The sheer stupidity of the coaching staff on full display

[cohenzone]

Put mor

What does this have to do with anything? a percieved boycott again? I was at the game but I am just wondering. I'd imagine that most people who post here go to the games. If they are not able to, they at least watch them live.

Incidently, you are correct. The play calling in the 3rd was attrocious. The staff showed -0- confidence in their players.

Put more clearly, I have as good a vantage point of the whole field from my seats as you can have. That play had Pitt all screwed up. It was probably the most unexpectedly decent call in the half. Please note that the people who think we should have just taken a knee on the last possession (I agree) are the same people who are confident that two running plays up the middle would have turned into a sure 3 points. No such as thing as a sure 3 points, and I know exactly why they are saying that. But the "results:" test is being applied to the pass, a totally good call that wound up with a bad result, and it took atrocious defensive position for the ball to be intercepted. That defender was a good 10-12 yards away from anyone and if the ball is on target, no way he is there to stop Griffin. And wow, the impact of UConn not falling on the ball to assure a field goal might just make the next couple of opponents worry a bit about how to defend us.

 

[emshorts]

?????????????????

So because we haven't scored a TD in the second half in months we need to take the stance that attempting to score a TD in that situation is dumb?

considering how much time was left in the game and a field goal would have sealed the deal yes it was

 

[Waquoit]

I think people like the call because it was absolutely the right call. Not only was Ryan Griffin open, but Nick Williams was wide open as well. In fact Williams was more open than Griffin was. To get two receivers that open in the end zone tells you that it was a play that should of been dialed up at that time based on something they must of seen in the D earlier. The only reason this thread is still going is because Whitmer threw the worst ball he's let go in the last three games.

It's a moot point. Run, run, FG ices the game, uses more clock. These guys sat on it when they should have been pushing it and pushed it when they should have sat on it. They are lost.

 

[businesslawyer]

For those folks who thought that it was a bad decision answer me this. If Griffin had scored, would we have had this post? Probably not.

I'd love to bash the staff for everything, but in this case it just isn't fair. Was the by the book call to run and kick? Yes. But the by the book call was to punt up 14 in the Temple game and this board treated that decision as if it proved the staff was truly idiotic. They called a play that put players in an easy position to succeed. I know no one here likes to blame the players for anything so long as they have coaches, but that was totally on Chandler. It was not a terrible decision. If you want to argue it was the wrong one -- it probably was but that is different.

 

[emshorts]

It's a moot point. Run, run, FG ices the game, uses more clock. These guys sat on it when they should have been pushing it and pushed it when they should have sat on it. They are lost.

exactly

 

[Doggie Style]

It's a moot point. Run, run, FG ices the game, uses more clock. These guys sat on it when they should have been pushing it and pushed it when they should have sat on it. They are lost.

Again, ur assuming we make the fg right? Temple is still,fresh in my mind so im not putting my eggs in that basket. Again, I am not defending the staff by any means, the 3rd qtr was a joke, and yes MAkING a fg does ice the game but so does an accurate throw. Let me ask you this... Do u have more confidence in Whitmer's ability to hit a wide open receive or our %'s on making a fg? Personally, I'll take Whitmer all day long w/ the way he's been throwing as of
late!!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Again, ur assuming we make the fg right? Temple is still,fresh in my mind so im not putting my eggs in that basket. Again, I am not defending the staff by any means, the 3rd qtr was a joke, and yes MAkING a fg does ice the game but so does an accurate throw. Let me ask you this... Do u have more confidence in Whitmer's ability to hit a wide open receive or our %'s on making a fg? Personally, I'll take Whitmer all day long w/ the way he's been throwing as of
late!!

Look I like Whitmer but let's not pretend that he has protected the football well this year.

I had no problem with the Temple punt. I took heat here for defending that call. But there is no way the risk is worth the reward in that spot. Running the ball twice there takes another minute plus off the clock (assuming they were smart enough to run it down).

 

[J187Money]

Actually I believe they have a cap on how many times they can throw to Ryan during a game (usually three) but GDL was taking a nap until halftime last night (after all it was a late start) so nobody was around to cut the TE passes off until the second half.

Still searching the grassy knoll?

