This year is make or break for the 3-3-5.

[BlueDogs]

RE brought in Crocker for this D.
It is not a make or break year when this is the first true recruiting class and most will not be on the field yet.
Edsall said very clearly in the spring that the D was going to struggle yet some of you were still shocked that it struggled and called for the DC's firing.
The D is going to struggle again next year (understand this now) but will show signs of improvements in areas. year 3 is where it needs to come together in all phases.

It's one thing to struggle and it's another to be the worst by orders of magnitude beyond the bottom echelon of college D. This was an epic level of failure on D. One that doesn't deserve a second chance. Whether it is scheme or personnel, or both, the overall performance was worse than bad. When diving at feet, arm tackling, not looking back for passes in the air, 2oo pound guys are bull rushing on blitzes, and linebackers and DBs can't get off blocks, you have a very poorly coached group. Crocker and staff had better start teaching fundamentals as the first order of business.

 

[huskysupporter]

Yeah I’m sure the fact we just signed 458 defensive backs is a sign that the 3-3-5 is on thin ice:

 

[RSTuthill]

Actually, I have thought about this a little more. If the DB's turn out to be better as a unit than we expect, maybe then they can throw an additional body up front to help out. So you solve your problems up front despite the lack of quality at those positions, by an additional body and subtract a DB. That was really what the staff was doing by using 5 DB's, after all. Depending on how things work out next year, they might have to do the reverse of what they did this year.

 

[Husky25]

Did you notice who left from that debacle?

There needs to be a reason beyond - it can’t be worse.

Anyone thinking about bowl bids is just setting themselves up for a LONG year.

Does there really? When they were 4th from the bottom?

Those who are left will, at the very least, have a full season's experience plus another offseason. An argument could be made that those who replace those who left are actually in a better position to succeed than their predecessor. If true freshmen crack the lineup, they presumably will not be tainted by previous incompetent regimes. So is it really a given that they will be worse? No. Odds are they will be at least marginally better.

 

[whaler11]

Does there really? When they were 4th from the bottom?

Those who are left will, at the very least, have a full season's experience plus another offseason. An argument could be made that those who replace those who left are actually in a better position to succeed than their predecessor. If true freshmen crack the lineup, they presumably will not be tainted by previous incompetent regimes. So is it really a given that they will be worse? No. Odds are they will be at least marginally better.

There is no inherent reason why a college football unit will be better if the players on their roster are worse.

As of today there isn't a single player on the defense who is an AAC average player.

This is a team that doesn't have a defensive line. Maybe the stats won't be as bad because there might not be a reason to ever throw the ball against them.

 

[Husky25]

As of today there isn't a single player on the defense who is an AAC average player.

I suppose it's a good thing then that UConn doesn't have a game this week.

I'm more interested in what the defense looks like at the end of August.

 

[whaler11]

I suppose it's a good thing then that UConn doesn't have a game this week.

I'm more interested in what the defense looks like at the end of August.

Now matters because you are making the prediction now.

That’s my point - you are predicting the defense will be better even though all the evidence RIGHT NOW gives no reason to come to that conclusion.

 

[Exit 4]

Now matters because you are making the prediction now.

That’s my point - you are predicting the defense will be better even though all the evidence RIGHT NOW gives no reason to come to that conclusion.

While we are at it, lets remember there has been virtually no reason at the end of every one of the past post Fiesta bowl seasons to think the following would be better.

 

[Hornet22]

Now matters because you are making the prediction now.

That’s my point - you are predicting the defense will be better even though all the evidence RIGHT NOW gives no reason to come to that conclusion.

Time will definitely tell.
Would you admit that at the minimum we got a bit longer and more athletic at certain positions on D?

 

[whaler11]

Time will definitely tell.
Would you admit that at the minimum we got a bit longer and more athletic at certain positions on D?

Sure - a bunch of guys who have never played a down of FBS football.

It’s an improved class. It’s not a class where 5 true freshman are better than what left.

 

[Hornet22]

Sure - a bunch of guys who have never played a down of FBS football.

It’s an improved class. It’s not a class where 5 true freshman are better than what left.

That’s a fair statement.
Well, a rebuild has to start from somewhere right? Hopefully these recruits turn out ok and he keeps getting better players.
It’s all you can hope for at this point.

 

[whaler11]

That’s a fair statement.
Well, a rebuild has to start from somewhere right? Hopefully these recruits turn out ok and he keeps getting better players.
It’s all you can hope for at this point.

Sure but read the title and premise of this thread.

 

[Hornet22]

Sure but read the title and premise of this thread.

