The View From Section 241 -- Temple

[businesslawyer]

That was a good old fashioned butt kicking. Really, our first one all year. Not a coincidence, on the road on senior day against maybe the best team we played. Nonetheless, we have the automatic reaction that a loss was on coaches so let's address that. The coaches had two strategies coming in without BS. One was what they did. Be conservative, hope that if we win the turnover and field position battles (like a week ago) the offense could do enough so that our D could win the game for us. Option two was to say we're playing with house money, Boyle has been a good soldier, let's just open up and air it out and see what happens. Frankly, if I were the coaches I might have taken the "house money" option, but doesn't even stating the two choices answer the question of which gave us a better chance of winning, especially in a light rain? Of course it does. They played to win the way we did against Houston just a friggin week ago. What went wrong? Three things (besides the obvious once, which is that Temple is a superior football team). First, we lost the turnover battle. Second, we couldn't run the ball a lick because they were better than us when we lined up with the ball. And third, in large part because of the first two, we lost the field position battle all game long, leaving our offense long fields, and they couldn't generate enough to keep our defense fresh enough and with enough field position to totally shut Temple out. NOt only that -- we did see innovation from the coaches on O, it just wasn't throwing the ball all over the field. They tried putting in a wildcat offense, both with Anderson taking snaps and with him lining up wide to get Thomas direct snaps. If you can't block, nothing works. Now, was there a point -- maybe at 13-0 -- where we played the conservative card long enough and could have increased our chances of winning by opening it up a bit? Yes, maybe. And we tried. And we threw a pick and couldn't convert enough first downs to stay on the field. We lost to a much better team, at least last night. Given the emotional peak we hit last week, it was entirely predictable. The drama of some of you would make you stand out at a 15 year old girls slumber party (and I don't care if that's not politically correct).

Offense, defense and specials. Let's start on defense. The score doesn't begin to tell you how good they actually were, but go back and look at the statistics an realize they absolutely played well enough to win a 17-13 game (or something like that) if we had gotten some breaks. But one difference between this week and last week -- when you give up bad field position, teams can score points without piling up yards. And that happened. Did anyone say anything about Mike Meyers? I thought he was great against Houston but I didn't see him on the field, the UConn web site says that Merrinan started and he didn't participate. I hope Walsh is fine, if not for the bowl game at least for spring practice. We can get by fine with Vann taking more snaps and Hicks backing up both middle positions. But we need him for next year.

Specials was solid. Bobby Puyol is having a really good year, but quietly with no kicks to win a game at the end. Coverages were very solid this week. Return games just aren't good and is something to work on for next year. While we haven't given up any punt return yards either, the 2 yards we've gotten is absurd. And someone, one day, has to teach us to block on kickoff returns. But that isn't why we lost.

Offense was, frankly, pitiful. The funny thing is that I thought Boyle was fine. Not a weapon by any stretch, but was good enough that if we had gotten better field position and some turnovers, and could run, we could have put 17 or 20 on the board and seen what would have happened. But the OL (and others who blocked) was totally overmatched and overwhelmed at the line of scrimmage, and we couldn't run a lick, and that gave us no chance. Ineresting seeing Luke play FB while still playing his LB/DE position. Did Dallas Parker get hurt (in time to keep his redshirt)? Or was using his redshirt early just a silly mistake?

But what has been a really solid and fun above expectations year isn't over yet. We will have one more game to go, and it will be against a team with (like us) a mediocre record. (It won't be in the Pinstripe due to ECU's loss (at least as I understand it). The two questions are will it be against a mediocre P5 team, giving us a chance to show something, or a mediocre Sunbelt or MAC or CUSA team, giving us nothing to play for but a win? And will we have our QB and leader back? The answers to those two questions will tell us what we are looking for out of the game. But, in either event, it will be an experience that our seniors deserve for what they have been through. Good for them. And then on to three months of player development before spring practice starts expectations for more next year.

