The View From Section 241

[UConnDan97]

if that D Lineman is slanting hard inside and you call a trap, that is perfect, he does my job for me as the pulling guard. You want to go hard into the backfield? Sure, I will just wash you down.

This!! 1,000,000 x this!!!

 

[UC990411]

So we were whopped by RU. The last team they beat us that badly -- not won but beat us up -- was when? The '06 game was more competitive then that, even though they were much better than us. We ran for over 200 yards and but for two TOs they returned for TDs might very well have won. I don't think they have beaten us that easily since we joined the Big East. Yuch.

Yesterday didn't make me speechless, but it certainly gave me less to say, and my analysis is truncated because there isn't much to say other than the D played great. A few statements. I tried to cut the staff some slack for clock mismanagement in their first year, but the display at the end of the first half was embarassing. The fact that P doesn't seem to believe it is mismanaged may be worse. The game could have been closer if not for needless turnovers in the first Q. Notr because of the coaches by the way. As much as your offense sucks (and talent, execution and schemes all suck on O), you can still win games like yesterday if you win the turnover wars. But we don't seem able to force turnovers, or protect the ball. Who knows if it things might not have been better if we weren't playing from behind all day. Finally, I am not going to be one of the guys saying the sky is falling -- I love this team and program too much to give up on even this year, much less the program -- but I will tell you that while I was sitting in front of the set with it on, I paid very little attention in the 4th Q. I just found the game unwatchable. Not just because of lack of offense -- we've played many games over the years with no offense where I was on the edge of my seat the whole time because I was watching a competitive football game (USF '05 and '10, RU in '08, WVU '10 just as a few examples) but even down just 10 I just saw zero chance that we were going to win. Winning can, for me, overcome the lack of offensive excitement. Even where we have a good chance to win but fall short, which is part of sports. But if we don't start winning games, like the next two weeks, I think this season will be totally unwatchable, even for me.

I don't know what to say about the offense. The OL has to be better than that or we're not going to beat anyone. Geremy Davis played well. Delorenzo showed some ability (but also missed the hole on one play that had a chance to be a big one). And that's about it. Personnel didn't look good. Execution didn't look good. Playcalling and overall offensive organization looks pathetic. All I can hang my hat on is that you're never as bad as you look when you lose or as good as you look when you win, and maybe against Temple it will be different.

Special teams had the huge kick block (not schematic by the way -- just a superhuman effort by Shamar), but didn't make other plays that needed to be made. Not the long FG attempt. Not missed chances to stick a punt inside the 10. Not the total lack of a return game. Not giving up the long kickoff return (which didn't kill us only because the returner didn't protect the ball). RU had some miscues, and we might have won the special teams battle overall, but we clearly will need to dominate on specials to win games. And we need Nick Williams to make plays -- not turn the ball over.

The Defense was really, really good. Contained two dumb TOs in our end of the field to FGs. Held RU to under 300 of total offense. Held them, really, to one scoring drive all day long. But, with our offense and not a single defensive turnover, we didn't have a chance.

It was very frustrating to me watching RU beat us the way we used to beat others. No explosiveness, but run the ball, control the clock, win the turnover battles, convert your scoring chances and win with D. But, as the week goes on, as poorly as we're playing, this season isn't done yet. The next four games are all winnable (all also losable but winnable), and after Temple at home and at Syracuse we finally get a week off. We need a good effort at home about Temple, and then try to get one done at the Dome (also doable). And then go from there.

And I have no more to say about the coaching than what I've said. The players need and deserve positive energy from their fans as long as they are fighting for this season. December, and time to decide the future of this staff, will be here soon enough without it being rushed.

Are you Mr Burton?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

When we didn't score on the 1st and goal possession at the 3rd yard line, i knew the game was lost.

Almost all of our 1st down plays resulted in 3 yards or less, constanly putting the offense is 2nd and 3rd and long situations.

As good as our defense is, I'd rather have a good offense, look at all of the games being
played, all of the top programs have the ability to outscore teams.

