Some quick thoughts

[Colt house75]

I hated everything about that game. The goofy 3rd down play calling. The abominable 4th down decision in the second quarter. The total lack of preparation in defense (sorry it showed). The incessant rambling of the PA announcer, the drunken fool who operates the scoreboard, I hated all of it.

Why you ask, aren't we better than last year you ask? Yes, we are better, big whoop. I take little solace in no longer being the worst team in FBS football. It's not difficult to not be the worst.

I hated this entire game, even more than any game last year, because they didn't deserve it. There is talent on this team, quite a bit actually. Maybe more than we've ever had. I hated it because the coach cost them 11 points because he can't read a game. That option call on 3rd and 1 was a fireable offense. The call to go for it on 4th and 6 from the 14 yard line would get you committed in any state in America.

There are several things that gave been working and every time a critical play occurs, he pulls some wacky bs from his crazy Bob bag of tricks. WTF. I MEAN WTF.

As for the defense, they made some decent if not game changing adjustments at half time. Why did it have to take until halftime? It's not like there isn't a decade's worth of film on every play Navy runs.

Those two things alone cost what on the field was a very winnable game. I haven't seen the offense move with that much ease in years but when the shadow of the goal post gets close they take a giant dump on the field.

Talk rebuilding, talk process all you want but for me that was the worst experience I've ever had at a home game. I left the stadium thoroughly pissed off and I'm still mad about it.

Disagree with you SUBBA.... Buffalo in 2013 was the bottom of the trough. my suggestion to you is if you can't see the fight and fire, especially in the 2nd half ---so SUBBA, you are pissed off leaving the stadium- then don't go..... those pups didn't quit and stopped Navy in the Red Zone with 4 minutes (left???) in the 4th qtr. BY THE WAY-LAST TIME I CHECKED WE PLAYED THEM EVEN (8 to 7) IN THE SECOND HALF.... They could have packed it in and they didn't. A Gigantic leap of faith the last two weeks for a group of kids who now believe in themselves and each other. We didn't lose the game-Navy outright beat us. They have 9 seniors starting on offense running the triple to perfection blocking for a 4 year starting QB that can break Monte Balls NCAA record for most TD's in a career (he now has 73). This Navy team smothered ECU which just beat VTech and lost to Florida by 7.

 

[Dooley]

Beals has a chance to be the most electric skill position player the program has ever had. I've been trying to come up with a true freshman receiver that looked as good this quickly and I've got nothing.

Agreed. Todman showed bursts in his FR year but as for receivers, we haven't had a true FR come in and play this well this fast ever. He has all the skills to be our go-to guy for many years to come. I'd be interested to see how he'd do on KR/PR duty. If nothing else, I'm confident he will catch everything back there and save us field position.

 

[whaler11]

Agreed. Todman showed bursts in his FR year but as for receivers, we haven't had a true FR come in and play this well this fast ever. He has all the skills to be our go-to guy for many years to come. I'd be interested to see how he'd do on KR/PR duty. If nothing else, I'm confident he will catch everything back there and save us field position.

Personally I wouldn't play Newsome or Beals on specials.

They need another class of playmakers to build depth in the return game. I'm not putting those two at risk at this point in the game.

 

[noeynox]

Personally I wouldn't play Newsome or Beals on specials.

They need another class of playmakers to build depth in the return game. I'm not putting those two at risk at this point in the game.

BTW, I love this quick thoughts thread you've started. Gives everyone the chance to post their personal observations. Should become a fixture on the board like Biz's View from Section 241

 

[Dooley]

Personally I wouldn't play Newsome or Beals on specials.

They need another class of playmakers to build depth in the return game. I'm not putting those two at risk at this point in the game.

I hear you...it's definitely risky. Lemelle just isn't cutting it for me back there on PR. Lets way too many balls bounce.

 

[Excalibur]

There are never any upsets anyway.

There's a reason they call them upsets -- thus the point about expectations . . .

