So much pure gold here right now

[Redding Husky]

What I would ask after a game like that is, would people feel differently if we had won 42-38? Because it seems like there is a sharp lean towards offense on this board, which, while understandable, doesn't actually amount to anything other than a preference...and I think that, while the results have been mixed, at best, there is an entertainment and aesthetics component that I think is causing people to overstate how disappointing the results have been.

You also have to keep things like regression in mind. Virginia was -6 in their first two and a +1 today. UConn, IIRC, had sort of an unsustainable turnover differential last year and it has come back to the middle this season (they are a -3, I believe). Those things are part of football, but when you take a handful of plays that swing the win expectancy to such an extreme and concentrate them in one direction over a short period of time, it can skew progress.

The first three games taken collectively can and should be characterized as disappointing. But progress isn't linear, and perhaps, the fact that a few fluky plays here and there last season vaulted us ahead of schedule blinded some of you to how much work still had to be done. Add a couple crazy plays - maybe a special teams touchdown, a defensive touchdown, an onside kick... - to the mix a couple weeks from now in Houston, and it doesn't necessarily make us a drastically better team than we are now.

Last thing: we're UConn. Maybe that's a defeatist mentality, but it is what it is...we're a New England school trying compete in a sport that makes few inroads in this part of the country. Look at Syracuse, look at Rutgers, look at BC, just look at the entire ACC team in general - one half of the conference plays like the SEC and the other like the old Big East. It's fine to boast big dreams, but that doesn't change the bar...and the way the bar has been set at UConn, if you consistently get to bowl games and occasionally contend for the AAC division title, that's good enough.

Right now, they're on that track. And with a lot of guys hopefully returning, who knows what next season could bring? If you show up to the Rent expecting to see UConn basketball, you're going to leave disappointed. The rest will be content with grind-it-out wins over similarly handicapped teams from the north, because, hey, even if we used that once-in-a-lifetime lottery ticket already on Calhoun, it's still a lot of fun to watch a group of kids that work their ass off and proudly wear the jersey compete against peer institutions like UVA, Syracuse, BC, etc.

It would be nice if we were in a conference of peer institutions.

BC, UConn, Army, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Temple, Navy, WVU, Maryland. A nice, common sense, ten team conference which will never happen because college athletics is filled with greedy pinheads.

 

[whaler11]

"None of which have won a championship.
Stanford is about the best school in the country and it's in.... California.
Houston has a really good team and their median distance from home for their roster is 35 miles.
Boise is impressive but they thrive off players who transfer from and can't qualify at PAC 12 schools."

Your words. You've quickly gone from annoying contrarian poster to fraudulent poster. I'll dig up your post about how we can only try and be like Syracuse or BC and you laughing at Butch and saying it's impossible to ever be like a Penn State.

I guess what is contranian in some minds is what I'd say is not overreacting to everything that happens.

 

[RedStickHusky]

I guess what is contranian in some minds is what I'd say is not overreacting to everything that happens.

to be contrarian amid a gathering of fan(atics) is an odd proposition.

 

[BlueMAB]

Firing a coach for going 2-10, 6-7, and 2-1 after a win over a P5 team?

Did I go to sleep in CT and wake up in Alabama?

There's no middle ground between firing Diaco and thinking he's the best coach we could ever hope to get?

Our offense isn't fun to watch, but this thread is.

 

[Adios]

There's coaches who can do (probably far) better than Diaco. No one can deny that.

His philosophy is why we've been 2-10, 6-7, and are now 2-1, barely beating a powerhouse P5 team that lost 17 straight on the road. Yes, we're doing excellent.

You guys are acting as if beating UVA is a program-defining win. Beating Rutgers or Syracuse right now is a bigger accomplishment. Beating BC would be nice for bragging rights.

 

[whaler11]

There's coaches who can do (probably far) better than Diaco. No one can deny that.

His philosophy is why we've been 2-10, 6-7, and are now 2-1, barely beating a powerhouse P5 team that lost 17 straight on the road. Yes, we're doing excellent.

You guys are acting as if beating UVA is a program-defining win. Beating Rutgers or Syracuse right now is a bigger accomplishment. Beating BC would be nice for bragging rights.

Don't fire coach for beating Virginia = Program defining win.

 

[J187Money]

Virginia is STILL 5 slots ahead of us according to Sagarin so I'm not going to sit around and cry about only beating them by 3.

