The View From Section 241 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

The View From Section 241

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh? What am I complaining about in terms of the discussion?

We lost the game, IMHO, because we didn't have a single guy on offense make a play. Not one playmaker on Saturday. And worse than that, the QB play and the passing game in general was terrible.

If one we had Todman or Brown or Easley type guy make a play on offense, we win the game easily.
 
O.K., let's try to put feelings and analysis together and come up with something here. Let's start by stating the obvious (at least to me): for the most part, players win and lose games, not coaches. We are clearly lacking offensive playmakers. We lost the one we had last year, and have not replaced him. And that fact is 90% on the old coaching staff, not the new one. It is not 0% on the new staff by the way -- they could have gone after a JUCO QB or TB or WR but didn't. It's not that they needed 11 new players -- they needed one to take heat off of everyone else. But the bulk of the offensive problems were inherited by P, not caused by him. Having said that, I will make two points (both of which have been made in other threads but I am going to try to bring this together). The first is we looked as badly outcoached (not outplayed or outmotivated but out coached) as we have ever been. The inability to get players on and off the field on both sides of the ball, and to look organized while the ball was being snapped, was incredible. Forget that we've never seen that from UConn -- I don't know that I've ever seen it at a BCS level. But the second is the more important. For all our problems, that was a win last night. When we went up 7, it was clear to everyone in the building -- to everyone watching -- that their offense was not coming back on our D. In fact, if they were forced to play from behind they were likely to keep coughing it up and we would have scored more. The only way we were going to lose -- the only way -- was to turn the ball over on offense leading to a score. Combine that with an inadequate QB, and the first rule when the offense went out on the field up 7 should have been no throws on 3rd and long. Frankly, that would have been a time to put McCummings in and have an added running threat. But you leave Johnny Mac in -- fine -- but you can't throw there. That was absolutely on the coaches. Absolutely. And Waylon saying he was madder at the Temple game, as it relates to the coaches, is stupid. We lost to Temple because they outplayed us. I'm not saying we weren't outcoached too, but they made plays and we didn't. We did not have the game won and simply give it away with stupidity. Anyone unable to admit that has no credibility. None. And I say that as someone who will absolutely give P and his staff time before I conclude this hiring was a mistake. But, mistake or not, the coaches cost us the game. They were not the ones inept on offense (although they contributed mightily) but they allowed a game we had won to be lost.

The offense was so bad that it's hard to even write about individuals. The OL, as a unit, didn't do its job, but to some degree this is like the loss at Piscataway last year - If they keep loading 8 in the box, and rushing them, there is little the OL can do if the QB and WRs can't make a play. The WRs -- now we have yet another QB and are looking to blame him for the WRs just not making plays. That may be the case. I'd have to be an expert and see film. But I'm not seeing WRs getting open quickly on sharp moves against press coverage like they need to. The fact that we play WRs so much less than in the past -- running friggin wishbones from the goal line and often using Ryan G. split out -- says something about what the coaches think of the situation. I'm not a big fan of a lot of what we're doing on O, but I will assume that has more to do with personnel then schemes. The lack of organization and preparation, however, is another thing. At QB, before the first snap, I had actually convinced myself that Johnny Mac needed to be given the reigns. Why? Because there are so many horrific pass defenses in our conference I thought that would give us the best chance of winning. Now I don't know. I don't understand not coming in with Nebrich in the 4th, but I'm not at practice all the time and someone here has implied he might have been hurt. I will say this, however: if you weren't going to give him more than 3 snaps last night, as bad as Johnny Mac was, why did we take his redshirt off. (However, as for the comment that someone is convinced he's not the long term answer -- please. That's just silly at this point.) At TB, Shoemate is clearly hurt. Why? Because even if the coaches weren't giving anyone other than McCombs a carry (which I doubt), DJ would be playing the 3rd and long package. If he's not, he's not better. We need him. McCombs has done a credible job -- good decisions and vision and patience -- but goes down too easily to be a real #1. The fact that we have no other answers is very disappointing.

