The View From Section 241 | Page 4 | The Boneyard

The View From Section 241

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I cannot disagree with you more here. The game conditions at that particular point in the game absolutely called for a conservative call there. I'm less concerned with not asking the QB to play the position and am much, much, much more concerned about winning the game.

Punting is not a bad play there. We punt, we win. I firmly believe that.
 
Some people would rather throw the ball and lose instead of running the ball and win. You run the ball and go out and play solid defensively like you have been the entire half. If they score and tie it up, at least they earned it.

They are also the same people that criticize Edsall for a conservative end of the game approach and having to worry about the other team driving down for the tie or win. Make the other team earn it.
 
Winning a game? When? In the middle of the fourth quarter on a 3rd and long when you're up 7?

No , winning a game comes first.

I'm talking about attitude. We have squandered quite a bit of QB talent in this program in the past few years, and we're not doing it anymore.

If you're going to have a leader out there that can go for the jugular, and hit it, and be a player that your team can lean on for production when you're in pressure situations, and you want to keep a defense off balance, you've got to take your shots.

That's exactly what we did against Vanderbilt, and that's what I expect us to continue to do. What remains to be seen is if we've got players on this roster that can do it, because their numbers are going to get called.

How many people talk about QB's regressing over the years? What QB's got better in this program? When was the last time a QB had a better year than the previous year? Or finished a career better than they started?

The program has changed.

Third and long, when a team hasn't been able to move through the air well over the course of a game, and especially when a defense is bringing everybody in close to stop a run, is when you need a QB to be able to get the ball into a receivers hands for the first down.

Sure there are clearly situations where running the draw up the middle on a third and forever is the best call. This was not one, nor was it a situation where running the ball for 3 yards into the teeth of defense was the best either.

I disagree with the entire concept that is presented about running the ball in that 3rd and long situation to preserve a lead in the game situation we found ourselves in.

That attitude is NOT waht I want to see on the field. I want an attacking team that's going to beat down an opponent, and it's not going to happen when you're sitting on your thumbs and hoping the clock will hit zero.

They failed against Vandy. BUt they tried. I look forward to seeing them out there going after ISU on Friday.
 
Winning a game? When? In the middle of the fourth quarter on a 3rd and long when you're up 7?

No , winning a game comes first.

I'm talking about attitude. We have squandered quite a bit of QB talent in this program in the past few years, and we're not doing it anymore.

If you're going to have a leader out there that can go for the jugular, and hit it, and be a player that your team can lean on for production when you're in pressure situations, and you want to keep a defense off balance, you've got to take your shots.

That's exactly what we did against Vanderbilt, and that's what I expect us to continue to do. What remains to be seen is if we've got players on this roster that can do it, because their numbers are going to get called.

How many people talk about QB's regressing over the years? What QB's got better in this program? When was the last time a QB had a better year than the previous year? Or finished a career better than they started?

The program has changed.

Third and long, when a team hasn't been able to move through the air well over the course of a game, and especially when a defense is bringing everybody in close to stop a run, is when you need a QB to be able to get the ball into a receivers hands for the first down.

Sure there are clearly situations where running the draw up the middle on a third and forever is the best call. This was not one, nor was it a situation where running the ball for 3 yards into the teeth of defense was the best either.

I disagree with the entire concept that is presented about running the ball in that 3rd and long situation to preserve a lead in the game situation we found ourselves in.

That attitude is NOT waht I want to see on the field. I want an attacking team that's going to beat down an opponent, and it's not going to happen when you're sitting on your thumbs and hoping the clock will hit zero.

They failed against Vandy. BUt they tried. I look forward to seeing them out there going after ISU on Friday.

Wasn't it Yoda who said something like the following:

"Try? Try not! Do or do not. There is no try."

We punt, we win. You disagree, fine. But nothing other than "I disagree" is relevant to the discussion.
 
.-.
Some people would rather throw the ball and lose instead of running the ball and win. You run the ball and go out and play solid defensively like you have been the entire half. If they score and tie it up, at least they earned it.

