Poor Practice Player Shines During Game

[gioff23]

I think it is fair to say that unless the guys at NASA start practicing better and gettting in shape than Whaler is never putting them in a game.

It is odd that 2 of the best O players we have had in the past few years were both benchwarmers based on their practice habits until the bench was completely empty - Easley and CC. Easley apparently perfected the art of poor practice over a 4 year period while young Casey had done so for only a year and a half.

 

[freescooter]

Level of competition played a large role in this. The level of beatings also played a role in TJ not being considered for the job.


Also, while it's possible for a player who does not practice well to excel in games, but what coach would take that approach? Not exactly a high percentage play. Of course in P's case, when the guy playing in the games is a complete train wreck, it's just a dumb to not play someone else.

Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.

 

[J187Money]

Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.

Uh oh. I'm with Freescooter again.

 

[CTMike]

Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.

Why are you incapable of seeing that this is the epitome of hindsight being 20/20?

A year ago, BEFORE any games, there was practice. No matter how much you insist otherwise, the pecking order based on the info available at the time was Whitmer, Boyle, then CC. You looking back now, in 2014, and saying CC was the better choice proves you smarter than no one. Whitmer and Boyle had earned the right to stumble before being pulled. Casey, to his everlasting credit, made the most of his opportunity when he got it. But there is no evidence to show he should have had it sooner- other than revisionist history. And blind hatred for Warde Manuel.

 

[ZooCougar]

Paul Pasqualoni is causing global warming.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Paul Pasqualoni is causing global warming.

That is the only thing that cannot be disputed in this entire God forsaken thread.

 

[BlueMAB]

If Tyler Davis doesn't start against BYU, fire Diaco.

(Yes. I know.)

 

[cttxus]

Did you guys not watch the games. it wasn't level of competition nor was it the line. Cochran was simply a better player. Would we have beaten UCF or Louisville with Cochran? I have serious doubts about that. they were much better teams. But when he came into a game, even when it was late in blowout losses, it was just so clear that he had a wholly different effect on the team. He was in control. He was accurate with his passes, he got rid of the football when he should have, he didn't take senseless sacks. In other words he did all the things a quarterback is supposed to do. You could see the difference in the way players reacted, you could feel the difference. Boyle was a publicity move first by a desperate head coach then by his equally desperate AD.That the decision to play Boyle wasn't over-ridden by the acting head coach ought to tell you something. He was no more ready to play D1 football than my 80 year old Aunt Agnes is. He really should not have even been in there. And he should have been replaced much sooner once it was clear he was so ill prepared.

I am not the best qualified person to speak about how CW and TB performed in person. I wasn't at any of those games but I did watch most of them on TV. However, I was at the SMU game, on the 50 yd line, just a few rows behind the Husky bench. And I still remember watching Casey closely both on the field and on the sidelines. It was clear to me from that one game that Casey was in much more control of himself, the team, and the game than I had seen from the QBs in the prior 6 games.

I actually took a few notes that I had planned to share on this board. Here's my first note to self: "1st quarter with 9:15 to go on the clock. 3rd and 12. CC under pressure, stays in the pocket and makes a tough throw to Shakim for a 1st down and keeps the drive alive! you can feel it, we have the momentum back!"

CC did this kind of thing several times that day and I can still remember thinking his play was so much better (more control, poise, decision making, accuracy, limited mistakes, leadership) than what I'd seen from the other two QBs in the first 6 games. Unless thinks change dramatically in fall practice, I think CC has earned the starting slot for BYU.

 

[freescooter]

Why are you incapable of seeing that this is the epitome of hindsight being 20/20?

A year ago, BEFORE any games, there was practice. No matter how much you insist otherwise, the pecking order based on the info available at the time was Whitmer, Boyle, then CC. You looking back now, in 2014, and saying CC was the better choice proves you smarter than no one. Whitmer and Boyle had earned the right to stumble before being pulled. Casey, to his everlasting credit, made the most of his opportunity when he got it. But there is no evidence to show he should have had it sooner- other than revisionist history. And blind hatred for Warde Manuel.