The defense, however, was good, but more of a mixed bag than people are discussing. Yes, they produced the big return TD, and played very well, but they gave up way too many big plays against an offense that is just not that good or full of playmakers. Would the game have been a win if we played the whole game more conservatively on D? There is no way of telling that. It's not as automatic that aggressive is good as many of you make it out to be. But the D was overall good, and was dominant through the middle of the game. The whole game would have been better had we not given up the second TD from lack of organization, but it is what it is. Was unfortunate but funny seeing Gratz getting beat for 7 deep, since Hughes, Orlando and Edsall were declared idiots for not having him closer to the line of scrimmage all last year. Another thing I've seen not one mea culpa on here. I am hard pressed picking out indiviudual performances, both because I only watched on TV and because everyone seemed to contribute. Not to pick on one guy, but the long run that led to the game winning FG was because back up Safety Tymeer Brown, who had contaiment on the offense's right, whiffed on the tackle at the line of scrimmage.

Special teams was a mixed bag. Obviously, the blocked punt was a huge play in the game, and not one that was likely to have been made under the prior regime. Great job by the special teams coach on that play. But, having said that, the same unit was woeful on punt returns (or even catching them). Nick Williams doesn't look like he bears any resemblance to the returner of last year. Why Taylor Mack was named as the punt returner and never given a chance ... if it were Edsall, many would be criticizing the misinformation. Frankly, I don't care but it was puzzling we never made a switch there. Cole Wagner was not as bad as last week but not good yet either. I thought Chad Christen had a good game. Coverages were fine.

This was a bad loss, there is no point sugarcoating it. Because it was a game we had to win and one we had won but for a brain fart. A loss Friday night would put us in a very, very tough spot. And a loss will occur if we don't get more offensive productivity. We might be able to beat Buffalo and WMU with defense only, but I don't think we can beat Iowa State that way. We'll see. I hope to god the offense looks less disorganized, but organization will not in and of itself give us QB play. One of the three options need to do that.

Nice cheap shot on Waylon...

The only real stupid thing around here is you writing a really long post every week taking pot shots at other posters while thinking that people actually care about what you have to say

:rolleyes: = collective eye roll from board whenever BL posts something
 
Johnny, it's a good thing you edited your post before the entire board saw you use the word "stupider". Because there is nothing MORE STUPID than seeing someone hurl insults using the word "stupider".

Pretty stupid.
 
Johnny, it's a good thing you edited your post before the entire board saw you use the word "stupider". Because there is nothing MORE STUPID than seeing someone hurl insults using the word "stupider".

Pretty stupid.

Um...not really sure how to respond here, but nice one. You really stuck it to me.
 
Nice cheap shot on Waylon...

The only real stupid thing around here is you writing a really long post every week taking pot shots at other posters while thinking that people actually care about what you have to say

:rolleyes: = collective eye roll from board whenever BL posts something


1. What do I know. I would think it would be fair to judge whether people are interested or not by whether they read the posts, and then comment on them. My bad. Next time I'll just ask you.

2. I took a shot at Waylon, but you give no description whatsoever of why it was cheap. When Waylon makes a post that I think is good I tell him. When he says something that I think is absurd, I tell him that. Unless he's ill, he is completely capable of debating me on whatever he wants to. I didn't call out him -- I called out a statement he made.

3. But thank you for adding to the quality of the debate. Your comments about UConn football are appreciated by all readers. Or, more accurately, would have been had you even broached the subject. LOL.
 
.-.
nailed it.
Good write-up BL.
As always, The View from Section 241 is the only thing on the Boneyard that resembles any sense of rational human thought
Better you than me . . . capturing so much of this latest UConn football fiasco. You got most of it and that was no small feat. What's obvious is that Donald Brown, Andre Dixon, Jordan Todman & yes, Marcus Easley obscured some enormous weaknesses in this program.
Good stuff as always BL
Thanks Biz.
Good stuff.
Great write up as usual.
I think you hit it right on the head, biz.
Nice write up.

:rolleyes: = collective eye roll from board whenever BL posts something

That eye roll might not be as collective as you think it is.
 
That eye roll might not be as collective as you think it is.

Mets , weren't you the guy who wrote up the football teams gameplan by watching practice before the WVU game last year?
 
1. What do I know. I would think it would be fair to judge whether people are interested or not by whether they read the posts, and then comment on them. My bad. Next time I'll just ask you.