 

[Chin Diesel]

It's a moot point. Run, run, FG ices the game, uses more clock. These guys sat on it when they should have been pushing it and pushed it when they should have sat on it. They are lost.

This is the correct answer.

They had all third quarter to be creative.

Part of the toughness of football is knowing how long to keep the foot on the accelerator and when to apply the brakes.

You apply the brakes in this situation- when running the ball three times in a row eats up two minutes of the clock and gives you a gimme FG to put you up by three scores with under three minutes on the clock.

 

[Doggie Style]

Look I like Whitmer but let's not pretend that he has protected the football well this year.

I had no problem with the Temple punt. I took heat here for defending that call. But there is no way the risk is worth the reward in that spot. Running the ball twice there takes another minute plus off the clock (assuming they were smart enough to run it down).

I absolutely see your point, and although its conservative, 9 times out of 10 it's the right call.
I'm just saying that I like the way we looked to get away from a predictable set of downs there. Also, no way am I saying that we have been proficient in protecting the ball but we have improved and I like CW's decisions as of late because IMO he has improved tremendously. Last night the line gave him time and he was hitting his targets pretty well.

 

[pj]

Put more clearly, I have as good a vantage point of the whole field from my seats as you can have. That play had Pitt all screwed up. It was probably the most unexpectedly decent call in the half. Please note that the people who think we should have just taken a knee on the last possession (I agree) are the same people who are confident that two running plays up the middle would have turned into a sure 3 points. No such as thing as a sure 3 points, and I know exactly why they are saying that. But the "results:" test is being applied to the pass, a totally good call that wound up with a bad result, and it took atrocious defensive position for the ball to be intercepted. That defender was a good 10-12 yards away from anyone and if the ball is on target, no way he is there to stop Griffin. And wow, the impact of UConn not falling on the ball to assure a field goal might just make the next couple of opponents worry a bit about how to defend us.

I was an early critic of the play but the more I read this conversation, the more I like the play call.

The real coaching screw-up was the unimaginative offense and poor time management of the third quarter. If they had run as many unexpected, well-designed plays as this one in the third quarter, we might have put the game away before that point.

The great thing about running aggressive plays like this is you're teaching the offense how to win. Chandler Whitmer learned more from that play than from any other in the game.

 

[upstater]

The reason the guys were so wide open was because Chryst told his players it was going to be a run 100%. He couldn't have anticipated how stupid Pasqualoni was there. Players were wide open. Big deal. You have the chance to ice the game. You don't throw on the 90% certainty that you'll score a TD there. The flip side odds are 99% certain. And when the game is almost done, you simply don't make that play.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm curious as to why we didn't have this much objection on absolutely not by the book game winning play calls in our last two wins over Pitt?

The QB overthrew a wide open receiver, a play which if execute properly would have guaranteed a score (on a more absolute level than a field goal attempt ever could have) in a game where one more score ices the victory. I hate the idea of pulling out something that supports Touchdown Husky's view of how college football should be played but are we really taking the Woody Hayes three things can happen when you pass the ball and two are bad point of view?

 

[upstater]

I'm curious as to why we didn't have this much objection on absolutely not by the book game winning play calls in our last two wins over Pitt?

The QB overthrew a wide open receiver, a play which if execute properly would have guaranteed a score (on a more absolute level than a field goal attempt ever could have) in a game where one more score ices the victory. I hate the idea of pulling out something that supports Touchdown Husky's view of how college football should be played but are we really taking the Woody Hayes three things can happen when you pass the ball and two are bad point of view?

Because the game was as good as over. 2:45 to play. Pitt down either 14 or 17. That's what you were looking at.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Because the game was as good as over. 2:45 to play. Pitt down either 14 or 17. That's what you were looking at.

Pitt scored after driving 80 yards following the interception with 2:26 left in the game. How could there possibly have been 2:45 left if we kick a field goal?

Believe me, there is a laundry list of things to complain about with GDLs's play calling and overall handling of the offense. That one play is not one of them.

By the way, why hasn't anyone questioned the third down pass to Shakim Phillips (that sealed the win)? An incomplete would have stopped the clock before a punt, an interception would have given Pitt the ball ~ 35 yards from the tying score while running the ball could have killed another 40 seconds. A pass in that situation was far more risky than the pass to the end zone that was picked off a few minutes earlier.

