The View From Section 241
- Thread starter businesslawyer
- Start date
- Status
One thing about Diaco is that we keep hearing he has a plan. Warde said he was the most prepared for the questions in the interview and that he had a plan for the program. Everyone around him talks about his preparation and his planning.
I'm choosing to believe that the 2 QB system, the 50 plus players is part of the plan. Evaluate, give them playing time/experience. As much as it hurts, I also don't think he was playing that game to win it. After going down 14-0 six minutes into the game, I didn't think we had much chance to win it either.
If we're still playing 2 QB's in October, my energy bucket might turn into one of these.
I'm choosing to believe that the 2 QB system, the 50 plus players is part of the plan. Evaluate, give them playing time/experience. As much as it hurts, I also don't think he was playing that game to win it. After going down 14-0 six minutes into the game, I didn't think we had much chance to win it either.
If we're still playing 2 QB's in October, my energy bucket might turn into one of these.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,260
- Reaction Score
- 9,601
I tend to agree with you on the QB. Only problem is if Hill Played for us, he's only see 51% of the snaps.
You sir are a ruthless bastard.
Nice summation BL. I could not believe the amount of trouble our receivers had making good cuts and also making solid plays for the ball. It is like they forgot TJ telling them they have to go get it and not wait for it to fall in their arms. BYU's receivers and Davis get an A and the rest of our guys get a D-. I'm not going to get into the blocking by said group. If we had Hill we win, he was that good.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 2,474
- Reaction Score
- 4,689
Diaco was hired to be a step up from P, not a mirror image. He's been coaching at some high enough level programs to already know what he's doing so I'm not forgiving the first time mistake excuse as much as some. Some of the decisions were just plain wrong from which I'm sure he'll learn from but his outside of the box approach might be better served for schemes and plays, not for fundamentals and game time mechanics. For instance, you don't fake a field goal with the run when all night you've struggled with A) putting up any points and B) establishing any sense of a successful rushing attack. The cleats issue is something I really hadn't noticed or thought about. If it was a problem then that goes back on the coaches & managers not properly preparing or adjusting. They got to get away from natural turf and go with a playing field that will be consistent from August through December.
Offensive line, backs and TE's were not adequate in pass blocking. BYU just made a template for every other team the Huskies face this year on how to disrupt the offense. Blocking has got to get better or they'll never see another bowl game and by the end of next season some will be taking the same kind of cheap, personal shots at Diaco that they did with P. You can't solely depend on Geremy Davis, a couple more receivers have to step it up a level.
Defense gave up 25 more points than they should have. That's supposed to be Diaco's forte. They already knew what to expect from Hill and still it took over half the game to finally start to get any pressure on him. You put a speedy linebacker or D-back on Hill every play, just make sure you change who it is from play to play so BYU can't scheme for one guy. I watched Baylor's D blitz on almost every play vs SMU. Was hoping that Diaco the defensive guru was going to shorten Hill's time to react with a lot of blitzes seeing as Hill's weakness is passing. Force him to do what he's uncomfortable with, don't give him time to roll outside of the pocket which then freezes your zone coverege because no one is sure whether he's gonna run or not. Don't give him the opportunity. make him toss up a quick one or eat Husky turf. BYU's starting RB was out for that game so all the more reason to concentrate on making Hill decide faster than he wants to.
On the bright side the players look to be in better shape. They didn't run out of gas quite as early as years past. Diaco's sideline demeanor and engagement was a blessing as were the other coaches. There were some slight glimpses of future greatness in some players. BYU will probably be the toughest team UConn will face this year so it can only go up from here. I want to see how they fare vs Boise St. If they turn it into a full 4 quarter dog fight and the coaching decisions make more sense then save me a good seat on the band wagon.
Offensive line, backs and TE's were not adequate in pass blocking. BYU just made a template for every other team the Huskies face this year on how to disrupt the offense. Blocking has got to get better or they'll never see another bowl game and by the end of next season some will be taking the same kind of cheap, personal shots at Diaco that they did with P. You can't solely depend on Geremy Davis, a couple more receivers have to step it up a level.
Defense gave up 25 more points than they should have. That's supposed to be Diaco's forte. They already knew what to expect from Hill and still it took over half the game to finally start to get any pressure on him. You put a speedy linebacker or D-back on Hill every play, just make sure you change who it is from play to play so BYU can't scheme for one guy. I watched Baylor's D blitz on almost every play vs SMU. Was hoping that Diaco the defensive guru was going to shorten Hill's time to react with a lot of blitzes seeing as Hill's weakness is passing. Force him to do what he's uncomfortable with, don't give him time to roll outside of the pocket which then freezes your zone coverege because no one is sure whether he's gonna run or not. Don't give him the opportunity. make him toss up a quick one or eat Husky turf. BYU's starting RB was out for that game so all the more reason to concentrate on making Hill decide faster than he wants to.