This 3 and out crap has to stop

Early leader for post of the week. Offense is the name of the game in college football - he who has the most offense wins the most games. Maybe not in every single case, but most. The fans love, TV loves it, high school recruits (the great ones I mean) want to be part of it. The run, run, run - block 'em harder" offense is out of date.

 

[uconndogs]

TDH - The SEC might beg to differ.........

 

[Palatine]

Our defense --as well as it played-- never got close to the QB except on one very long coverage sack. Our DL produced no pass rush. This leads me to believe part of our defensive success was because Rutgers offense isn't very good.

On offense the the offensive coordinator coaches SCARED. It looks like there are seven plays in the game plan. And if GDL has enough plays to paper the walls, why can't he find just one that opens a running lane?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

TDH - The SEC might beg to differ.........

So you think that UConn has the athletes to match up with Alabama? Florida? South Carolina? LSU? How do you think UConn's vaunted running game would fare against those SEC defenses?

 

[huskysupporter]

Early leader for post of the week. Offense is the name of the game in college football - he who has the most offense wins the most games. Maybe not in every single case, but most. The fans love, TV loves it, high school recruits (the great ones I mean) want to be part of it. The run, run, run - block 'em harder" offense is out of date.

Winning is the name of the game, not who has the flashiest offense. Check out the passing rank of the two teams in the BCS championship last year. Then check their defensive ranks.

The foundation has to start with defense. Then you need to have an offense that can lead sustained drives. And I think special teams is underrated by almost every fan.

Frank Beamer built a program on defense and special teams, and a strong running game. Nick Saban is winning national championships based on defense, special teams and a strong running game.

 

[sdhusky]

So you think that UConn has the athletes to match up with Alabama? Florida? South Carolina? LSU? How do you think UConn's vaunted running game would fare against those SEC defenses?

Well, when South Carolina got a steady diet of punches in the mouth, they kinda stopped trying.

So it was pretty good.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Winning is the name of the game, not who has the flashiest offense. Check out the passing rank of the two teams in the BCS championship last year. Then check their defensive ranks.

The foundation has to start with defense. Then you need to have an offense that can lead sustained drives. And I think special teams is underrated by almost every fan.

Frank Beamer built a program on defense and special teams, and a strong running game. Nick Saban is winning national championships based on defense, special teams and a strong running game.

Nick Saban is winning national titles because he has by far the best group of athletes across the board.

 

[jdb50]

Watching the pass rush Sat. it's obvious how much of a loss Joseph is. Priutt is a good player, maybe move him back to DT especially on 3rd and long and bring in Vann at DE. Speed is the name of the game. Get your best rushers on the field.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well, when South Carolina got a steady diet of punches in the mouth, they kinda stopped trying.

So it was pretty good.

Yeah, South Carolina would name the score against us right now. 2009 was a long, long time ago.

 

[huskysupporter]

Nick Saban is winning national titles because he has by far the best group of athletes across the board.

Nick Saban is winning NAtional Championships because he has great defenses, special teams, and he runs an effective offense that works. It's not flashy, but it works. 2 tight ends (no, not all american, NFL tight ends), power running, with pulling lineman. Safe, high percentage passes, and a qb who plays within the system.

They have great athletes, no question, but so do many other collegiate teams.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

 

[huskysupporter]

Yeah, South Carolina would name the score against us right now. 2009 was a long, long time ago.

Many thought they could name the score against us then as well (and yes, I agree, this South Carolina team would likely beat us, but not because of their O, but because they have two beasts of defensive ends and a defense that is getting better every week. And it would be alot closer than many think. Our D is that good).

 

[huskysupporter]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

Who said an Alabama type offense wouldn't score td's?

You care about offense, not about winning. It is well established. Others here care about wins.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

You are absolutekly correct TDH. All we need to do to fix our offense is to score lots of touchdowns.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I believe that the main reason South Carolina could name the score against us today would be Lattimore.