 

[UConnDan97]

How is this thread still going on??? Really. When the play-call results in a wide open player in the endzone and a quarterback that has enough time to get the ball to him....it's a good call. If we go run, run, field goal attempt for a 90%-certain field goal....it's a good call. In other words, throwing the pick has nothing to do with the call!

For as much bitching and whining that goes on here about not having an aggressive "Leach-type" or "Holgorsen-type" coach at UConn, the amount of angst over this call is mind-boggling...

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Why do people love that play call in that spot? It happened on 2nd down. I would argue you have a better chance of winning the game by running the ball twice and kicking the FG. If there was ever a time to play conservative there it was. Kick a FG and its a 3 score game. Score a TD and its a 3 score game. We played scared the entire 3rd quarter and we show balls there? We can't call TO's appropriately in a 2 minute drill but we call them to get the punt unit out.

This staff is embarrassing.

Because on 2nd down it was less predictable which improves chance of success. You figure the play will either work or it will be incomplete. It will come to a surprise to many, but coaches don't sit around thinking "my offense may turn the ball over on this play". Factor in Whit had been red-hot all night.....that's part of the reason it was a good call. But that's just me.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Kinda surprising to me how people are perfectly ok with having our INT prone QB put the ball in the air there when 2 more runs and a chip shot FG ices the game. But whatever. We won. Time to move on.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Kinda surprising to me how people are perfectly ok with having our INT prone QB put the ball in the air there when 2 more runs and a chip shot FG ices the game. But whatever. We won. Time to move on.

Were you OK with the third & nine pass (from our INT prone QB) that iced the game?

 

[upstater]

How is this thread still going on??? Really. When the play-call results in a wide open player in the endzone and a quarterback that has enough time to get the ball to him....it's a good call. If we go run, run, field goal attempt for a 90%-certain field goal....it's a good call. In other words, throwing the pick has nothing to do with the call!

For as much bitching and whining that goes on here about not having an aggressive "Leach-type" or "Holgorsen-type" coach at UConn, the amount of angst over this call is mind-boggling...

This logic is bizarre. You don't take any chances when you have the game locked down. It doesn't matter if the play is open or not. Who cares? Your QB may throw an INT in that situation. More than anything right there, you want to kill he clock. That's goal #1. Even if you miss the FG, you want to take at least 90 seconds off the clock.

The only debate should be, what's riskier, fumbling on a run, or throwing an INT.

 

[upstater]

Pitt scored after driving 80 yards following the interception with 2:26 left in the game. How could there possibly have been 2:45 left if we kick a field goal?

My numbers were off. But still...

2 runs x 39 seconds play clock + 5 seconds for each run + 5 for kickoff = 93 seconds. There was 4:55 on the clock at the time of the INT.

4:55 - 93 seconds + 3:22.

I still like my chances there.

 

[coachRD]

Were you OK with the third & nine pass (from our INT prone QB) that iced the game?

I remember being QUITE surprised by that pass you mention, but I think the situation is quite a bit different. At that point in the game, there was more time left in the game, and a failed conversion would have given Pitt better field position based on where we were on the field. Frankly I thought that was a good call in which we didn't go into our shell and pray the opponent ran out of time in their comeback bid. That was a case of GDL breaking his tendency to play ultra-conservative, and I think the situation warranted it and I was pleased he did that. When the INT was thrown in the endzone, we were ALREADY in FG range, and we still had time to run another 1:30 off the clock by running the ball, even if the FG missed.

Either type of score would have put us up by 3 possessions at that point, and while no scenario is a "sure thing" the percentages supported the fact that the FG attempt would have been the higher percentage chance of going up by 3 possessions than a throw into the endzone. There was no benefit to an additional 4 points that would have come from a TD at that stage in the game. I don't think the 2 situations can be compared equally.

We had 2 ways to try and go up by 3 possessions at that point in the game, and GDL picked the lower percentage one. The lower percentage TD attempt had no greater upside than the higher percentage FG attempt.

 

[upstater]

Were you OK with the third & nine pass (from our INT prone QB) that iced the game?

