Pasqualoni: "We'd like our offense to be a big play offense."

[Nostical]

Carl is right about the Center position. It seems that the false start calls on the O-linemen were a product of several very slight hesitations in the snap. Also happened on a punt. The timing of getting off the ball (as Masters said in the article) is critical to their success. They have the players, they know the blocking schemes. Now, they merely need (to coin an original phrase) to execute.

 

[husky10]

PP is a complete disaster. Recruiting blows still, decent defense with Edsall's players and offense is lousy.

And program is stuck, no financial flexibility to make a mid-contract change unless he resigns, which why would he?

Terrible hire

Exactly you are only judging him on edsall players. He hasn't even had one class he fully recruited ( you start recruiting fall of their junior year disagree and I am sure you have never been recruited to play football). Do you honestly believe edsall would have made a bowl game with the roster that returned last season? What you call a decent defense I call a defense that kept us in the game last week vs a good acc team (I will give you that is to be seen but is predicted). Our offense is struggling as a result of a weak o-line (you can not expect PP o-line players to be contributors at this point).

So assuming that that the defense wouldn't be any better under Edsall (it looked pretty good to me and I find it hard to imagine they could be better). Where could PP be better? Having a better o-line that he didn't recruit? The WR are better with the addition of Phillips. Unless he recruited a stud RB how could that position of been better? With two of the best two TE in the conference how could that positions have been better?

 

[husky91]

A good ACC team? The same one who got dismantled by maybe the 8th best SEC team at best?

And yes, we would have made a bowl or been bowl eligible with Edsall last year.

I think PP is awful, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Exactly you are only judging him on edsall players. He hasn't even had one class he fully recruited ( you start recruiting fall of their junior year disagree and I am sure you have never been recruited to play football). Do you honestly believe edsall would have made a bowl game with the roster that returned last season? What you call a decent defense I call a defense that kept us in the game last week vs a good acc team (I will give you that is to be seen but is predicted). Our offense is struggling as a result of a weak o-line (you can not expect PP o-line players to be contributors at this point).

So assuming that that the defense wouldn't be any better under Edsall (it looked pretty good to me and I find it hard to imagine they could be better). Where could PP be better? Having a better o-line that he didn't recruit? The WR are better with the addition of Phillips. Unless he recruited a stud RB how could that position of been better? With two of the best two TE in the conference how could that positions have been better?

 

[husky91]

Also, the recruiting is still in the bottom 10% of all BCS teams, the same place it was with Randy.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Right now I'll settle for a legitmate D1/BCS offense. One that can score TDs with a whole lot more frequency against opponents not named UMass. One that is a threat to score on every series (every down?).

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Also, the recruiting is still in the bottom 10% of all BCS teams, the same place it was with Randy.

Good point. Not until this improves will UConn improve. It's that simple. When Randy left, the UConn administration missed the opportunity to go out and get a coach that would pump some life into this program. HCPP was not the answer for sure.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Good point. Not until this improves will UConn improve. It's that simple. When Randy left, the UConn administration missed the opportunity to go out and get a coach that would pump some life into this program. HCPP was not the answer for sure.

I don't yet know if HCPP is the answer (although he has provided a good amount more than I anticipated when the hire was first announced) but I'm very surprised that you are not in favor of a head coach who wants a big play offense.

We did miss an opportunity and the hire was reflective of the lack of vision and lack of ambition that our former AD had. Our defense is very strong and there is quite a bit of reason to believe it will remain so for a number of years (I know, offense, specifically a passing game is all that matters) so our hope is that between coaching adjustments and a small increase in player experience our line can work out its problems and our offense can be at least competent for the next few years, increasing our profile with potential recruits, helping improve the overall program.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I don't yet know if HCPP is the answer (although he has provided a good amount more than I anticipated when the hire was first announced) but I'm very surprised that you are not in favor of a head coach who wants a big play offense.

We did miss an opportunity and the hire was reflective of the lack of vision and lack of ambition that our former AD had. Our defense is very strong and there is quite a bit of reason to believe it will remain so for a number of years (I know, offense, specifically a passing game is all that matters) so our hope is that between coaching adjustments and a small increase in player experience our line can work out its problems and our offense can be at least competent for the next few years, increasing our profile with potential recruits, helping improve the overall program.

Not disagreeing with anything your posting Ffld, and I am in favor of a head coach who wants a big play offense. But what I'm really a big fan of is a head coach who can deliver a high scoring and exciting offense.

 

[mattp]

A good ACC team? The same one who got dismantled by maybe the 8th best SEC team at best?

And yes, we would have made a bowl or been bowl eligible with Edsall last year.