Program defining win? Hardly. But everyone expecting us to win a game like this by 3 touchdowns has unrealistic expectations.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I feel like I'm the Bizzaro Boneyarder.

When the board consensus was to cut him some slack in his first year I was one of his biggest critics.

The last 2 years I've been an Apologista among the masses carrying pitchforks.

 

[Caronimo]

They have certainly had some bad moments.

They are also 2-1.

Call me crazy, but UConn isn't in a position to fire their football coach off a win against Virginia.

If you want to build a fan base, you have to run some more aggressive plays and find ways to get creative. Most fans or casual fans that you want to make a real fan do not want to pay to see a "defensive" game. That is what I have heard from every casual fans... So I can't really blame people for being pissed at Bob... I also think the Navy game management lost some fans for a bit.

 

[Caronimo]

True we could just keep complaining about a win on the nicest September day East Hartford has ever seen.

Let's go with that. Everyone who didn't bother to show up today should call for the coach's head.

They are still mad at Bobby for his Navy performance, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. No casual fan wants to watch a boring defensive game. Start getting creative and take chances or you will never bring in a bigger fan base.

 

[junglehusky]

Everything is binary. No subtlety allowed! Either the coach is going to take the team to the conference championship or should be fired before he gets on the bus. Either candidate X is the moral candidate who cares about Joe Six-pack and soccer moms and puppies, or they are the antichrist. Coke or Pepsi. Elvis or Beatles. Mary Ann or Ginger. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE A SIDE!!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

If you want to build a fan base, you have to run some more aggressive plays and find ways to get creative. Most fans or casual fans that you want to make a real fan do not want to pay to see a "defensive" game. That is what I have heard from every casual fans... So I can't really blame people for being pissed at Bob... I also think the Navy game management lost some fans for a bit.

I really think there are a lot of people who aren't happy with the offensive strategy but at the same time don't want to irrationally fire the coach. Those carrying pitchforks for some reason are not able to acknowledge that middle ground.

 

[J187Money]

I think Benedict will have his say here - and something will be done re: the offense. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to sit around and watch helplessly.

 

[Excalibur]

I really think there are a lot of people who aren't happy with the offensive strategy but at the same time don't want to irrationally fire the coach. Those carrying pitchforks for some reason are not able to acknowledge that middle ground.

I think the criticism goes far beyond just the offensive strategy. I can accept that he won't get fired, but I also don't think that his obvious and consistent shortcomings are going to improve.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

I think Benedict will have his say here - and something will be done re: the offense. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to sit around and watch helplessly.

While Benedict may have a say in who Diaco employs...do you really think he can change the coaches philosophy?

It just seems hard to believe that BD will approach the game differently. He is a defensive coach who believes in bend don't break defense. On offense he believes in establishing a running game and minimizing turnovers. I don't see Benedict changing either approach.

I am not saying BD can't be successful here...I just don't think we should expect his philosophy or strategy to change. It's who he is....like it or not. This is starting to feel more and more like RE 2.0....which isn't necessarily a bad thing....but it probably won't include a Don Brown defense or an open offense.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I think the criticism goes far beyond just the offensive strategy. I can accept that he won't get fired, but I also don't think that his obvious and consistent shortcomings are going to improve.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. If he doesn't improve they won't win and he'll get fired.

He did improve from year 1 to year 2. So history suggests that's he capable of improving. Regardless of what the BY says.

 

[UConn66]

If I'm not mistaken, between 2007-2010 or so we played with essentially about 7 or 8 OLineman consistently starting.

Edsall's really struck gold with recruiting those players, several of which rank among the top 5 and 10 players in career starts in the entire history of the program.

We all really got spoiled on how fast those guys were in pulling and trap blocking.

That noted, when you consistently have no pace and urgency in personnel changes and play calling, huddling and getting lined up at scrimmage and are so slow in the play clock, that is a coaching issue. Both in practice and in games.

You play the way you practice.

The D has looked faster since game 1, I think.

Remember the O line at the end of the Notre Dame game? A thing of beauty and a joy forever!

 

[Carl Spackler]

Remember the O line at the end of the Notre Dame game? A thing of beauty and a joy forever!

Of course. I also remember the ability to pull and trap from either side G's and T's and open huge holes based on linebacker movement and positioning, against pretty much anybody. That requires foot speed that you either have of have not.