In a 1 score game? That's a completely different context. We're talking about a high probability for a 3 score lead late in the game versus a 1-score lead late. Totally different context.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

How could the percentages of a ball being picked off in the end zone when we were up by two TDs be more favorable towards an interception hurting us than one from deep in our territory when we were up by one TD? Adding context to my statement, supposedly (per the post I was replying to) the problem with the play call was that our QB is interception prone in quarter four. If he truly believes this, he should be even more opposed to that pass than to the pass that was intercepted.

The int had a receiver open inside the five with a reasonably free path to the end zone. Even if it had been covered a bit better, it would have given us a fresh set of downs (with an accurate pass) and more opportunities to kill clock before going up by three scores. The only problem with that play was that the pass was (very) high and led to an interception. Believing that the best path is to kill clock and settle for field goals is was killed us against Temple and almost killed us against Buffalo.

For openers, that Pitt was a far better offensive opponent than either Temple or Buffalo should in itself warrant a more aggressive approach. That we failed (against Temple) and almost failed (against Buffalo) with the overly conservative approach earlier in the season should have taught something to those who were calling the plays.

More importantly, you are allowed to disagree but it is difficult to argue that a FG attempt has a higher percentage than a pass to an open receiver (in an attempt to score a TD) that would either yield a TD or a new set of downs inside the five if the QB hits his target but I do not see how this position can be supported (this was not a hail Mary but somehow those holding the anti-pass position are behaving as if it was of equal difficulty).

 

[huskymedic]

This logic is bizarre. You don't take any chances when you have the game locked down. It doesn't matter if the play is open or not. Who cares? Your QB may throw an INT in that situation. More than anything right there, you want to kill he clock. That's goal #1. Even if you miss the FG, you want to take at least 90 seconds off the clock.

The only debate should be, what's riskier, fumbling on a run, or throwing an INT.

... Or does this team ever have a game locked down this year.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Were you OK with the third & nine pass (from our INT prone QB) that iced the game?

Yep.

 

[ruskin]

Very late to the party here but as one who cuts GDL/P zero slack I liked the idea of the throw to RG. would have put the game away and gotten another TD for a very deserving player. Horrendous throw, but CW made up for it w/game-clinching pass to Phillips.

Haven't gone through the previous 4 pages here, but I was more mortified by the fact there were two handoffs when all that needed to be done was take a knee.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

My numbers were off. But still...

2 runs x 39 seconds play clock + 5 seconds for each run + 5 for kickoff = 93 seconds. There was 4:55 on the clock at the time of the INT.

4:55 - 93 seconds + 3:22.

I still like my chances there.

I agree with you 100% but you forgot to factor in P's clock mismanagement. Add 45 seconds.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

How could the percentages of a ball being picked off in the end zone when we were up by two TDs be more favorable towards an interception hurting us than one from deep in our territory when we were up by one TD? Adding context to my statement, supposedly (per the post I was replying to) the problem with the play call was that our QB is interception prone in quarter four. If he truly believes this, he should be even more opposed to that pass than to the pass that was intercepted.

The int had a receiver open inside the five with a reasonably free path to the end zone. Even if it had been covered a bit better, it would have given us a fresh set of downs (with an accurate pass) and more opportunities to kill clock before going up by three scores. The only problem with that play was that the pass was (very) high and led to an interception. Believing that the best path is to kill clock and settle for field goals is was killed us against Temple and almost killed us against Buffalo.

For openers, that Pitt was a far better offensive opponent than either Temple or Buffalo should in itself warrant a more aggressive approach. That we failed (against Temple) and almost failed (against Buffalo) with the overly conservative approach earlier in the season should have taught something to those who were calling the plays.

More importantly, you are allowed to disagree but it is difficult to argue that a FG attempt has a higher percentage than a pass to an open receiver (in an attempt to score a TD) that would either yield a TD or a new set of downs inside the five if the QB hits his target but I do not see how this position can be supported (this was not a hail Mary but somehow those holding the anti-pass position are behaving as if it was of equal difficulty).

You are trying to compare 2 situations that have zippo in common.

 

[upstater]

How could the percentages of a ball being picked off in the end zone when we were up by two TDs be more favorable towards an interception hurting us than one from deep in our territory when we were up by one TD?

Because of the time clock. A 2 or 3 score lead with 3:20 to go is much more secure than a 7 point lead with 2:30 to go. You don't convert there and Pitt gets the ball with a chance to tie.

I really don't understand why this is so difficult.