Phil Steele-Now you've done it... | The Boneyard

Phil Steele-Now you've done it...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,129
Reaction Score
12,326
Just got my copy & opened it. Steele has UCONN ranked as the #10 most improved team for 2016, YET the 5th ranked team in the East Division of the AAC.
 

Dooley

Done with U-con athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,960
Reaction Score
32,818
That seems to be the consensus on our huskies for 2016. A quite improved 6 win team that might win 5 games.

This made me LOL. I get the same feeling. Everything I read and hear seems to be along the lines of "watch out for the up and coming Huskies, who won 6 games last year. If things break right for them, they could win less games than they did last year."

People actually get paid to give their projections and opinions. Worst of all, people actually pay them and some take it for gospel!
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,659
Reaction Score
70,294
I kinda get it.

We have the same QB and if we get the same QB play the win total doesn't change even though we have improved the team around QB.

What remains unsaid is that if we get improved QB play, we should improve dramatically.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,667
Reaction Score
8,722
In defense of Phil Steele (and I haven't read it yet), I don't think the cited passages are crazy. Four of our 6 wins were against teams that weren't within smelling distance of the Top 100, and we got to 6 and 6 with a large positive turnover margin which Steele always looks for to even out over time. Does anyone really doubt that we could be a much improved team this year play by play over the course of the season and still not have it show up in the win column? I think that's extremely possible. We don't beat syracuse, BC and UVA playing the way we beat 'Nova and Tulane and Army.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
348
Reaction Score
488
Objectively, USF, Temple and Cincy all have returning QBs from better offenses than ours so I can see ranking us below those three teams to start the season. Now there are two factors I can think of that might make a difference - Temple for some reason hiring GDL as its OL coach and Cincy losing a ton of its WRs and breaking in a new OC. We'll see.
 

Dooley

Done with U-con athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,960
Reaction Score
32,818
Navy and Cincinnati are traditional headaches for us. Houston will be a tough game on a short week and weeknight primetime spot. Other than those 3, I am reasonably confident that we have a chance to win every other game on our schedule.

I love our defense. I think contrarian style football plays when everyone is on the same page - we are entering year 3 with the majority of our starters being here all of those years.

Big question is obviously the offense - specifically the OL. If we can get back to Husky football, establishing the tough, physical running game and giving BS ample time in the pocket to take his well timed shots down field, our offense could improve. In reality, we need to control the clock, move field position, and capitalize when we get into scoring zones. Fortunately for our 2016 hopes, there aren't many defenses on the schedule that look like lockdown defenses. Boston College might be the best one but they lost their DC to Michigan, so anything is possible. Our D struggled in many games the season following Don Brown leaving so hopefully BC's D will do the same.
 

Dooley

Done with U-con athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,960
Reaction Score
32,818
We have to protect the Rent. Win our games at home and add some road wins and we are in.:):)

Shameless plug to buy tickets: we ALL have to protect the Rent. Need to give our guys true home-field advantage unlike anything that this entire roster has experienced at UConn so far.
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
59,351
Reaction Score
221,522
I kinda get it.

We have the same QB and if we get the same QB play the win total doesn't change even though we have improved the team around QB.

What remains unsaid is that if we get improved QB play, we should improve dramatically.
If we get improved OL play, we'll make a quantum leap. I'm hopeful that that will happen. All of sudden we will become a much more entertaining team to watch and a threat to win against pretty much anyone we are facing.

Ah, the summer, when every football team has a shot at the national championship...
 
Last edited:

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,559
Reaction Score
19,546
If we get improved OL play, we'll make a quantum leap. I'm hopeful that that will happen. All of sudden we will become a much more entertaining team to watch and a threat to win against pretty much anyone we are facing.

Ah, the summer, when every football team has a shot at the national championship...
Incorrect. Football is played in a vacuum. How a position is played has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any other position on the field.:rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,659
Reaction Score
70,294
Incorrect. Football is played in a vacuum. How a position is played has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any other position on the field.:rolleyes:
If we get improved OL play and worse QB play, we don't improve. That's just the way it is.

I understand the theory that improved OL line play will make it easier for the QB to improve (for many reasons) but that isn't automatic.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,347
Reaction Score
23,007
If we get improved OL play and worse QB play, we don't improve. That's just the way it is.

I understand the theory that improved OL line play will make it easier for the QB to improve (for many reasons) but that isn't automatic.

Improved OL play sure as hell makes improvement from the QB more likely than regression. Not to mention improvement at the OL helps the run game, which also helps the QB.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,659
Reaction Score
70,294
Improved OL play sure as hell makes improvement from the QB more likely than regression. Not to mention improvement at the OL helps the run game, which also helps the QB.
Yes, that is all true but it doesn't automatically make the QB better.