 

[Dooley]

Another quick thought (and I apologize if this has been discussed on other threads): why did we go for 2 there on our last score? TD made it 28-16, so the EP keeps it a two possession game. Has Coach lost all faith in the EP team? Or are we going for 2 when the game is a bit more lopsided and Navy's D might be a little "less interested"? It's a moot point since we converted thanks to the refs picking up their flag, but it just seemed like a curious decision.

 

[whaler11]

Another quick thought (and I apologize if this has been discussed on other threads): why did we go for 2 there on our last score? TD made it 28-16, so the EP keeps it a two possession game. Has Coach lost all faith in the EP team? Or are we going for 2 when the game is a bit more lopsided and Navy's D might be a little "less interested"? It's a moot point since we converted thanks to the refs picking up their flag, but it just seemed like a curious decision.

About 10 days ago I had a long conversation with a bright guy on going for 2 down 12 and going for 2 when you score a TD down 14.

We can get into the math sometime - but playing for overtime lowers your win expectancy versus being aggressive going to 2 in those spots.

 

[huskymedic]

Another quick thought (and I apologize if this has been discussed on other threads): why did we go for 2 there on our last score? TD made it 28-16, so the EP keeps it a two possession game. Has Coach lost all faith in the EP team? Or are we going for 2 when the game is a bit more lopsided and Navy's D might be a little "less interested"? It's a moot point since we converted thanks to the refs picking up their flag, but it just seemed like a curious decision.

10 pt deficit versus 11 pt deficit - Right call?

 

[Storrsbred]

UCONN may be at the 100 level O, but a whole lot of the problem is on the coaching. For example, When the situation calls for a short yardage play today you never saw a slant to a tight end or anyone else for that matter and that's on the coaches.It was only a short time ago TE's were being talked up as part of the O solution. So because they dropped a few recently they don't get their number called? Guess not participating is the punishment like Newsome experienced last week. Someone wrote today the play calling is truly bizarre, like the coaching staff chooses the call that has the least chance of succeeding among more sane options. So bottom line, the coaching staff needs to up their game to at least a level above 100 and figure out calls that will have a chance of succeeding.

 

[whaler11]

10 pt deficit versus 11 pt deficit - Right call?

Down 12 the math isn't as obvious - but if you need two at some point - you are better off knowing if you got it or not while you have time to play for 2 TD.

 

[Dooley]

About 10 days ago I had a long conversation with a bright guy on going for 2 down 12 and going for 2 when you score a TD down 14.

We can get into the math sometime - but playing for overtime lowers your win expectancy versus being aggressive going to 2 in those spots.

Hmm...interesting. So essentially the sabremetrics support going for 2 early and not waiting until absolutely necessary?

My first thought when they lined up was that Diaco has lost all faith in our EP team. Then I thought that it might make sense to go for 2 when Navy's D may have been slightly less interested than if the score was closer and the conversion would have tied the game (if we got there).

I'd be interested in the stats of when to go for it and when to kick.

 

[whaler11]

Hmm...interesting. So essentially the sabremetrics support going for 2 early and not waiting until absolutely necessary?

My first thought when they lined up was that Diaco has lost all faith in our EP team. Then I thought that it might make sense to go for 2 when Navy's D may have been slightly less interested than if the score was closer and the conversion would have tied the game (if we got there).

I'd be interested in the stats of when to go for it and when to kick.

I used to think it was is insane to go for 2 down 12. But when you sit down and consider overtime is a coinflip it makes a compelling argument to do everything you can do to win in regulation.

 

[noeynox]

UCONN may be at the 100 level O, but a whole lot of the problem is on the coaching. For example, When the situation calls for a short yardage play today you never saw a slant to a tight end or anyone else for that matter and that's on the coaches.It was only a short time ago TE's were being talked up as part of the O solution. So because they dropped a few recently they don't get their number called? Guess not participating is the punishment like Newsome experienced last week. Someone wrote today the play calling is truly bizarre, like the coaching staff chooses the call that has the least chance of succeeding among more sane options. So bottom line, the coaching staff needs to up their game to at least a level above 100 and figure out calls that will have a chance of succeeding.

