The sheer stupidity of the coaching staff on full display

[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.

 

[upstater]

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

LOL, I think I was being disingenuous then, because even I criticized them for snapping the ball with 12 seconds left on the clock on the interception play.

So, add 24 seconds at least.

 

[upstater]

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

They have the game locked down, but they spin the hammer around and pry the nails up.

 

[huskymedic]

They have the game locked down, but they spin the hammer around and pry the nails up.

I'm glad you remain that confident after the past 10 games. In my eyes - no game is won with this team till the clock hits 00:00 and we have at least one more point than the other team.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

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.

Those handoffs left me stunned

 

[FfldCntyFan]

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

True, a second down pass with no chance of pressure on the QB (due to a feigning play action) where an incomplete is harmless vs a third a ling where an incomplete hurts us both due to forcing us to punt while also stopping the clock at a point where keeping the clock running is the best thing we could do.

People are acting as if the play call was a pass out of our own end zone on a flea flicker. It wasn't a high risk pass play. It was merely a (very) bad throw by a QB who had been throwing well at a point where even the worst possible scenario (the interception in the end zone) left the opponent two TDs behind, eighty yards from the end zone. Anyone who is being intellectually honest cannot state that there was less risk in the third and nine pass to Phillips than there was in the pass to Griffin that was intercepted in the end zone and from everything that I have read, supposedly the reason the pass that was intercepted was evidence of the stupidity of our play calling was that it was too risky a play.

Seriously, if that play call was the worst decision GDL had made since he got here, we would have won ten games last season and we might still be unbeaten this year.

 

[Nostical]

No problem with the call. Hated the fact we didn't milk the clock. The folks in my section were all saying "let the play clock run before you snap it". But no-one was hating on the passing call. I actually liked it. The problem is really this. If the call was an attempt by GDL to surprise the D, i.e.,to go against our prior tendencies in that situation, then I applaud it (notwithstanding the INT). But if it was a sheer blunder because GDL and PP did not recognize that running, draining the clock and kicking a FG would suffice, then fire them both.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

True, a second down pass with no chance of pressure on the QB (due to a feigning play action) where an incomplete is harmless vs a third a ling where an incomplete hurts us both due to forcing us to punt while also stopping the clock at a point where keeping the clock running is the best thing we could do.

People are acting as if the play call was a pass out of our own end zone on a flea flicker. It wasn't a high risk pass play. It was merely a (very) bad throw by a QB who had been throwing well at a point where even the worst possible scenario (the interception in the end zone) left the opponent two TDs behind, eighty yards from the end zone. Anyone who is being intellectually honest cannot state that there was less risk in the third and nine pass to Phillips than there was in the pass to Griffin that was intercepted in the end zone and from everything that I have read, supposedly the reason the pass that was intercepted was evidence of the stupidity of our play calling was that it was too risky a play.

Seriously, if that play call was the worst decision GDL had made since he got here, we would have won ten games last season and we might still be unbeaten this year.

I respect your opinion and usually see eye to eye with you. Just agree to disagree here.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

This thread is the equivalent of UConn fans complaining about a blemish on Jessica Alba's inner thigh. We won an actual football game. I don't know about you, but given how this team has played so far, I'm gonna go ahead and give them a pass on this one.

 

[Palatine]

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.

This is a very bad misreading of the game situation. A FG puts the game away with virtually no risk.

If putting the game away was the goal. The pass was the worse possible route to get there.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

This is a very bad misreading of the game situation. A FG puts the game away with virtually no risk.

If putting the game away was the goal. The pass was the worse possible route to get there.

Aren't you the guy who a few minutes ago in another thread was lamenting the impact a missed FG had on one of ND's recent opponents?