 

[Dooley]

The gameplan was conservative, no question. But I can't blame them for trying it again - the same conservative style, hoping for turnovers and short fields, worked against Houston just a week earlier. We weren't beating Temple by driving 80 yards last night. Not with Tim Boyle at QB. We had to beat them with a few D/ST big plays and a stalwart defensive effort...just like the Houston game. It didn't happen. But I'm still optimistic about our chances in the bowl game if Sheriffs is healthy. If he's not, then we'll likely see the same exact game that we saw last night.

 

[BoatShow]

That was a good old fashioned butt kicking. Really, our first one all year. Not a coincidence, on the road on senior day against maybe the best team we played. Nonetheless, we have the automatic reaction that a loss was on coaches so let's address that. The coaches had two strategies coming in without BS. One was what they did. Be conservative, hope that if we win the turnover and field position battles (like a week ago) the offense could do enough so that our D could win the game for us. Option two was to say we're playing with house money, Boyle has been a good soldier, let's just open up and air it out and see what happens. Frankly, if I were the coaches I might have taken the "house money" option, but doesn't even stating the two choices answer the question of which gave us a better chance of winning, especially in a light rain? Of course it does. They played to win the way we did against Houston just a friggin week ago. What went wrong? Three things (besides the obvious once, which is that Temple is a superior football team). First, we lost the turnover battle. Second, we couldn't run the ball a lick because they were better than us when we lined up with the ball. And third, in large part because of the first two, we lost the field position battle all game long, leaving our offense long fields, and they couldn't generate enough to keep our defens5e fresh enough and with enough field position to totally shut Temple out. NOt only that -- we did see innovation from the coaches on O, it just wasn't throwing the ball all over the field. They tried putting in a wildcat offense, both with Anderson taking snaps and with him lining up wide to get Thomas direct snaps. If you can't block, nothing works. Now, was there a point -- maybe at 13-0 -- where we played the conservative card long enough and could have increased our chances of winning by opening it up a bit? Yes, maybe. And we tried. And we threw a pick and couldn't convert enough first downs to stay on the field. We lost to a much better team, at least last night. Given the emotional peak we hit last week, it was entirely predictable. The drama of some of you would make you stand out at a 15 year old girls slumber party (and I don't care if that's not politically correct).

Offense, defense and specials. Let's start on defense. The score doesn't begin to tell you how good they actually were, but go back and look at the statistics an realize they absolutely played well enough to win a 17-13 game (or something like that) if we had gotten some breaks. But one difference between this week and last week -- when you give up bad field position, teams can score points without piling up yards. And that happened. Did anyone say anything about Mike Meyers? I thought he was great against Houston but I didn't see him on the field, the UConn web site says that Merrinan started and he didn't participate. I hope Walsh is fine, if not for the bowl game at least for spring practice. We can get by fine with Vann taking more snaps and Hicks backing up both middle positions. But we need him for next year.

Specials was solid. Bobby Puyol is having a really good year, but quietly with no kicks to win a game at the end. Coverages were very solid this week. Return games just aren't good and is something to work on for next year. While we haven't given up any punt return yards either, the 2 yards we've gotten is absurd. And someone, one day, has to teach us to block on kickoff returns. But that isn't why we lost.

Offense was, frankly, pitiful. The funny thing is that I thought Boyle was fine. Not a weapon by any stretch, but was good enough that if we had gotten better field position and some turnovers, and could run, we could have put 17 or 20 on the board and seen what would have happened. But the OL (and others who blocked) was totally overmatched and overwhelmed at the line of scrimmage, and we couldn't run a lick, and that gave us no chance. Ineresting seeing Luke play FB while still playing his LB/DE position. Did Dallas Parker get hurt (in time to keep his redshirt)? Or was using his redshirt early just a silly mistake?

But what has been a really solid and fun above expectations year isn't over yet. We will have one more game to go, and it will be against a team with (like us) a mediocre record. (It won't be in the Pinstripe due to ECU's loss (at least as I understand it). The two questions are will it be against a mediocre P5 team, giving us a chance to show something, or a mediocre Sunbelt or MAC or CUSA team, giving us nothing to play for but a win? And will we have our QB and leader back? The answers to those two questions will tell us what we are looking for out of the game. But, in either event, it will be an experience that our seniors deserve for what they have been through. Good for them. And then on to three months of player development before spring practice starts expectations for more next year.