Let's hope he improves after a year in the system.
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
59,351
Reaction Score
221,522
Yes, that is all true but it doesn't automatically make the QB better.

Let's hope he improves after a year in the system.
I suspect that he will, but having more time to run through his options and not constantly having to scramble are likely to make him look a lot better regardless.

Our defense has made opposing quarterbacks look bad over the years. Our problem is our that protection has made our quarterback look worse.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,559
Reaction Score
19,546
If we get improved OL play and worse QB play, we don't improve. That's just the way it is.

I understand the theory that improved OL line play will make it easier for the QB to improve (for many reasons) but that isn't automatic.

It is true that an improved offensive line does not directly lead to an improved QB, but you said it yourself: "OL line [sic] play will make it easier for the QB to improve..."

By the way, UConn was 110 and 118 in the country in rushing offense and scoring offense, respectively. If (When) the offensive line improves, there is no question the offense as a whole improves.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,347
Reaction Score
23,007
Yes, that is all true but it doesn't automatically make the QB better.

Let's hope he improves after a year in the system.
It also doesn't make him automatically worse. Most of us are cautiously optimistic that there will be improvement across the board on offense. You seem doubtful that Shirrefs will improve even if the OL improves. That's a puzzling stance.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,659
Reaction Score
70,294
It also doesn't make him automatically worse. Most of us are cautiously optimistic that there will be improvement across the board on offense. You seem doubtful that Shirrefs will improve even if the OL improves. That's a puzzling stance.
Your interpretation of my post is wrong.

My point, again, is that the QB position will determine the amount of improvement by the Huskies. It was an attempt to explain why Steele saw us as much improved but didn't reflect that in his prediction. The truth is that no one knows Shirreffs ceiling. I hope he is John Elway. But at this point I don't have any evidence on which to venture a guess. And the Blue/White game didn't really hold any clues.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,347
Reaction Score
23,007
Your interpretation of my post is wrong.

My point, again, is that the QB position will determine the amount of improvement by the Huskies. It was an attempt to explain why Steele saw us as much improved but didn't reflect that in his prediction. The truth is that no one knows Shirreffs ceiling. I hope he is John Elway. But at this point I don't have any evidence on which to venture a guess. And the Blue/White game didn't really hold any clues.

Just to finish the circle... it's going to be much harder for the QB to improve if the OL hasn't improved.

It's not a chicken or egg argument. The OL has to be better, if for no other reason than to keep BS healthy. So again, your point that the QB position will determine the amount of improvement doesn't tell the whole story. It starts at the line of scrimmage both on offense and defense. Control the LOS and you can control the game.

I believe we have significantly better coaching than 3-5 years ago. And that he will improve. He's young and showed signs. And Diaco, unlike Edsall, has spoken to the fact that they need to tweak things to put him in a position to be better. I think he'll do that this offseason.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
4,321
Reaction Score
11,281
In defense of Phil Steele (and I haven't read it yet), I don't think the cited passages are crazy. Four of our 6 wins were against teams that weren't within smelling distance of the Top 100, and we got to 6 and 6 with a large positive turnover margin which Steele always looks for to even out over time. Does anyone really doubt that we could be a much improved team this year play by play over the course of the season and still not have it show up in the win column? I think that's extremely possible. We don't beat syracuse, BC and UVA playing the way we beat 'Nova and Tulane and Army.

This is pretty close to my view. I think the offence will be better than last season. The question, of course, is to what degree. Unlike many others, I think the defense is in question. Campeni, Stewart, Vann and Adams were major contributors. At the LB spot nobody appeared to press Stewart and Vann for time, and while they were good college LBs, we've had plenty better. The transfer from FSU does not appear to be a lock to start, so he does not appear to standout. Don't get me wrong, I think the defense will be solid, but I would not necessarily assume it will be as good as last season.

BL's point on turnovers is a good one as well. Although I think the game planning of Diaco plays a big role with a relatively low risk offense. Newsome made tremendous progress last season in that area going from a disaster his freshman year to......I can't remember him fumbling at all last season.

We need to go no worse than 2-2 to start the season against UMaine, Navy, UVA and Cuse to have a "good" season. 1-3 and we could be in trouble and 3-1 we could go on a roll. We really have to hope that UVA and Cuse are transitioning with their respective coaching changes. If BC's defense is anything like it was last season that game at Alumni later this season is a very tough one for UCONN.
 

Dream Jobbed 2.0

“Most definitely”
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
15,003
Reaction Score
56,615
Ideally, UVA CUSE and Navy dramatically improve from August to November and we can sneak some wins as they go through growing pains that good at the end of the year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,337
Total visitors
1,395

Forum statistics

Threads
159,666
Messages
4,199,422
Members
10,068
Latest member
bohratom


.
Top Bottom