in game prep, game coaching, clock management, offensive play calling, halftime adjustments, and pretty much every other aspect of coaching. I am not optimistic about recruiting either.

As I have also said before, I think Diaco will get better and there is nothing UConn can do about it anyway. I am pretty sure UConn can't afford the buyout, so we just have to hope for Diaco to get better.

 

[Bubba1957]

I've been excited about UCONN football since the day they hired Diaco. I'm optimistic about his recruiting class and love the high energy approach (similar to Pete Carroll). Bum Philips said it best about Don Shula,"He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n.". I think a great coach would have been able to take "his'n" and get a few more wins while still installing his system even without "his" players. I think that might have happened if Cochran, Davis and Jones were able to suit up this year. Maybe we haven't seen great in game adjustments or play calling, but his team competes hard and I remain optimistic for the future of this program.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Then you believe our defense is so barren of experience, skills or toughness that they should expect to get shredded against Army? I disagree.

I see 18,19 year old players in most positions, especially the DE and OLB and CB positions that got abused. Yup. You want to call it "barren of experience, skills or toughness" - that's fine. Those aren't words I would use to describe what happened, because I didn't see any of that. What I saw was players that could not get through blocks consistently on the outside of the formation, but fought like hell anyway, and did the best they could, (DB's) and I saw DE's and OLB's, that as the game wore on, started guessing and biting way too much, making them mentally slow, and didn't do the simple task of defending the edge against the option, and punishing the ball carriers and/or pitch men physically, relentlessly, on every down. No I didn't expect them to get shredded against Army. We got gashed for 325 yards on the ground. It's not the first time that an option offense has done that to a UCONN defense. Navy put up 464 yards on the ground running the option against Randy Edsall's defense in 2006.

Were those 2006 defenders for UCONN that bad too?

This discussion is really mind numbing, but I will finish this response, not just to you but all, and that's it. Got some real work today. I really have no idea where this concept comes from that I think Army is a great team or something, or that I think we should not have expected to win. That's just wrong. I think Army is a bad team, I do think we should have won - easily. Army does one thing well, and the statistics are what they are - among all teams in division 1A - they rank #6 of 128 in rushing yards per game. I guess that doesn't mean anything to some people. Whatever. It does to me.

Rushing defense? Army is 89 of 128. Passing defense? Army is 93 of 128. BAD DEFENSE. But I guess those numbers mean nothing too, and our offense should have been stopped so easily all game long.

I lay this loss entirely on the preparation of the coaching staff. FOR THE ENTIRE GAME PLAN. Diaco - - I'm sure did not get dumb overnight when it comes to coaching and building a defense. Our defensive structure, while unconventional, was not flawed. It was built around our strengths on defense, which is straight up the gut at DT, ILB, and S positions, and those positions shut down their assignments, and were able to cover up for the other weaknesses as best they could on the edge with the structure of the D. I simply do not believe that our coaching staff is dumb enough not to coach to defend the option properly.

I guess others do think that's the case.

What I do think, is that our coaching staff IS dumb enough, and inexperienced enough, to realize that fundamentally, spending so much time in practice and preparation and focusing so much energy to stop Army's strength, is stupidity. They built a scout team with practice time weeks ago - to build the D - instead of using that time for our own development.

I hope, that that realization, is what made Diaco so short and irritated in the press this week. I HOPE HE HAS REALIZED THIS. If not, he needs an intervention from somebody when it comes to the basics of game planning and strategic meetings when building and ENTIRE game plan.

You attack a team where they are weak to beat them, not where they are strong. It's a defensive coordinator Diaco, building an entire game plan and leading an entire team against Army that we saw on Saturday, not an effective head coach Diaco.

Our ineptitude on offense, to manage the clock, sustain drives, and score points - and keep the Army offense off the field as much as possible is what cost us the game - not the defensive game plan and execution.

I've laid this out elsewhere what happened when we had the ball on offense on Saturday - it's mind numbing. There was zero thought or effort put into the concepts of maintaining composure, discipline, and consistency on offense in building drives and sustaining drives in our offensive game planning and play calling.

Our rotation of personnel, especially QB's and the effect it has had on this offense all season long, was on full display on Saturday in everything that happened from the good that we did and the bad.

When Army gifted us a possession in the first half, we made the most stupid decision and play call of the game, and turned it right back over.

The weakness of the Army team is the defensive front.

We've been building our offensive line all season long to become better, stronger players and develop confidence.

When they had the chance to exert themselves against a weaker team - a physical mismatch on the line of scrimmage - we simply ignored it in game planning, and spent weeks trying to train a defense to do something, that takes about 1 single day to teach, and then implement. (a lot more difficult for players to actually execute on the field)

You - This is your man - hit him and put him on his ass. Forget about where the ball is. Period. You - This is your man - hit him and put him on his ass. Forget about where the ball is. Period. You - This is your man - hit him and put him on his ass. Forget about where the ball is. Period. You don't need to be able send rockets into outer space, to coach football.

It's very hard for players on the field, to unlearn all they have learned in modern defensive concepts while actually in real speed and time on the field, but it's not hard to coach, or develop the game plan. DEFENSIVELY. You beat Army, by developing an effective offensive game plan, to keep their defense on the field for long periods of time, and sustain long scoring drives.

We had that opportunity, to build our OL this week, and we ignored it, and for that I'm incredibly pissed off. I was detached on Saturday, based on 4 years of losing football now, but I've had chance to review, and back focused on what's happening right now - and I'm pissed off.

WE SHOULD HAVE WON THIS GAME. IT"S ENTIRELY ON THE COACHING STAFF.

What we are witnessing is a head coach on his own learning curve, that is WAY overthinking things, has yet to get out of the DC saddle and into the HC saddle, and I've had serious doubts about our OC and whatever the hell he is doing all season long.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Disclaimer: I like Diaco. I want him to succeed in building our program back into a regular winner. I want him to stay. My critique is simply what it is - I'm hopeful that our own coaching staff, and their superiors are very thorough in their own critiques and learn, and improve.

This ARMY game was probably the best learning experience for our new head coach, that he's seen as a head coach through 9 games.

 

[huskysupporter]

Disclaimer: I like Diaco. I want him to succeed in building our program back into a regular winner. I want him to stay. My critique is simply what it is - I'm hopeful that our own coaching staff, and their superiors are very thorough in their own critiques and learn, and improve.

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner.

A good leader constantly does an honest self assessment. A good leader admits when they are wrong. I have no idea if Coach D has done either. My hope is he has. I still think he can turn this ship around.

 

[J187Money]

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner.

A good leader constantly does an honest self assessment. A good leader admits when they are wrong. I have no idea if Coach D has done either. My hope is he has. I still think he can turn this ship around.

He may very well admit he was wrong. I'm pretty sure he has, behind closed doors with his staff. I know that it would make everyone here feel better if he did it in front of a microphone, but I'm not sure what that really accomplishes. At the end of the day he either builds a winning program or he doesn't.

 

[huskymedic]

I know that it would make everyone here feel better if he did it in front of a microphone, but I'm not sure what that really accomplishes.

Summunabeetch - it makes the BY feel better and when the BY feels better, it a pleasant place to visit. When the BY isn't happy - the long dark harsh winter comes early and it becomes a dangerous place to venture!!! Get with the program.