They are also the same people that criticize Edsall for a conservative end of the game approach and having to worry about the other team driving down for the tie or win. Make the other team earn it.

Yes indeed. On the second part. Not on the first. I hate losing, I hate losing more than anything, I would never, ever be happy in losing. I don't even understand that first paragraph real well.

If they score and tie it up, at least they earned it? What does that mean? Yippee, yay for the other team?

If you're an attacking team, your defense knows it too though, and they know that if they get the stop, the offense is going to go out there and try to do something to get more points so you can actually win the game.

the easiest way to score points in football, is on offense in chunks of 6. This seems to have been lost in translation in Storrs over the years.

We have got to find a way to put a play calling system in place, such that players on the field can actually score touchdowns.
 
No - usually i like to write why i agree or disagree with some sort of opinion.

We punt, there's no guarantee we win, with the clock and field position, and a single possession game, and more improtantly - fundamentally, playing for the punt and defense is just completely opposite what the team is built on now.

We'd be relying on a defense that's built to attack to play with a prevent attitude? That' doesnt' make sense to me and it's asking a defense that's been coached one way to do soemthing it's not coached to do, and that's play with the fear of giving up a TD.

Consistency is what's important in football. Consistency in everything.

We've got an attack style defense now, a defense that can't be afraid to give up a TD.

You saw that defense on Saturday. They gave up TD's and they came back harder and faster and better and smothered that Vanderbilt offense after giving them up.

We've got to compliment it with an attack style offense, and that's what I saw the team trying to do on Saturday.

We are sorely lacking in players right now with the ability to go get the job done on offense. That might hurt to admit, but it's right there on the film.

The good news is they've got a game on Friday night to show improvement.
 
Spackler - you're losing me here.

So you're saying that it's ok to lose as long as we attack? And there's no such thing as situational calls? This reminds me of the TDH/Waylon mantra of wanting to lose pretty as opposed to winning ugly. Or, passing the ball in this spot because it is "big boy football". I will never, ever understand this.
 
All I know is that even if we did win, the offense is still a mess and I wouldn't feel any better today than I did when I left the stadium on Saturday night. I thought we could be a 9 win team. Now I don't. And I wouldn't have even if we managed to win. We need to see a vast improvement on offense. Now.

The D scored 15 points and gave up 17.

The O scored 6 and gave up 7.

The D held Vandy to a virtual net shutout. We need to score points.
 
"Even if we did win .... I wouldn't feel any better today ...."

Luckily for their sanity, I am 100% certain that the players would in fact feel better today if they did win. But hey, feel free to have your own goals in life.
 
Carl, I think
Winning a game? When? In the middle of the fourth quarter on a 3rd and long when you're up 7?

Third and long, when a team hasn't been able to move through the air well over the course of a game, and especially when a defense is bringing everybody in close to stop a run, is when you need a QB to be able to get the ball into a receivers hands for the first down.

3 and 1/2 quarters gave us no indication that we had that QB. Thus, you run, punt, and continue to stay aggressive on defense. Use your best weapons, which in our case on Saturday were Sio Moore, Ted Jennings, Blidi and the rest of the D.

I do think that the call was a reflection of an NFL mentality. In the pros, you throw there for 2 reasons, even if your QB is having a horrible day. First, the offense has a significant advantage in the NFL over the defense. Second, in the NFL, 99.8% of the time, you can trust that the QB, if he doesn't have an obvious target, will chuck the ball into the stands instead of throwing it up for grabs. In the college game, neither one of those is the case.
 
.-.
"Even if we did win .... I wouldn't feel any better today ...."

Luckily for their sanity, I am 100% certain that the players would in fact feel better today if they did win. But hey, feel free to have your own goals in life.

Think he meant "I wouldn't feel any better" about "the offense", not just feel better in general; or I hope that's what he meant.
 
Think he meant "I wouldn't feel any better" about "the offense", not just feel better in general; or I hope that's what he meant.

I don't think that's what he meant. Of course you wouldn't feel better about the offense. No one would have. But you can correct things for next week. What you can't do next week is change the outcome of last week's game.