On the bright side the players look to be in better shape. They didn't run out of gas quite as early as years past. Diaco's sideline demeanor and engagement was a blessing as were the other coaches. There were some slight glimpses of future greatness in some players. BYU will probably be the toughest team UConn will face this year so it can only go up from here. I want to see how they fare vs Boise St. If they turn it into a full 4 quarter dog fight and the coaching decisions make more sense then save me a good seat on the band wagon.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 4,016
- Reaction Score
- 4,128
Too soon to tell on so many aspects of Friday night's opener. Many good observations have been made throughout this thread; some positive, others negative. Many of these assessments are, in fact, quite accurate - at least for the BYU game. Point is . . . time will tell. Patience will be a virtue for the time being, until we all know more. One thing for certain that hasn't changed . . . . . until UConn can score more TD's per game on offense (via rushing or the pass), they will continue to struggle to win games. This "hole" in their game really does need to get fixed.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction Score
- 316
It always takes me a day or two or even three or four before I can digest a game when we lose and make a comment other than WTF! Well, here are my thoughts. (BL - Awesome as always.) I liked the fact that the team played hard for all 4 qtrs. I thought the OL did an acceptable job until the 4th when BYU opened up their entire blitz package and Chandler was running for his life again. (I think Chandler gets Happy Feet) I did not like the 2 QB play, and I dont think either one is the answer, but we should get used to seeing them because HCBD will red shirt Boyle if he can. The thing I was most dissapointed in was the dropped passes. I am not a scout, but to me it looked like we dropped a lot, and for a group that was supposed to be our strong suit that has to change. The RB's I thought played well, all four should continue to get some reps.
Lastly I beleive that HCBD, is playing the first three games as a way to see how his players react during a real game. When we get to conference play I think we will see a drop in the number of players who get in the game, and it will be the players that prove they can play in the field not during pratice.
JMHO...
On to Stony Brook. See you on Sat section 123.
Lastly I beleive that HCBD, is playing the first three games as a way to see how his players react during a real game. When we get to conference play I think we will see a drop in the number of players who get in the game, and it will be the players that prove they can play in the field not during pratice.
JMHO...
On to Stony Brook. See you on Sat section 123.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,746
- Reaction Score
- 47,174
After cooling off, the only issue I have is the QB rotation. I think that by the time we play our fourth partner, the depth chart will be much more solid with Wacky Bob Diaco (WBD) having a pretty good idea of which players give us the best chance to win.
We really shoulb't be surprised, the guy is known for strange unconventional ideas.
We really shoulb't be surprised, the guy is known for strange unconventional ideas.
Husky25
Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 19,009
- Reaction Score
- 20,212
I have no problem with getting 3 points down 21 especially on 4th & 12. The comment post game about getting Puyol practice is a head scratcher, but you take the points every single time there. I'm not sure a Whitmer led play netted 12 yards all game.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,090
- Reaction Score
- 22,215
One bit of analysis that I will take issue with (or at least tweak) is your contention that the personnel does not meet the needs of the scheme on defense, seemingly because we can't generate a pass rush from the ends. No, our defensive ends are not going to be very good at rushing or pursuing the quarterback, but they are not called upon to do that in Diaco's defense. They are primarily gap stuffers and occupiers of blockers. If anything, we are a bit small on the defensive line as I think Diaco would prefer a bigger guy lining up across from the center. Ultimately I think the bigger issue with the 3-4 is the linebackers, who need to be capable of run support, blitzing/pass rushing, and coverage. I think the linebackers as a unit really struggle with the third portion of that. Whether they can be effective blitzers remains to be seen, as the game plan against Hill appeared to be to try to keep him in the pocket and wait until he made a mistake (he didn't).
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,370
- Reaction Score
- 16,540
Is it just me ...
With BYU (unlike Palatine's view), I thought it wasn't just Taysom Hill. Maybe I got focused on the entire Program: we had 8 True Fresh play & lots of kids who never ever saw the field before. BYU didn't. They had solid veterans & didn't look like they were playing their first college game.
With BYU (unlike Palatine's view), I thought it wasn't just Taysom Hill. Maybe I got focused on the entire Program: we had 8 True Fresh play & lots of kids who never ever saw the field before. BYU didn't. They had solid veterans & didn't look like they were playing their first college game.
ConnHuskBask
Shut Em Down!
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 9,189
- Reaction Score
- 34,295
How do you figure?
We were down 21 points with 12 minutes. to go.
You make the FG, you're down 18 (3 possessions), you don't convert on 4th down you're down 21 points (3 possessions).
The only thing that could've made t the odds of winning better would have been a TD.
The key component here is that it was the 4th quarter.
So unless you think in 12 minutes UConn was getting a TD, TD+2, and a FG to tie, it was wrong.