 

[huskysupporter]

Watching the pass rush Sat. it's obvious how much of a loss Joseph is. Priutt is a good player, maybe move him back to DT especially on 3rd and long and bring in Vann at DE. Speed is the name of the game. Get your best rushers on the field.

I was thinking the same thing. I really like Pruitt, he is a solid 3-4 DE. But we can't have him out there in obvious passing downs. How about Donohue lining up at stand up end? Or Smallwood? You throw one of those 2 on one side and Trevardo on the other, the pocket will collapse, and the qb will have to step right into Wirth and another DT.

I am not concerned with sacks, we need hurries. Letting a qb scan the field like last week is not good. Force him into making a quick decision.

 

[businesslawyer]

Our defense --as well as it played-- never got close to the QB except on one very long coverage sack. Our DL produced no pass rush. This leads me to believe part of our defensive success was because Rutgers offense isn't very good.

I don't understand your logic at all there. Because they were able to keep our pass rush from being effective, that means their offense wasn't very good? Why weren't they very good precisely because they kept our pass rush from bothering them?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Who said an Alabama type offense wouldn't score td's?

You care about offense, not about winning. It is well established. Others here care about wins.

Take out Buffalo, UMass, and Fordham and how's that working out for you and PP. Better offense (schemes, emphasis and players) would be a nice complement to the defense. Might even have produced a record better than 8-11 in the past two seasons. So I see offense - or improved offense as the way to get more wins. So your statement is ridiculous.

 

[huskysupporter]

Take out Buffalo, UMass, and Fordham and how's that working out for you and PP. Better offense (schemes, emphasis and players) would be a nice complement to the defense. Might even have produced a record better than 8-11 in the past two seasons. So I see offense - or improved offense as the way to get more wins. So your statement is ridiculous.

Talk about changing your argument. Who in their right mind doesn't think this offense needs to improve? You go from talking about a spread offense, to an improved offense. Nice backtracking.

I get it. Exciting offenses are more important to you than winning. I don't think you are alone on this board.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Talk about changing your argument. Who in their right mind doesn't think this offense needs to improve? You go from talking about a spread offense, to an improved offense. Nice backtracking.

I get it. Exciting offenses are more important to you than winning. I don't think you are alone on this board.

And for you . . . Nostalgic offense, power sweep left and power sweep right, run right at 'em, doesn't matter if they know it's coming Boys . . . Is definitely more important than winning. Yep, the old "smashmouth", man against man battle at the LOS is where its really at. Screw scoring TDs, just chew up the clock. Way more machismo than winning if you have to do it in the air.

If you're gonna misrepresent me - that I'm more interested in exciting offense than winning - then right back at ya. UConn has been Attempting to do it on the ground and . . . . Wait for it . . . . No I'm mean really wait.

 

[uconndogs]

So you think that UConn has the athletes to match up with Alabama? Florida? South Carolina? LSU? How do you think UConn's vaunted running game would fare against those SEC defenses?

I responded to your post that high powered offenses were the path to a national championship. To which I simply stated that the SEC would beg to differ.

Your reponse above had nothing at all to do with the point you originally made or my response to it. I can assume you are either deflecting from your point or are not reading the posts.

 

[mattp]

UConn never even threatened to win the game. They dodged a bullet with a TD called back on a hold away from the point of attack and that helped keep the score down. Had it been 10-0 immediately it would have only been worse.

Who knows, maybe Deleone would have started passing more and it would have helped us to be down 10 early on. It seems like his play calling doesn't get inventive at all until we're down a bunch. Is there a way we can give him the wrong score up there in the booth? Let him think we start the game down 20 and maybe we'll get some decent play calling.

The poorly handled end of the first half was one of the most maddening things I've ever witnessed on a sports field. We should have had another 6 seconds on the clock. If he called a TO right after the catch, like any quasi-able brained 9 year old would have known to do, we'd have had about 25 seconds and two time outs to get a closer field goal.