I think PP is awful, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Tennessee is ranked #23 in the AP poll, and they lost because they gave up 22 points in the first quarter off of turnovers. I agree with you about being bowl eligible last year with Edsall, largely because we'd have probably still had Michael box at QB. Although there's no guarantee he'd have been an upgrade, I think we'd have mustered 6 or 7 wins. But that really doesn't matter at all. If we fired him we could play "how would we have done with him" but since he quit it's a complete waste of time.

I think P was better than the rest of the candidates we'd been hearing at the time(Whipple anyone?), and I think Don Brown is an absolute home run hire (how long until the first Don Brown for HC thread?), so all in all I think we landed in about as good a situation as we could have. Hopefully P and Deleone get the offense figured out because I think they still can. Don't forget the most successful offense we've had since DanO didn't really get going until halfway through the season after an awful loss to Temple.

 

[SubbaBub]

I think anyone pining for some wide open offense is deluded. Our identity was smash mouth football and running the ball. All we ever really wanted was a passing game that could take advantage of that strength.

If we could regularly hit a 10 yd out on third and long, that would be a bonus.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Husky25]

Also, the recruiting is still in the bottom 10% of all BCS teams, the same place it was with Randy.

How often does it have to be said that the conclusions drawn by recruiting services are bunk? School tradition has more with a kid's rating actual talent. If USC, 'Bama, Michigan, or Notre Dame is recruiting a tailback, then said tailback is a 4 star player. If Buffalo or UConn recruits him, he's, more than likely rated a NR, 1, or 2 star player. Incidently, according to Rivals, Uconn has had the 83rd (69%), 101st (84%), and 77th (64%) best recruiting classes out of 120 BCS schools for 2010-2012, respectively.

That said, I gave the current coaching staff the benefit of the doubt last year. But 2 game in to this season, I'm starting to question everything except recruiting. They seem to be able to do that. What they can't do, according to my non-expert opinion is developing players, implement an effective offense, recognize which plays gain positive yards, teach defense recognition to their QB's (to be fair, Edsall's staff couldn't either), and...oh yeah...EFFECTIVE OFFENSIVE LINE TECHNIQUE!!!

 

[freescooter]

Man, I'd be pretty happy with an offense that can actually make a few consistent small plays...I cannot get over how bad our offensive line is now...scary for a program that prided itself on its o-line. We're not on their scale yet, but this is like Penn State not having any linebackers or USC unable to find a tailback who can get past the line of scrimmage.

 

[DOZE860]

...and no more wildcat

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I think anyone pining for some wide open offense is deluded. Our identity was smash mouth football and running the ball. All we ever really wanted was a passing game that could take advantage of that strength.

If we could regularly hit a 10 yd out on third and long, that would be a bonus.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

News flash, Vince Lombardi, Paul Hornung & Jimmy Taylor ain't walking through that door any time soon. This "smashmouth" romanticism is exactly why the UConn offense has been impotent since the Cincy game in '10. College football in this day and age in much more explosive offense oriented. With few exceptions that can recruit the best at each position and then run over people, it is a passing game. UConn isn't losing because they can't run the ball, they are losing because they are not a threat to stretch the field and teams load up the box creating mismatches for the OL. Make the defense responsible for the entire field.

 

[freescooter]

News flash, Vince Lombardi, Paul Hornung & Jimmy Taylor ain't walking through that door any time soon. This "smashmouth" romanticism is exactly why the UConn offense has been impotent since the Cincy game in '10. College football in this day and age in much more explosive offense oriented. With few exceptions that can recruit the best at each position and then run over people, it is a passing game. UConn isn't losing because they can't run the ball, they are losing because they are not a threat to stretch the field and teams load up the box creating mismatches for the OL. Make the defense responsible for the entire field.

I think you guys are really on the same page here. Nobody is saying go back to Woody Hays ("only 3 things can happen when you throw the football...and 2 of them are bad), but it is possible to pass and throw the football in some kind of balance...there are teams that are more weighted to throwing, others more to running, but UConn has been pretty one dimensional for most of the post Orlovsky era. The problem is that we've now lost the ability to run without adding an effective passing game...and you don't need to stretch the field. that actually is old time thinking too, you need to open it up which you can do by hitting 5-10 yard tosses outside, over the middle, sideline...stuff that is relatively easy to complete, move the chains type passes.

 

[mets1090]

Incidently, according to Rivals, Uconn has had the 83rd (69%), 101st (84%), and 77th (64%) best recruiting classes out of 120 BCS schools for 2010-2012, respectively.!

those ranks and %s are comparing us to every FBS school. BCS would only include teams from the Big 6 and he is right that the rankings show us being pretty low in those. However, the 2010 kids were Randy's kids (83). The 2011 kids were PP keeping Edsalls kids committed because he had no time to actually recruit anyone (101 - HORRIBLE). The 2012 is a slight uptick over previous years and that's with him only being able to recruit kids during the summer before their senior year essentially. The 2013 class will be the first one that will be a full class that we can judge PP on.