Got it. And I agree. At minimum two years needs to be allotted to see meaningful improvement.
I guess the make or break aspect of this implies you can just slide inexperienced players into the set and it magically works. I definitely do not agree with that. And yes, if the newbies are better than what we currently have then guess what? You’ll still have inexperienced players trying to figure it all out. They will take their lumps for sure. But I think we can agree that we will be able to tell, inspite of the lump taking, if there’s light at the end of the tunnel?

 

[Husky25]

Now matters because you are making the prediction now.

That’s my point - you are predicting the defense will be better even though all the evidence RIGHT NOW gives no reason to come to that conclusion.

First of all, I predicted that the defense will be, "a little better than suck, but it won't be terrific either..." I did not proclaim that they will be top 15. I later amended that statement to accepting a below average D provided a reasonable uptick on offense. Secondly, I think that is a faulty premise. It seems you are assuming the defense for the three teams below UConn will definitely improve by comparison, while UConn languishes. What is that based on? Finally, UConn was 126 out of 129 FBS programs in total defense. They really can't get much worse...at least by comparison to their peers.

Predictions are not made in a vacuum. They are made every single day based on imperfect information. Some bear fruit. Some do not. It's what makes them predictions. At this very moment, the seniors have exhausted their eligibility. On the other side of the spectrum, new signees have not run a single sprint or lifted a single pound under the tutelage of the UConn coaching staff and there are still at least 7 to come (If Edsall has his way). At the end of the day, neither group is effectively on the roster.

Put in real world terms, my Board votes on the next fiscal year's budget seven months in advance. Do you think my supervisor accepts my draft (which is done eight months in advance) without the accompanying assumptions? He might, but hasn't for the last six years I've been doing it.

 

[whaler11]

First of all, I predicted that the defense will be, "a little better than suck, but it won't be terrific either..." I did not proclaim that they will be top 15. I later amended that statement to accepting a below average D provided a reasonable uptick on offense. Secondly, I think that is a faulty premise. It seems you are assuming the defense for the three teams below UConn will definitely improve by comparison, while UConn languishes. What is that based on? Finally, UConn was 126 out of 129 FBS programs in total defense. They really can't get much worse...at least by comparison to their peers.

Predictions are not made in a vacuum. They are made every single day based on imperfect information. Some bear fruit. Some do not. It's what makes them predictions. At this very moment, the seniors have exhausted their eligibility. On the other side of the spectrum, new signees have not run a single sprint or lifted a single pound under the tutelage of the UConn coaching staff and there are still at least 7 to come (If Edsall has his way). At the end of the day, neither group is effectively on the roster.

Put in real world terms, my Board votes on the next fiscal year's budget seven months in advance. Do you think my supervisor accepts my draft (which is done eight months in advance) without the accompanying assumptions? He might, but hasn't for the last six years I've been doing it.

I'm not talking about the defense at is compares to 2017 East Carolina.

I'm talking about the 2018 UConn Defense against the 2017 UConn defense.

The 2017 defense stunk. It lost every good to decent player on the 2-deep.

What evidence in the history of college football freshman and in Randy Edsall recruiting classes allows one to make an assumption that the players will be better in 2018 than 2017. If the players aren't better how is the defense better?

 

[Husky25]

Sure - a bunch of guys who have never played a down of FBS football.

It’s an improved class. It’s not a class where 5 true freshman are better than what left.

They don't have to be. The sum of the 11 parts on the field in late August have to better than the sum of the 11 on the field last season.

 

[whaler11]

They don't have to be. The sum of the 11 parts on the field in late August have to better than the sum of the 11 on the field last season.

So you think it's safe to assume the defense is better because of intangibles while admitting the players aren't as good?

Okey dokey.

I guess I get why people find the need to have faith but I don't get why 7 years in a row of getting burned by it doesn't seem to impact them.

 

[History Geek]

I'm not talking about the defense at is compares to 2017 East Carolina.

I'm talking about the 2018 UConn Defense against the 2017 UConn defense.

The 2017 defense stunk. It lost every good to decent player on the 2-deep.

What evidence in the history of college football freshman and in Randy Edsall recruiting classes allows one to make an assumption that the players will be better in 2018 than 2017. If the players aren't better how is the defense better?

I grant your point we are going to have to replace some decent players, especially on the D line where I think the ceiling of the returnees is not as high as what we lost. However, it sounds like you are assuming that the ability of returning players will be static from Nov 2017 to late Aug 2018. I assume they will be a year more mature — more mature bodies, more mature skills, more mature football minds. If any incoming frosh are better than what is returning, that also likely means a better on field product. Finally, many of our conference mates have to replace more senior leadership than we do. Will all this be enough to see an improved record over 2017? I think so. Not a vast improvement, but an improvement.