It was a poor decision and the practice from the right hash comment was just idiotic.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,090
- Reaction Score
- 22,215
For a team with a bunch of experience, they sure committed a lot of undisciplined penalties . . . . But yes, as a whole, they were physically more mature.
Husky25
Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 19,009
- Reaction Score
- 20,212
Because 4th & 12 and a very small chance of converting with Whitmer on the field. Plus if UConn was lucky enough to get the ball back three more times, those three TD's that would have tied the game, now win it instead. It was the right call. The comment was dumb.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,983
- Reaction Score
- 21,188
It is absolutely true that in a 3-4 the Des are less ass rushers and some responsibility shifts to the OLBs. Having said that, all our DEs. Don't move at all and under Edsall would be DTs
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 2,474
- Reaction Score
- 4,689
Who care about those two. They had their chance. Time for you to move on from them.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,983
- Reaction Score
- 21,188
Wait my friend? Did you just type we could score more TDs either passing or rushing? O.K., who got TDH's log in code and is pretending to be him?
Finally!
RD inherited a steaming pile of PPGDL manure so toxic and malodorous that no self-respecting Vietnamese farmer would use it in his rice paddy. UCONN football was a super-fund site. RD and his staff put a plan together, donned hazmat gear, and waded in. Some seem to think the remediation should require nothing more than a few simple bulldozer/dump truck passes. Unfortunately, it looks like this toxic mess needs to be handled one shovel-full at a time.
RD made some decisions on Friday that he may never make again. He's already questioned changing QB's mid-drive. Given the context, and his explanation, the field goal was not a big deal; unless you're a gambler. I sure don't think his mindset was, "I give up. Let's kick a field goal." But when evaluating his decisions, remember that he's the one in the hazmat suit, shoveling disgusting PPGDL poop. All we're doing is complaining about how long it's taking. Totally different context.
From minute-one there was a noticeable difference between this and last season. Given the rate in which BYU runs plays, last years defense would have shown a combination of guys puking and gasping for air; all either on one knee or bent over with hands-on-knees. They wouldn't have been pointing fingers, though. Need arm strength to lift and point.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,090
- Reaction Score
- 22,215
Yes, but I think that would be true of most any college 3-4 end, save the absolute most athletic . . .
I do question what is the right alignment for a program such as UConn's. I think the 3-4 is a more versatile front, but overall it relies on having players that are at a premium in the college game. I wonder if programs like ours should favor the 4-3, which doesn't require 325 pound tackles and 250 pound linebackers with speed, and where you can take undersized guys and bulk them up.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 4,016
- Reaction Score
- 4,128
See, a good long summer was just what was needed to get your sense of humor back in tow. I'll take TD's anyway I can get them, just as long as UConn is putting up 4 or 5 or more per game. If running can produce that, then Hoo-rah! But . . . not think they will generate that kind of scoring without a good, solid, dependable, fully integrated into the offense, passing game. So if your druthers is a "ground and pound", pass only on 3rd and long, offense than be prepare for scoring "not enough points" to permit the defense to hold on and win.
So for as much as anyone can gleen from one game, UConn appears to be committed - unlike in the Randy & PP eras - to both the pass and the run. Encouraging. Again, patience will be a virtue at this early juncture since it is too early to be anything other than cautiously optimistic going forward.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,983
- Reaction Score
- 21,188
Glad you had a good summer.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 4,016
- Reaction Score
- 4,128
You are also quicker in your response than I remember. You are well rested and hope you also had a good summer. Added another paragraph (hadn't anticipated your rapid reply).
So far . . . . it's just to soon to tell, but it looks like an offense that has a chance to be effective at some point.
whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
I guess it's the sort of thing people either get or they don't get. It is painfully obvious it was a bizarre decision - but it didn't impact the outcome and hopefully next time they get it right.