I'm not criticizing starting Whitmer. While he wasn't great, and had a tendency to throw picks his first year, I thought he also showed an upside at times. But by the Buffalo game it was pretty clear that he wasn't getting it done. Time to move on. I'd have gone to Cochran at that point and tried mightily to save Boyle's redshirt because A. he was being sold as the future of the program and B. a redshirt Senior is usually better than a true freshman at quarterback. And it had to have been clear that he had little command of the offense, regardless of his raw talent. That was a huge miss by Pasqualoni, and by his offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. They basically wasted a year on a kid who was not ready in a desperate attempt to save their jobs. But even if you do decide to go with him, it was also clear to anyone who watched the USF game that Boyle was completely unprepared to play at that level. The defense held USF to 2 field goals. They scored on a run back of a Boyle fumble, too. Boyle was 15/43 149 yards against a team that gave up a 68% completion rate. UConn's touchdown was on a long McCombs run. Other than the first drive he was incapable of moving the team against a bad football team. He followed that mess up at Cincy. He was sacked 8 times against Cincinatti and threw 3 picks. By the end of next week surely he had had his fair chance...14/29/3, 5 sacks. still zero td passes. The experiment should have ended right there at the latest. Bring in Cochran. Go back to Whitmer. Either would have been more defensible than staying with Boyle. When it finally did end, Boyle was ranked dead last among quarterbacks in Division 1A, and it wasn't even close for the next guy. He started 5 games and came away with a 71.6 efficiecny rating, 44% completions, 8 picks, zero touchdowns, 124 ypg. And he was sacked something like 16 times. Even if he "earned the chance to stumble" as you say by his practice performance, and watching him actually play, I am skeptical that he did, he had clearly stumbled after 2 games, and by game 3 he was way beyond stumbling. He was in total free fall. And watching him play it was just so clear he shouldn't have been on the field. It was clear against USF. I was more clear against the rest of the schedule. So I can't believe that Weist and Day saw something in practice that made them think he should play. If they did, we are well to be rid of them. When your team is struggling I get that you have to make a change. But when you have a true freshman who is supposed to be the future of the program and he clearly isn't ready, it is horrible coaching to use him and waste a year.

 

[CTMike]

I'm not criticizing starting Whitmer. While he wasn't great, and had a tendency to throw picks his first year, I thought he also showed an upside at times. But by the Buffalo game it was pretty clear that he wasn't getting it done. Time to move on. I'd have gone to Cochran at that point and tried mightily to save Boyle's redshirt because A. he was being sold as the future of the program and B. a redshirt Senior is usually better than a true freshman at quarterback. And it had to have been clear that he had little command of the offense, regardless of his raw talent. That was a huge miss by Pasqualoni, and by his offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. They basically wasted a year on a kid who was not ready in a desperate attempt to save their jobs. But even if you do decide to go with him, it was also clear to anyone who watched the USF game that Boyle was completely unprepared to play at that level. The defense held USF to 2 field goals. They scored on a run back of a Boyle fumble, too. Boyle was 15/43 149 yards against a team that gave up a 68% completion rate. UConn's touchdown was on a long McCombs run. Other than the first drive he was incapable of moving the team against a bad football team. He followed that mess up at Cincy. He was sacked 8 times against Cincinatti and threw 3 picks. By the end of next week surely he had had his fair chance...14/29/3, 5 sacks. still zero td passes. The experiment should have ended right there at the latest. Bring in Cochran. Go back to Whitmer. Either would have been more defensible than staying with Boyle. When it finally did end, Boyle was ranked dead last among quarterbacks in Division 1A, and it wasn't even close for the next guy. He started 5 games and came away with a 71.6 efficiecny rating, 44% completions, 8 picks, zero touchdowns, 124 ypg. And he was sacked something like 16 times. Even if he "earned the chance to stumble" as you say by his practice performance, and watching him actually play, I am skeptical that he did, he had clearly stumbled after 2 games, and by game 3 he was way beyond stumbling. He was in total free fall. And watching him play it was just so clear he shouldn't have been on the field. It was clear against USF. I was more clear against the rest of the schedule. So I can't believe that Weist and Day saw something in practice that made them think he should play. If they did, we are well to be rid of them. When your team is struggling I get that you have to make a change. But when you have a true freshman who is supposed to be the future of the program and he clearly isn't ready, it is horrible coaching to use him and waste a year.

I like when we talk rationally.

 

[LRock34]

I don't care who CC was playing against at the end of the season. You can't discount the types of numbers that he put up. Other UConn QBs have done FAR LESS against worst competition since Dan O graduated way back when. Simply put his performances at the end of last year were the best we've seen from a UConn QB in 8 years.

 

[cttxus]

What concerns me somewhat is HCBD's claim that he hasn't looked at any game film from last year and doesn't intend to. I'm guessing that's one way he figures to get buy-in and maximum effort from all three QB's (and other players) in fall camp who may have had less-than-stellar 2013s. But, unless he looks at game film or asks someone like Foley about last year, it sounds like he's going to make a starting QB decision on fall camp performances. If so, I hope CC is the QB HCBD was thinking of today when he said he'd start the QB who demonstrates the best command of the intangibles if all other things are equal among them (I'm paraphrasing there).

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I don't believe for one second that Diaco isn't looking at last year's game film. He'd have to be an idiot not to. This is coachspeak. He doesn't want anyone to be complacent. If he's really not looking at game film and using that as a PART of the evaluation, then we are screwed. Because we hired an idiot.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

The compelling arguments have me convinced! As coach Diaco has not yet named Casey the starter I have just begun the process of registering the domain name FireBobDiaco.Com. We cannot have this here. If he does decide to name Cochrane the starter for the BYU game I will remove the bounty from his head but the tar and feathers will still be ready to go just in case.