Well that option call that took us from 3rd and 2 to 4th and 6, was real head scratcher.

 

[Dooley]

Down 12 the math isn't as obvious - but if you need two at some point - you are better off knowing if you got it or not while you have time to play for 2 TD.

I see the logic in it. Go for 2 early and if you don't get it, you still have time to, hopefully, get the ball back a few more times.

It's an interesting discussion: the sabremetrics vs sideline energy. Not converting there runs the risk of deflating the team after a score while putting your team in quite a hole to have to score 2 TDs. If you can keep your team focused and energized (and aggressive), it's still the same "need 2 scoring drives" discussion. But now 2 TDs wins the game if you can keep the other team from scoring. Playing for a FG always means conservative play-calling late in games. The K could miss the kick or you can lose in OT.

Very interesting discussion indeed. I just brought it up because I couldn't remember a time seeing a coach not play "the math" playing for a FG + TD/2-pt to tie.

 

[Dooley]

I used to think it was is insane to go for 2 down 12. But when you sit down and consider overtime is a coinflip it makes a compelling argument to do everything you can do to win in regulation.

Agree. Just have to guard against deflating your team not converting after a score. I trust Diaco to know the pulse of his team to judge whether or not that would happen. The team certainly didn't quit today so that's encouraging. We've missed enough EPs this season that the logic makes even more sense!

 

[Storrsbred]

Well that option call that took us from 3rd and 2 to 4th and 6, was real head scratcher.

Yeah, I was screaming at the tv on that one. Wonder whose brainchild that one was?

 

[huskymedic]

Easy to pick out the negatives and the scratch you head calls but we also saw a well timed and executed flea-flicker (except the ending), a successful on-side kick and a two point conversion. They'll get it figured out...

 

[Dooley]

The option call was terrible. We were having success running between the tackles on that drive. Even if you get stuffed, the possibility of a loss on the play is much less than running some POS stretch play that we aren't used to running.

 

[Storrsbred]

Easy to pick out the negatives and the scratch you head calls but we also saw a well timed and executed flea-flicker (except the ending), a successful on-side kick and a two point conversion. They'll get it figured out...

Those calls made sense within the context of the game. The others, not so much.

 

[4in16]

The only thing that bothered me other than the 4 and 6 call,even though it was early and it looked like FGs weren't going to cut it anyways, was the conservative play calls on our one third quarter possession. Basically killing clock for them without a pass play to attempt to move the ball down the field after our first forced punt of the game. Other than that second half was an improvement imo.

 

[noeynox]

Easy to pick out the negatives and the scratch you head calls but we also saw a well timed and executed flea-flicker (except the ending), a successful on-side kick and a two point conversion. They'll get it figured out...

They are doing a lot of right things. It is fair to point a bonehead call when you see it.

 

[Dooley]

The only thing that bothered me other than the 4 and 6 call,even though it was early and it looked like FGs weren't going to cut it anyways, was the conservative play calls on our one third quarter possession. Basically killing clock for them without a pass play to attempt to move the ball down the field after our first forced punt of the game. Other than that second half was an improvement imo.

I think you're talking about the drive that started on our 2 inch line. Can't fault the playcalling on the first 3 plays, but I too was a little disappointed we didn't see play action on 3rd down once we got out of the shadows of our goal posts.

 

[noeynox]

Yeah, I was screaming at the tv on that one. Wonder whose brainchild that one was?

What kills me about that call, 1., we don't run it (in games ever). 2. You think the Navy defense has ever seen it?

 

[4in16]

I think you're talking about the drive that started on our 2 inch line. Can't fault the playcalling on the first 3 plays, but I too was a little disappointed we didn't see play action on 3rd down once we got out of the shadows of our goal posts.

Yeah that's the one and yes would've liked to see play action called at the very least once outside the 15.