Great analysis per usual. The two moments that were absolute back breakers from a momentum standpoint were as you said the pick when we actually aired it out and the Summers pick that called back. Both of those go our way and we had a bit of a shot in 17-13 or 20-17 type game.

 

[businesslawyer]

The gameplan was conservative, no question. But I can't blame them for trying it again - the same conservative style, hoping for turnovers and short fields, worked against Houston just a week earlier. We weren't beating Temple by driving 80 yards last night. Not with Tim Boyle at QB. We had to beat them with a few D/ST big plays and a stalwart defensive effort...just like the Houston game. It didn't happen. But I'm still optimistic about our chances in the bowl game if Sheriffs is healthy. If he's not, then we'll likely see the same exact game that we saw last night.

It is extremely unlikely that we will play against a defense with a third of the quality of the Temple defense.

 

[noeynox]

One huge difference between last week and this week. Last week, they tried taking chances throwing the ball. One of those led to a TD by Anderson on HB option pass. There was a throw back play designed last week which Boyle did well to throw away. We took a shot deep from Boyle to Thomas which fell incomplete. We threw over the middle, one of the plays at @Kgun7 , dissected on the board. Those are just off the top of my head. Were we conservative last week, yes! Saturday night we just turtled up. In the grand scheme of things, given the improvement from last year to this year its not a big deal. It is however, somewhat deflating that we would try to run into 8 man fronts with no sort of imagination. You're right, I guess the wildcat was this week's version of getting crazy.

Two areas I expect to see improvement next year from the staff 1. Playclock/getting plays in on time. 2. Don't try to win by hoping not to lose. Go out and try to get it.

Even when I don't agree with your overall sentiment, that is still a great summary.

 

[Nostical]

Good analysis but the coaches were not playing to win. Perhaps they were playing not to lose--but clearly not playing to win.

 

[whaler11]

One huge difference between last week and this week. Last week, they tried taking chances throwing the ball. One of those led to a TD by Anderson on HB option pass. There was a throw back play designed last week which Boyle did well to throw away. We took a shot deep from Boyle to Thomas which fell incomplete. We threw over the middle, one of the plays at @Kgun7 , dissected on the board. Those are just off the top of my head. Were we conservative last week, yes! Saturday night we just turtled up. In the grand scheme of things, given the improvement from last year to this year its not a big deal. It is however, somewhat deflating that we would try to run into 8 man fronts with no sort of imagination. You're right, I guess the wildcat was this week's version of getting crazy.

Two areas I expect to see improvement next year from the staff 1. Playclock/getting plays in on time. 2. Don't try to win by hoping not to lose. Go out and try to get it.

Even when I don't agree with your overall sentiment, that is still a great summary.

Yeah and it worked because Houston turned the ball over 4 times handing them field position time and time again.

One of those plays should have cost them the game - but they got a huge break and instead of a pick 6 they got a TD.

 

[noeynox]

Mike Myers did play. He picked up an offsides penalty.

 

[businesslawyer]

Good analysis but the coaches were not playing to win. Perhaps they were playing not to lose--but clearly not playing to win.

So they weren't playing to win last week?

 

[noeynox]

Yeah and it worked because Houston turned the ball over 4 times handing them field position time and time again.

One of those plays should have cost them the game - but they got a huge break and instead of a pick 6 they got a TD.

Fair point, but they took shots when the game was in the balance. Saturday down 10-0, and facing 3rd and 10, we ran a draw to Mariner. The short passing game showed some promise against their pressure, something like that would have been a better call. Like I said, in the grand scheme, not a big deal. This thing is still for from a finished product and I like where Diaco has this thing going.

 

[whaler11]

Fair point, but they took shots when the game was in the balance. Saturday down 10-0, and facing 3rd and 10, we ran a draw to Mariner. The short passing game showed some promise against their pressure, something like that would have been a better call. Like I said, in the grand scheme, not a big deal. This thing is still for from a finished product and I like where Diaco has this thing going.

Yeah and they got ridiculously lucky the shots didn't cost them the game.

They had one chance to win the game - generate turnovers get a lead and hold on.