It really sounds like they just didn't even consider trying to win the game, so maybe he gets the math, and really thought getting BP a kick was something worthwhile? It's on the short list of craziest logic I've ever heard - but I'd prefer it rather than not getting how useless 3 points was.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,815
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
DE's that can lock down and play multiple down and distance situations, in a 3 man front line defense are at a premium in the NFL too. I think you're overestimating the size of the LB's btw. What the 3-4 defense needs - is height, to go with the given - speed - not weight. (other than those three guys up front, that need to be houses.) The 4-3 defense is pretty rigid, in where you're LB"s can go to fill gaps, and they don't need to read too much beyond their gap control up front, the LB"s and DB's in a 3 man line, have a lot more to look at, to figure out what to do. They need to be able to see over the top, to be able to move all over and fill in behind those guys scrumming up front. Anyway if you're good enough to build it once, that kind of thing, snowballs, and becomes a pretty good recruiting tool.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,815
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
The decision, cannot be rationalized, for sure - but it's without a doubt, that those 3 points are meaningless if you are actually decision making, on that 4th down, with the final outcome on the scoreboard in mind, at that point in the game. It's also flummoxing, the way he explained it after. It's only clear mistake Diaco made - that I am sure needs correcting. One way or the other, his reasoning needs to be corrected. Either way, if he did in fact make the decision, that the game was over at that point - that is something that needs to be corrected, you never ever stop coaching or playing to win, when a win is within your reach, and you sure as hell, don't tell the media that you're not interested in a win at a point where it's argueable the game was still winnable - (he didn't do that, but came about as close as he could to actually saying it). That's for Warde Manuel to figure out. If he didn't make that decision, thinking the game was out of reach, then again - he still needs to be corrected on why the 3 points was meaningless, at that stage of the game, and the correct percentages and all that, a better call, would have been to go for the 4th down conversion, or the end zone, and either convert keeping the drive and possession alive, and potential alive to make it a 2 possession game, or score the TD and make the game a 2 possession game, or turn the ball over on downs, without the variables of a kickoff return, deep in their territory, with it remaining a 3 possession game, and your defense coming out immediately. (which had been doing well to that point). Worst case scenario on that 4th down play is a turnover and 6 point return, putting you down 4 possessions. At that point, the game would be out of reach, for sure, but the chances of that happening, even with our QB's are percentage wise much less, than a game changing play on kick. An Int, in the endzone, or anywhere back there, that is tackled, beyond the LOS, is also the equivalent of a punt as well, and net win in field position, keeping the game a 3 possession game. It really is a no brainer, and me and my guys, did walk out after it happened. Diaco effectively threw in the towel, IMNSHO, with that call. It's something that he needs to address, and correct, and never repeat, one way or the other - whatever his decision making process was. The way you correct it, is as a coach, when the third quarter starts, and you get into the fourth quarter, and you are down on the scoreboard, you need to start keeping a running count of the number of offensive possessions you can accurately predict you'll get before the game ends. With 11 minutes left, you are pushing it, expecting to get 3 more offensive possessions in the game. Sure enough, as it turned out, we only got 2 more after the FG.
BTW: I am NOT a gambler. I can't even tell you what giving vs getting points means, and I don't care to know.
That's the last I'll write about it - pinky promise
Husky25
Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 19,009
- Reaction Score
- 20,212
There is no amount of hyperbole that can justify Diaco's comments. Get off the comments. we agree...
But I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand you think going for it on 4th & 12 subliminally means they are trying to win the game. What you don't get is kicking there does not definitely mean he doesn't care (Again the explanation made no sense. We're with each other on that.).
The way the game was playing out, what are the chances they convert? 2%? 4%? 10%, tops? When they don't convert (which 9 times out of 10, they wouldn't...With Whitmer, it's closer to 10/10), they're still down by 3 TD's. Dismissing ConnHuskBask convoluted math to tie (FG's and 2pt conversions), those three scores that you would have had to get anyway, give you the chance to win. Who wants to figure out the best way to tie?
It baffles me that you are making such a big deal about this field goal and not the earlier fake attempt. You know when the play called for a backup punter to gain 16 yards!?!?! That's what I don't get.
Also: You don't have to be so passive aggressive by replying to a post while talking to/about someone else. My computer is probably 50 miles away from yours. 1) you won't hurt my feelings, and 2) You run zero risk of getting punched in the throat. No one knows who you are in real life...
junglehusky
Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 7,156
- Reaction Score
- 15,475
I have to admit I was scanning the thread, and totally missed this. I also have to admit I did feel like it would have been nice to see a few deep completions on Friday, but now I'm guessing we'll be saving some of those for conference play. Long term, I'm also hoping Newsome has good enough hands for him to be an option catching the ball in space. Maybe a Noel Devine type?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 13,359
- Reaction Score
- 33,630
Lock of the century this goes another 4 pages with Spackler arguing about this.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 22,815
- Reaction Score
- 9,456
Wanna bet? Take the points. I'm giving 3.
whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
Passive agressive isn't really my thing. You aren't the only person who doesn't see the blunder - so it wasn't directed at you even if CHB was replying to you.
Orginally I thought he just made a bad decision in the heat of the moment and wasn't quitting on the game. It's not subliminal: he has all but said he knew the game was over and chose the opportunity to give Puyol a kick.
I thought the play selection on the fake was ridiculous and I didn't like the timing since it was an easily predicitible time to attempt a fake. At least they were still attempting to get back in the game.
Here is the analysis fairly simply:
The chance to win the game after taking three is right around zero (especially if you don't come out and attempt an onsides kick).
So if the chance to get the first down is higher than zero it's the wrong decision to take three.
Again, it didn't change the outcome but if we see stuff like that after the first three games.... well I'd prefer that the coach give at least the illusion of trying to win the games, even if they are trailing a better team in the fourth quarter.
.-.
- Status