2. I took a shot at Waylon, but you give no description whatsoever of why it was cheap. When Waylon makes a post that I think is good I tell him. When he says something that I think is absurd, I tell him that. Unless he's ill, he is completely capable of debating me on whatever he wants to. I didn't call out him -- I called out a statement he made.

3. But thank you for adding to the quality of the debate. Your comments about UConn football are appreciated by all readers. Or, more accurately, would have been had you even broached the subject. LOL.

The point is that there is just no business for that on this board other than you trying to make yourself feel smarter than other people. Let the man be entitled to his opinion, and if you want to talk about UConn Football than do it. No reason to call him out - did it help prove your point?
 
Mets , weren't you the guy who wrote up the football teams gameplan by watching practice before the WVU game last year?

Yeah it was me. And I took full blame for it and took the post down as soon as I realized how much of a duck* up it was. I had a momentary lapse in judgment. And I guarantee no one felt worse about it than me. Lucky for me, they went on to win every regular season game after that to get them to their first BCS bowl, so I was able to simply learn from my mistake and move on.
 
Mets , weren't you the guy who wrote up the football teams gameplan by watching practice before the WVU game last year?

I'm not precisely sure what you imagine you have to gain from attacking some of the more well-known and popular users here on The Boneyard. Most of us really appreciate the time and effort BL puts into these write-ups. They are especially informative because BL has great insight into the entire depth of the roster and a lot of the gameplans we use.

You, however, have mostly "contributed" by, er, insulting BL. Which, y'know, is super helpful, too. I don't want you to think we haven't noticed and appreciated all of your insight. But. Uh. Yeah.

You don't speak for anybody but you.
 
I'm not precisely sure what you imagine you have to gain from attacking some of the more well-known and popular users here on The Boneyard. Most of us really appreciate the time and effort BL puts into these write-ups. They are especially informative because BL has great insight into the entire depth of the roster and a lot of the gameplans we use.

You, however, have mostly "contributed" by, er, insulting BL. Which, y'know, is super helpful, too. I don't want you to think we haven't noticed and appreciated all of your insight. But. Uh. Yeah.

You don't speak for anybody but you.
+1000

Keep it up Biz. Shut up Johnny.
 
.-.
The point is that there is just no business for that on this board other than you trying to make yourself feel smarter than other people. Let the man be entitled to his opinion, and if you want to talk about UConn Football than do it. No reason to call him out - did it help prove your point?

If I want to talk about UConn football? I wrote four paragraphs about UConn football of which two lines were responding to someone else's post that was directly relevant to the game? Other than criticizing me, and then Mets for having the audacity to point out the silliness of your criticism, what in this thread have you added to the discussion about UConn football?
 
Sounds like little Johnny is a tad jealous of the attention bestowed upon BL. And we've given Johnny more than enough here.

How do you ignore someone in this forum?
 
Johnny - what was your handle on the former board (may it RIP). You seem to have an agenda but I'm not sure what it is. I always try to think positive thoughts about other posters but you are pushing my limit. Rest assured I haven't given up on you ----- yet.
 
The D was gassed? Seriously, W, what game were you watching. ... what did you see to possibly allow you to conclude the D was gassed?...But Saturday night, there was no reason to reach that conclusion.

Well, I was at the game and don't own a smartphone so my attention was on the UConn-Vandy game. I could see the players body language between plays when you were at commercial. That the players looked tired late in the game also seemed to be the general consensus of other fans after the game. I know that doesn't jibe with your rant from the peanut gallery, sorry.
 
Well, I was at the game and don't own a smartphone so my attention was on the UConn-Vandy game. I could see the players body language between plays when you were at commercial. That the players looked tired late in the game also seemed to be the general consensus of other fans after the game. I know that doesn't jibe with your rant from the peanut gallery, sorry.

I respect your opinion. It's certainly possible that you saw something that the rest of us did not have access to. But, it remains a little hard for me to accept, given how much the D was dominating their offense at that point.
 
.-.
That eye roll might not be as collective as you think it is.

Lighten up there, Johnny ... you're in the minority and we could do without the insults.