There isn't a playbook that outlines how Tim Boyle brings you from behind.

I wish they had flung it around and had 4 ints and lost 42-0 so I could read about how they didn't give the defense a chance to win the game.

For some reason this board really believes that coaches turn water into wine on Saturdays. As if playcalling can make up the difference in an absolute mismatch.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Spot on Biz as always -- appreciate the not-over-the-top big picture analysis. One thing about sbout self-identifying as apower running team is that at some point in time you need to be able to deliver some actual power at the point of attack. It was a highlight of the he-shall-not be-named era that a successful series was one that ended with a well executed punt; we're gonna have to get past that paradigm.

 

[RedStickHusky]

For some reason this board really believes that coaches turn water into wine on Saturdays.

Or, more often apparantly, wine into water.

 

[J187Money]

Or, more often apparantly, wine into water.

Or whine into wine?

 

[whaler11]

So they weren't playing to win last week?

It's facking amazing.

Some weeks the coaches are brilliant and other weeks they are morons.

It's like the team on the other sideline is not a part of the equation.

 

[noeynox]

Yeah and they got ridiculously lucky the shots didn't cost them the game.

They had one chance to win the game - generate turnovers get a lead and hold on.

There isn't a playbook that outlines how Tim Boyle brings you from behind.

I view number 1 as trying to give yourself a chance to win. You aren't always going to win the turnover battle and simply fall back on that as the plan. The play Newsome fumbled on he was lucky to not be injured. Temple had 8 guys hovering near the LOS and scrimmage and we tried to run into the teeth of that with a small back.

You really see a difference between losing 42-0, zip and losing 27-3? A 27-3, that felt a lot worse by the way because we didn't dear begin trying to throw till we were down 20-0.

Like I said, Saturday was a blip on the radar. It is clear we cannot overcome the loss of Shirrefs. I really hope someone other than Boyle is the back up. Shirrefs takes off way too much and is reckless when he does. Ironically he got hurt on a play where he slid to give himself up. The coaches playcall like they don't trust Boyle when he is in there, and he really hasn't given them much to go on when he has gotten the chance. The play where he threw it away when had Beals open on 2nd down early, that was telling. Boyle doesn't seem to have confidence in himself sometimes or is deathly afraid of turning it over. Beals wasn't all alone but he was open.

With Shirrefs playing style I suspect we may need the back up again in the future. We can't completely turtle up in his absence.

 

[whaler11]

There is a reason why schools prostitute their coeds.

There is a reason why the police are in the back pocket of the athletic department at a lot of schools.

There is a reason why bagmen exist and hundreds of thousands of dollars get routed to top recruits.


College football games aren't won Monday-Friday going into Saturday. They are won by bringing in top talent and letting them loose.

Unless you need to see more college geniuses crap their pants in the NFL to realize that is a farce.

 

[Dooley]

It is extremely unlikely that we will play against a defense with a third of the quality of the Temple defense.

Agree. Temple's D is stout. You put our backup QB on the field behind an OL that couldn't block against that D and it's a recipe for disaster. I don't have confidence in Boyle against Cal, Arizona, or anyone we are projected to play against in a bowl game.

 

[Nostical]

So they weren't playing to win last week?

Biz you can't have it both ways. You can't call Temple "maybe the best team we've played" and then keep talking about last week. Houston was easier to play. They were more mistake prone. But Temple is not as good a team as Houston. We did not play Temple anywhere near the way we played Houston. In lots of ways. Houston will beat Temple. It won't be close.

 

[whaler11]

I view number 1 as trying to give yourself a chance to win. You aren't always going to win the turnover battle and simply fall back on that as the plan. The play Newsome fumbled on he was lucky to not be injured. Temple had 8 guys hovering near the LOS and scrimmage and we tried to run into the teeth of that with a small back.

You really see a difference between losing 42-0, zip and losing 27-3? A 27-3, that felt a lot worse by the way because we didn't dear begin trying to throw till we were down 20-0.