 

[hardcorehusky]

Whaler- without relying on the incoming freshman or transfer- and just talking about the kids who are still left- do you think those guys will get better? Do you think a year older, more time in the weight room more time working on technique with the staff will help them be better players? If so, then that part of the defense will be better. Problem is -no one here including me, sees the D line as staying the same or better with the remaining players. The AAC throws, not runs so I am not worried about teams running all over us. It has and will be how we defend the pass that will determine our improvement.

 

[History Geek]

...I guess I get why people find the need to have faith but I don't get why 7 years in a row of getting burned by it doesn't seem to impact them.

Point well taken. Yes, I am firmly in wait and see mode after the past two coaching regimes. However, I have found being a “glass is half full” kind of guy is a more enjoyable way of livng my life .

 

[blue93]

The defense will be bad again. We can argue about how bad, but I think we can all agree it will be another bad year.

With that being said, I don't think it's a make or break year for the scheme. I don't think it mattered what scheme we ran this year, the players on the field weren't athletic enough to be effective at this level. Thanks red pants.

 

[whaler11]

I grant your point we are going to have to replace some decent players, especially on the D line where I think the ceiling of the returnees is not as high as what we lost. However, it sounds like you are assuming that the ability of returning players will be static from Nov 2017 to late Aug 2018. I assume they will be a year more mature — more mature bodies, more mature skills, more mature football minds. If any incoming frosh are better than what is returning, that also likely means a better on field product. Finally, many of our conference mates have to replace more senior leadership than we do. Will all this be enough to see an improved record over 2017? I think so. Not a vast improvement, but an improvement.

There are only a handful of players returning. Sure a couple of them will be better.

Randy Edsall has NEVER recruited classes that come in and make instant impacts.

Nor is the defensive line front 7 positions that lend themselves to youth.

The conference mates generally have better incoming classes and don’t have 2 years of lost recruiting classes.

I get that people don’t get how bleak things are in the near term so I’ll stop but this roster is still a full fledged disaster thanks to VV.

 

[whaler11]

Point well taken. Yes, I am firmly in wait and see mode after the past two coaching regimes. However, I have found being a “glass is half full” kind of guy is a more enjoyable way of livng my life .

That’s fine - but optimism for optimism’s sake doesn’t actually translate into wins.

 

[SubbaBub]

I'm struggling over the vapors people are having about losing personnel from the worst defense that we have ever seen here.

I'm confident the measurables of the starting 11 will be better next year. What we need is for them to be able to read, react, then make a freaking tackle.

Redrawing the scrabble tiles doesn't strike me as the main concern.

 

[Husky68]

I'm with the camp that says in general your defense is as good as the personnel plus or minus some relatively smaller factor of good or bad coaching. I'm sure Alabama could run a 3-3-5 defense pretty well and UConn would have run a 4-3-4 defense pretty poorly.

What I fail to understand (given my 1960's football experience) is what is this big difference given to the base scheme being 3-3-5? Not being stupid here (or maybe am) but the offense gets to pick the play and formation they use; defense has to react. Your offense goes 3 wide one side and my defense has to react to cover them and rest of players. How different will it be if my base is 3-3-5 vs 4-3-4 and what will the impact be on the success of my defense? Will I really line up 3 guys to rush or will one of the other players try to rush, how will that impact pressure on QB and time to pass and how long DB's must stay with receivers or cushions that DB's give, etc. Also, on running plays how do I place other than 3 lineman so that opposing offense does not overwhelm UConn at point of attack yet still cover potential misdirection plays and fake run to a pass? Do I go with just 6 in the box or do I line up 7 or 8 in the box and then drop some back as my defensive play call dictates (didn't seem to do much disguising like this)?

My "casual fan" take on UConn's defense was that the 3-3-5 defense was poorly implemented: base defense easy to pick apart by QB who could change plays at LOS and/or have decent accuracy passing, too many 3rd down defenses that gave up easy 1st downs (seemed had better luck defensively on 3rd and short where other team ran up middle), expecting DB's to cover forever and also trying to cover/tackle receivers that have been given too much cushion, some type of zone defense where any TE/RB going over middle was free for big gain. DB's on other teams make more plays on ball because they are nearer the receivers and also their defense puts pressure on QB's resulting in fewer "perfect" passes.

Guess this is over winded way of saying, yeah the players were not as good individually as would have liked but the coaching/schemes/play calls(especially given down and distance)/disguise of defense/cushion given WR's rather than helping offset some player deficiencies actually greatly magnified them.