Its occurred to me, and Ive remarked consistently that its entirely possible that we give the appearance of being so slow in the play clock by intentional design to slow the game down because we don't have an explosive offense with a lot of team speed at the point of attack line of scrimmage. By doing that, you limit your scoring chances, but by playing sound D and ST limit the other team too.

That is still no excuse for gross negligence in management of TO's and the clock in general, and you better be damn crisp with your play calling communication, personnel groupings and substitutions and urgency in getting lined up right if you plan to run the play clock down to 2 or 1 on every call.

To be fair, we've been very clean on procedural penalties. We're facing defenses stacked against the run, just filling the gaps, because they know from watching that we can't do anything except straight ahead blocking. A passing game would soften it up a bit, but we have no pace and ryhtym on offense for an effective pass offense to keep a defense backpedalling.

Just need to keep recruiting OL's and keep working to find guys to improve team footspeed.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I wonder if my observations are accurate. If so, it would make sense that we are on the low side of average number of offensive plays run in a game as compared to the conference/ national division 1 average of total number of offensive plays per game.

 

[Excalibur]

Its occurred to me, and Ive remarked consistently that its entirely possible that we give the appearance of being so slow in the play clock by intentional design to slow the game down because we don't have an explosive offense with a lot of team speed at the point of attack line of scrimmage. By doing that, you limit your scoring chances, but by playing sound D and ST limit the other team too.

To be fair, we've been very clean on procedural penalties. We're facing defenses stacked against the run, just filling the gaps, because they know from watching that we can't do anything except straight ahead blocking. A passing game would soften it up a bit, but we have no pace and ryhtym on offense for an effective pass offense to keep a defense backpedalling.

That's a fair assessment. Honestly, I don't recall a lineman actually putting a body on a linebacker through three games . . .

 

[RedStickHusky]

I wonder if my observations are accurate. If so, it would make sense that we are on the low side of average number of offensive plays run in a game as compared to the conference/ national division 1 average of total number of offensive plays per game.

It's quite clear to me that we're deliberately trying to shorten the game and limit the oppositions offensive opportunities. I understand it but I have three problems with it..
1) it's a strategy weak teams employ to try and compete with stronger teams.. it's an admission of weakness in front of your players and not a strategy of confidence;
2) it greatly magnifies the importance of bounce plays; Maine gets a 10/14-point swing play on us (the scoop and score) and we barely have time left to beat them by three (note the ease with which we put up 10 in the 4th qtr when we committed to offense - why didn't we hang 40 on Maine? because we didn't want to.); and
3) like you say Carl, it disrupts all offensive rhythm - not to mention, if the defense knows we're snapping at 1 sec on every play, no wonder they're getting off the ball better than we are and playing in our backfield...

 

[UConnDan97]

It's quite clear to me that we're deliberately trying to shorten the game and limit the oppositions offensive opportunities. I understand it but I have three problems with it..
1) it's a strategy weak teams employ to try and compete with stronger teams.. it's an admission of weakness in front of your players and not a strategy of confidence;
2) it greatly magnifies the importance of bounce plays; Maine gets a 10/14-point swing play on us (the scoop and score) and we barely have time left to beat them by three (note the ease with which we put up 10 in the 4th qtr when we committed to offense - why didn't we hang 40 on Maine? because we didn't want to.); and
3) like you say Carl, it disrupts all offensive rhythm - not to mention, if the defense knows we're snapping at 1 sec on every play, no wonder they're getting off the ball better than we are and playing in our backfield...

And yet having said all of this, we see that the team operates at its best when it is in its "2-minute offense".

This is the issue that I have with the slow-down strategy, if it is indeed being implemented on purpose. We also see that the team seems to operate better in both the pass and the run when Shirreffs is allowed to operate from the shotgun. What I would like to see is for us to have him work out of the shotgun more consistently and allow the offense to run a much higher tempo. I think it will pay dividends...

 

[Waquoit]

I think Benedict will have his say here - and something will be done re: the offense.

Locker room pep talks a la Warde?

 

[RedStickHusky]

And yet having said all of this, we see that the team operates at its best when it is in its "2-minute offense".