Like I said, Saturday was a blip on the radar. It is clear we cannot overcome the loss of Shirrefs. I really hope someone other than Boyle is the back up. Shirrefs takes off way too much and is reckless when he does. Ironically he got hurt on a play where he slid to give himself up. The coaches playcall like they don't trust Boyle when he is in there, and he really hasn't given them much to go on when he has gotten the chance. The play where he threw it away when had Beals open on 2nd down early, that was telling. Boyle doesn't seem to have confidence in himself sometimes or is deathly afraid of turning it over. Beals wasn't all alone but he was open.

With Shirrefs playing style I suspect we may need the back up again in the future. We can't completely turtle up in his absence.

I don't see any difference is whatever score you lose by - but I think you are completely ignoring throwing the ball all over the field
had an even lower chance of winning
even if it makes the loss less distasteful.

 

[noeynox]

There is a reason why schools prostitute their coeds.

There is a reason why the police are in the back pocket of the athletic department at a lot of schools.

There is a reason why bagmen exist and hundreds of thousands of dollars get routed to top recruits.


College football games aren't won Monday-Friday going into Saturday. They are won by bringing in top talent and letting them loose.

Unless you need to see more college geniuses crap their pants in the NFL to realize that is a farce.

Holy shat? What is this post about. We didn't lose to alabama. We lost to Temple. The same Temple team USF wiped the field with. We played pretty well agaisnt USF. Certainly didn't look like we didn't belong though they did have more playmakers.

We need better players I get it. This is Temple, which I suspect will be looking up at us in the standings next year as they have like 20 srs on the two deep. Are they better than us this year, Yes! Let's not carried away though.

 

[whaler11]

Biz you can't have it both ways. You can't call Temple "maybe the best team we've played" and then keep talking about last week. Houston was easier to play. They were more mistake prone. But Temple is not as good a team as Houston. We did not play Temple anywhere near the way we played Houston. In lots of ways. Houston will beat Temple. It won't be close.

Yeah and one game was at home, one game was on the road.

Houston may be better they also showed up without their quarterback and proceeded to turn the ball over four times.

Houston also had a huge look ahead to Navy - the game meant nothing to them.

UConn was off an emotional high and the game meant everything to Temple.


Send Michigan State, Alabama or Stanford into their games with Tim Boyle this week and let me know how it goes for them.

 

[businesslawyer]

Biz you can't have it both ways. You can't call Temple "maybe the best team we've played" and then keep talking about last week. Houston was easier to play. They were more mistake prone. But Temple is not as good a team as Houston. We did not play Temple anywhere near the way we played Houston. In lots of ways. Houston will beat Temple. It won't be close.

I think reasonable people can differ on whether Temple or Houston (or, frankly, Navy) is better. They are all roughly comparable. But you find it irrelevant that we played Houston at home and Temple on the road? Or Houston without their starting QB?

You are on a mission to self destruct over this. Feel free to go ahead.

 

[whaler11]

Holy shat? What is this post about. We didn't lose to alabama. We lost to Temple. The same Temple team USF wiped the field with. We played pretty well agaisnt USF. Certainly didn't look like we didn't belong though they did have more playmakers.

We need better players I get it. This is Temple, which I suspect will be looking up at us in the standings next year as they have like 20 srs on the two deep. Are they better than us this year, Yes! Let's not carried away though.

The post is about this ridiculous conversation we have every week. If they win the coaches are good. If they lose it's on the coaches.

It's actually the same coaches every week and the difference is the talent on the roster + variance.

 

[tjhusky]

Thanks for all the views this season. I look forward to one more.

I think one more thing this game shows is the dropoff from our 1's particularly at QB. My observation watching TB is that there is little to no deception. I'm sure part of it was that our O consists primarily of #22 (whom I love) but Temple was getting around the edge of the OLine and into the backfield to wrap him up way too often.

At least BS runs some decent play action short passes which make the D think. Temple D almost to seemed once step ahead of our O. Having to simplify an already somewhat simple offense for our #2 & 3 QBs is pretty much handing the game to a D like Temple's.

It was tough to watch, but I was not surprised. Temple was jacked and play a good game.

I love our 6 wins and with a healthy BS, maybe 7.

Can't wait until next year to see what 300 level football looks like!