BL gives the most balanced and un-emotional summaries on this board (along with FCF) ... probably because he's the most sober.
And mets1090 is a class act for owning up to his mistake last year. Frankly, I thought his whole summary was insightful, but generic, until he mentioned the todman hb option. However, no coach that ever opposes Edsall spends 1 second of thought, or practice, on fake punts, fake field goals, hb options, statue of liberties, fumble rooskies, hook-and-ladders, corner back blitzes, or onside kicks ... so I don't see the harm.
 
Well, I was at the game and don't own a smartphone so my attention was on the UConn-Vandy game. I could see the players body language between plays when you were at commercial. That the players looked tired late in the game also seemed to be the general consensus of other fans after the game. I know that doesn't jibe with your rant from the peanut gallery, sorry.
Waquoit,
It is entirely possible that you had a different perspective in person. As you say, on tv they cut away to commercials...the impression on tv was that the UCONN defense was pretty much having its way with Vandy's offense and aside from a big play, which they did get later of course, Vandy ouwld be hard pressed to put together any kind of a multi-play drive.
 
You guys are reading too much into this. This is a football team that just turned the ball over HOW many times on offense on the road?

That's it. It's very, very hard to win football games when you turn the ball over on offense and aren't scoring offensive touchdowns.

I'm not so concerned about the turnovers. That's not hard to fix, you need to find the players that can play, and in that case it may take a long time to fix, but it's not hard to fix.

It's the inability of this offense to score TD's that is my worry. That has been going on for a long time, and that's got to change.

it's been a long, long time since we've been able to score TD's regularly on offense against quality opponents.

We're going to need a QB to lean on, to have a balanced offense, that can put the ball across the goal line, and the only way you find a QB to lean on, is to put a QB in position to make plays.

I don't buy this stuff i've read lately about poor play calls, should have run it, wind the clock down crap. I'm so tired of the feeling of having to wind the clock down to get a win, and hope for the best.

The coaching staff most definitely is at fault in this game, and that's for not having the team better prepared for the basic discipline and procedural stuff. Holding calls, delay of games, etc....that stuff is on the coaches to fix. Discipline.

The blockers have their share of the blame, and that comes back to the coaches too. I knew there would be a significant learning curve with Deleone's system. It better come steep, b/c three days from now, when the sun goes down and then comes up again, it will be game day again.

I think the defense and kicking games played well enough to win on the road. The offense did not. Period.
 
Waquoit,
It is entirely possible that you had a different perspective in person. As you say, on tv they cut away to commercials...the impression on tv was that the UCONN defense was pretty much having its way with Vandy's offense and aside from a big play, which they did get later of course, Vandy ouwld be hard pressed to put together any kind of a multi-play drive.

I was at the game and did not see the "tired D". Well, not any more than after 52 hard minutes of play would expect. At 52 minutes Uconn had gotten a 3 and out, had the ball, a 1st down and a 7 point lead and the D was resting. Thought used good mix of extra DB's and lineman to keep fresh. There were a lot of time stoppages in the fourth qtr so it wasn't like Uconn was defending the hurry up towards the end. Both teams looked like they played a full game and should have been normally "tired", but not so that you couldn't count on the Uconn D. Now if you ask if after the pick 6 and quick 3 and out did the D have some "what the fxxk was that " body language, maybe.
 
this analysis is very well done. the game was tough to watch, and the players did not look well coached. in retrospect i guess i am not that surprised.

the challenge with making major changes to an offensive and defensive system, is that you have to coach up 100 players from scratch. you cannot count on a core group of upperclassmen to help the young guys along - everyone is learning together. this is most problematic on offense, where we are simultaneously breaking in three inexperienced quaterbacks AND installing a new offense that is more intricate than the previous. as far as the timing is concerned, if PP is thinking that the best time to make a major change is in year 1 - when he has relatively more leeway and lower expectations - then so be it.

this isn't the first time that a new coach has come in with a new and different system. sometimes it works well out of the gate, sometimes it does not. usually if it doesn't, it is because the coach doesn't have the right talent level. could we have moved more gradually toward this multiple system? maybe, but then maybe a gradual shift makes it more difficult to market a dynamic offense to a dynamic offensive recruit. if that is true then i get it.

what i do not get is why we didn't settle on one quarterback earlier (mcentee, for example) and then focus on installing the pro offensive sets first - OLs get the blocking assignments down, WR's their routes, QB on timing, footwork and reads, etc. then when the team is executing the pro sets well, work in the option/wildcat/whatever later in the season as an added wrinkle. next year you can show a bit more, with the benefit of 60+ returning players with a year under their belt.

the coaches lost this game when they opted to carry the quarterback competition into august, given all of the other changes they were making.
 