This is the issue that I have with the slow-down strategy, if it is indeed being implemented on purpose. We also see that the team seems to operate better in both the pass and the run when Shirreffs is allowed to operate from the shotgun. What I would like to see is for us to have him work out of the shotgun more consistently and allow the offense to run a much higher tempo. I think it will pay dividends...

I totally agree. I think we're employing our offense in a way the coach feels best supports the defense by enforcing low scoring games, mostly because of an aesthetic preference for low scoring games. But.. when you hire a DC to be your head coach.....

 

[Husky Pete]

It's quite clear to me that we're deliberately trying to shorten the game and limit the oppositions offensive opportunities. I understand it but I have three problems with it..
1) it's a strategy weak teams employ to try and compete with stronger teams.. it's an admission of weakness in front of your players and not a strategy of confidence;
2) it greatly magnifies the importance of bounce plays; Maine gets a 10/14-point swing play on us (the scoop and score) and we barely have time left to beat them by three (note the ease with which we put up 10 in the 4th qtr when we committed to offense - why didn't we hang 40 on Maine? because we didn't want to.); and
3) like you say Carl, it disrupts all offensive rhythm - not to mention, if the defense knows we're snapping at 1 sec on every play, no wonder they're getting off the ball better than we are and playing in our backfield...

Sat, Sep 10 Maine @ Toledo L 3 - 45 Final

Saturday, September 10, 7:00 PM
Glass Bowl, Toledo, Ohio
Maine
Black Bears
(0-2)

3 - 45
Final
Toledo
Rockets
(2-0)
1 2 3 4 Total
Maine 3 0 0 0 3
Toledo 7 10 21 7 45

 

[Carl Spackler]

Before you guys run away with this, I'm not sure if my observation is accurate. If we really are doing it intentionally we'd be having less total offensive plays per game than average. I'm not sure that is the case.

What we have, that I'm sure of,is an offense that struggles to score points on sustained offensive drives in the flow of normal game time, but seems to be able to move well in clock running down situations, and an offense that is relying heavily on the QB for yardage production on the ground and air with an offensive line and TEs that don't seem to be able to do much other thsn strsight ahead blocking and are consistently seeing stacked defenses shooting all gaps selling out to stop the run.

 

[Alum86]

I totally agree. I think we're employing our offense in a way the coach feels best supports the defense by enforcing low scoring games, mostly because of an aesthetic preference for low scoring games. But.. when you hire a DC to be your head coach.....

......and your RB lines up on the Red Lot Runway, well....

 

[amory]

I think people had convinced themselves that this was the year we'd see some offensive fireworks.

There haven't been any fireworks, but it sure has been offensive. one out of two aint bad?

 

[RedStickHusky]

Before you guys run away with this, I'm not sure if my observation is accurate. If we really are doing it intentionally we'd be having less total offensive plays per game than average. I'm not sure that is the case.

What we have, that I'm sure of,is an offense that struggles to score points on sustained offensive drives in the flow of normal game time, but seems to be able to move well in clock running down situations, and an offense that is relying heavily on the QB for yardage production on the ground and air with an offensive line and TEs that don't seem to be able to do much other thsn strsight ahead blocking and are consistently seeing stacked defenses shooting all gaps selling out to stop the run.

the tempo guru's talk about 100 plays like it's the holy grail and we're clearly not shooting for anything like that. We seem more concerned with possession time than with # of plays. I'll agree the motivation could be as benign as trying to keep the offense on the field long enough to keep the defense fresh. it's an oft-noted problem for high tempo teams that three and outs really hurt their defense. None of this is revelatory to me, I've been thinking since last year that we were trying to shorten the games and I can see it against triple option teams and high octane teams but I think it works against us against teams like Maine and UVa.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm leaning toward unintentional slow down in play actually. I think its more likely that they want to go fast, but arent practicing fast offensive football very well from the play caller thinking ahead, going through the communication progression, to getting the play calls to the field. It was all evident in the TD play, and @businesslawyer just wrote a good take.

I looked and we ran 73 plays on O according to the Maine box score. Thats not consistent with the observation.

If I had to place a bet, I'm putting the breakdown at the top of the chain - thinking ahead and being prepared in play calling.

For 2 weeks straight, we lined up in a goal line offense situation, called running plays, and it seemed like there was very little thought or preparation what to do from the top down, in case the play actually failed.

I don't know uconn peeps.

I just feel like I'm watching slow football.