 

[huskysupporter]

And for you . . . Nostalgic offense, power sweep left and power sweep right, run right at 'em, doesn't matter if they know it's coming Boys . . . Is definitely more important than winning. Yep, the old "smashmouth", man against man battle at the LOS is where its really at. Screw scoring TDs, just chew up the clock. Way more machismo than winning if you have to do it in the air.

If you're gonna misrepresent me - that I'm more interested in exciting offense than winning - then right back at ya. UConn has been Attempting to do it on the ground and . . . . Wait for it . . . . No I'm mean really wait.

Who said I thought smash mouth football was the answer. I stated in another thread that I hate the "Offensive lineman need to be nasty and mean, Big on Big blocking all the way!!!" mentality. Being a running team doesn't make you a smash mouth team. Power sweeps are not old school, as almost every successful college and pro team runs sweeps. Watch the defending BCS champs, watch the defending Super Bowl champs, they love pulling their O Lineman. They don't run spread offenses.

You seem to think that running an offense that relies predominantly on the run can't win. Even though the team we just lost to has done just that, leading to a 5-0 record. Or that the Patriots have been doing it for years. And guess what? The Pats also have a prolific qb! And so does the Giants! I am a Green Bay Packer fan, the running game is sputtering, The result 2-3.

We have two problems with this team on offense. The X's and O's, and the Jimmies and Joes. GDL often times throws out a disjointed game plan. But when he doesn't like this week, our players struggle to execute. And it's not failing to execute difficult plays. It's struggling to execute a 2 yard pass, a 10 yard play action pass, another 10 yard pass, and a screen that would have went for 50 yards.

 

[Husky68]

I responded to your post that high powered offenses were the path to a national championship. To which I simply stated that the SEC would beg to differ.

Your reponse above had nothing at all to do with the point you originally made or my response to it. I can assume you are either deflecting from your point or are not reading the posts.

5 of the current SEC teams average more than 34 points per game, highest BE is Cin at 34. To me you average 34 points per game and you have a high powered offense. Not saying defense isn't the defining factor, but have to be able to score, and I consider averaging 30 points or more per game as high powered (top SEC team is 13th nationally). Last year LSU had the best defense (in my opinion) but no offense compared to Alabama (even though LSU scored about the same it was like an ol' fhcRE team with lot of defensive scores, special teams and short fields making the offense scoring wise seem better than it was). Easier on Alabama defense to handle LSU offense than vis versa. So defense won last year, for the team with the better offense.

Last few years national champions and their scoring offense and defense rank and points per game

Ala. 20,1 and 34 pg
Aub 7, 53 and 41 pg
Ala 22, 2 and 32 pg
Florida 15, 4 and 37 pg

So Aub in 2010 won as offensive team, other 3 years winners were top 5 defense but also top 20 offenses (and about half of the top 20 offenses were non BCS teams). So, need dynamic offense to win, and unless you have Scam as QB need a top 5 defense; but in all cases you need to be able to put up at least 32 pts per game (at least 4 years of history suggests that).

 

[uconndogs]

Those teams had very good offenses. Now ask Nick Saben what wins championships and I'm pretty sure he's going to say defense and a dominating OL. He's definitely not going to say throwing the ball 50 times a game. Which I'm pretty sure is TDH's point. Although, frankly, it's hard to know what his point is.........

 

[whaler11]

Bruce Dickinson:cowbell
TDH : passing

 

[rich1122]

The thing that amazes me is that NC State, who we hung in there with, knocks off Fl St and we can't handle WM and struggled against Buffalo. We never make strides as the year progresses. Addazio has his guys believing - look out.

 

[businesslawyer]

The thing that amazes me is that NC State, who we hung in there with, knocks off Fl St and we can't handle WM and struggled against Buffalo. We never make strides as the year progresses. Addazio has his guys believing - look out.

We never make strides as the year progresses? We made great strides at the end of '09 and '10. Frankly, I think we played far better in the Big East portion of our schedule last year than we did in the OOC portion of our schedule.

So other than you don't think we're improving so far this year (stand in line), I'm not sure what your point is.