Was unfortunate but funny seeing Gratz getting beat for 7 deep, since Hughes, Orlando and Edsall were declared idiots for not having him closer to the line of scrimmage all last year.

Not to be overly selective on an overall pretty fair post, but I am watching the replay (maybe because I like to torture myself), and Gratz was 8-10 yards off of the line of scrimmage on the first TD, just like he played all of last year. He got twisted around on the double move. The D was also very disorganized on that play. Gratz himself was looking to the sidelines a split second before the ball was snapped.
 
.-.
My take: I think in his heart PP knows that JMac isn't the guy. But the kid had the support of the players and the other QB's did not distinguish themselves enough to pull ahead. Coach P perhaps felt he had to wait until he played hinself out of the position to make a switch. That time is now.

This past summer the staff gave the other three QB's (Box, McCummings. Nebrich) every chance in the world (and then some) to win the starting job. That none could speaks volumes.
 
Good analysis, with ONE small mistake. If this was said before, pardon me - I got tired of reading the replies.

Here's the mistake

"Combine that with an inadequate QB, and the first rule when the offense went out on the field up 7 should have been no throws on 3rd and long. Frankly, that would have been a time to put McCummings in and have an added running threat. But you leave Johnny Mac in -- fine -- but you can't throw there."

Delete "on 3rd and long." I don't care if they have 11 in the box. 2 TE's, a FB, and pound the ball, run down the clock and ride the D and the ST that put us in a position we did not belong to be, ahead. We had no business being in the lead - we could not score offensively, we played like it was a game of hot potato on O, and yet there we were on the precipice of a small miracle. DO NOT THROW the ball, period.

Now, I will return to reading all those "Is Johnny Mac the next Easley" posts.
 
Good analysis, with ONE small mistake. If this was said before, pardon me - I got tired of reading the replies.

Here's the mistake

"Combine that with an inadequate QB, and the first rule when the offense went out on the field up 7 should have been no throws on 3rd and long. Frankly, that would have been a time to put McCummings in and have an added running threat. But you leave Johnny Mac in -- fine -- but you can't throw there."

Personally, I agree with that. But in the interests of "fair and balanced," I was trying to limit my criticism to the situation that actually did bite us in the butt, as opposed to those that might have.

Delete "on 3rd and long." I don't care if they have 11 in the box. 2 TE's, a FB, and pound the ball, run down the clock and ride the D and the ST that put us in a position we did not belong to be, ahead. We had no business being in the lead - we could not score offensively, we played like it was a game of hot potato on O, and yet there we were on the precipice of a small miracle. DO NOT THROW the ball, period.

Now, I will return to reading all those "Is Johnny Mac the next Easley" posts.
 
I disagree. Third and long is a throwing down in my book, especially if the defense has the box stacked up, and you've got a lead on the scoreboard.

The entire concept of running a clock down to get a win pisses me off. I'm tired of it. The only time you run down a clock to get a win, is when the other team has absolutely no chance of scoring enough points to beat you, and the clock will read zero when you're done kneeling in the victory formation.

Otherwise it's foot on the gas, score points and bury your opponent, and if an opponent is going to stack up to stop the run, you just have to build up the part of the offensive system that's going to go over the top of that.

You can't develop a QB properly, if you're not asking the QB to play the position.
 
I disagree. Third and long is a throwing down in my book, especially if the defense has the box stacked up, and you've got a lead on the scoreboard.

The entire concept of running a clock down to get a win pisses me off. I'm tired of it. The only time you run down a clock to get a win, is when the other team has absolutely no chance of scoring enough points to beat you, and the clock will read zero when you're done kneeling in the victory formation.

You can't develop a QB properly, if you're not asking the QB to play the position.

Winning the game always comes first. Not "developing" anybody or anything. Period.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,154
Messages
4,554,958
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom