The View From Section 241

[Johnny Husky]

My name is my name!

 

[Waquoit]

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

 

[Kgun7]

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.

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[Husky68]

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.

 

[auggie22]

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.

 

[Excalibur]

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.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

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.

 

[huskypantz]

-Randy may have been vanilla, but it was a very solid vanilla.

He's the Uncle Ben of white rice.

 

[gioff23]

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Winning the game always comes first. Not "developing" anybody or anything. Period.

Exactly.

 

[Husky68]

Winning the game always comes first. Not "developing" anybody or anything. Period.

+1

 

[Colt45]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

 

[J187Money]

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.