But if I'm wrong, sorry for misreading the statement.
 
i have never said it's ok to lose. It's not ok to lose. Ever. If that was interpreted from what I've written elsewhere, before, it was a misfire on communication. Not ok to lose - ever.

let me change tactics here, and let me put it this way - I'd be a hell of a lot more pissed off, if we sat on the ball, let the clock run down, a minute or so on that 3rd and long situation and punted.

Because iin doing that, the whole frigging team mentality would be upside down from where it's supposed to be moving forward.

This team, this program has made a change from the defensive posture standpoint, to the aggressive posture standpoint. We're doing it in everything from recruiting to the way the game is played on the field.

Wait - here it comes, your'e going love this - all we need to do is go out and.....EXECUTE!

Seriously.

Got to put the players in position to make the plays, and let them go do it. We need a QB that's going to make plays. I guarantee that when each of these players looked at the game film, they realized that they were in position to make plays happen, and could have made plays happen.

As for the discussion at hand.

You can't handcuff your quarterback with a mentality about playing the game a certain way, and then expect the position to be productive under pressure.

You can't recruit for a position like quarterback, if you aren't going to be doing what a QB wants to do on the field.

Let me state again, NO WHERE in any of that what I just wrote, am I saying it's ok to lose, or that decsions made are going to be made in such a way to cost a team a win, and I'm ok with any line of thinking like that.


Throwing the ball on 3rd and 8 in a single possesion game in the fourth quarter - ON THE ROAD? Against a stacked defense against the run?

That play call is not what cost this team this game people, and it was, in my mind, one of many, clear indicators, that we're heading in the right direction. Sitting on the ball in that scenario, yes - in the past, is saying that I trust my defense to win this game.

That is no longer the mentality though. The mentality now is to go out there and kick ass on every down regardless of circumstance. This is an aggressive game, and the teams that win te most, play aggressively.

My only problem coming out of this game, is that I have no idea where this quarterback competition stands and what the decision making process is around it moving forward, I suppose what happens on Friday will be a great indicator as to where it is.

it's not my place to know those things, but I do know that the best way to see if a QB is running an offense well is to look at point production in the form of touchdowns, and trick shot Johnny has yet to put the guys over the goal line when he's out there, and he's a lot more opportunity than the others.

Hell, the kid, had one 3 down series, in those 3 plays, made a decision and acted on it and got a legit shot at putting that ball over the goal line.

I've got questions, yes I do. I hope for answers on Friday.
 
It's still a poor play call in that situation. it wasn't as if the qb had been lighting it up, or even playing an average game. He struggled all along. Your D' had been a strength, as were your kick cover teams. In that instance (hindsight being 20/20) you run a low risk play w/ McCummings, and either move the sticks, or keep the clock moving and punt. Pin Vandy deep in it's own end, and let your D' take over. Vandy hadn't mustered a point since the 1st quarter, nor had they come anywhere close to it. I would have felt a lot better about putting this game in our D's hands to win it, than in a 1st time walk on starters hands who had been struggling. IMO, we did not set our young QB up to be successful there. Bad play call, time to move on.
 
I don't think that's what he meant. Of course you wouldn't feel better about the offense. No one would have. But you can correct things for next week. What you can't do next week is change the outcome of last week's game.

But if I'm wrong, sorry for misreading the statement.

I was there. I advocated nothing but runs and leave with the W. If the D gave it up I would have lived with it. But I would have had no better feeling about this week or the BEC games. I hope this is correctible but I'm not sure. We will see.
 
i have never said it's ok to lose. It's not ok to lose. Ever. If that was interpreted from what I've written elsewhere, before, it was a misfire on communication. Not ok to lose - ever.

It OK to lose when you're outgunned or overmatched. What are you gonna do?
 
.-.
I'd be a hell of a lot more pissed off, if we sat on the ball, let the clock run down, a minute or so on that 3rd and long situation and punted.

I wouldn't because UConn would be 2-0 instead of 1-1. Just because you can spend 15 paragraphs on an opinion doesn't make it any less idiotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

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


Top Bottom