UConn to use Whitmer AND Boyle on Saturday

[DoctorWho85]

Last year my impression with Boyle was he has the tools just looked like he was a bit of a deer in headlights. Obviously the line and WR's gave him absolutely no help, but he also made some mental errors (I'm no QB expert just an observation). I think with a passable O-line, a run game that can hopefully move the ball against a top 10 run defense and a good gameplan for him, Boyle should look better than last year.

That being said, there better be more slants, screens and TE's over the middle to help all QB's make some throws.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Ah - becasue Cochran got hurt...He wasnt part of the answer until then. The plan was the redshirt him. Now the plan is to get him a couple of snaps in case Whitmer goes down with injury.
Think its going to be 51/49??
Thats like having a second option for a prom date in case the first one ends up with herpes.

Yes, but the plan was never to make Whitmer the starter. Agreed? So the old plan is gone and now there is a new plan. My guess is that they will see what Boyle brings now as a sophomore and what whether Whitmer can be anything other than a turnover machine. Nobody said that the "the plan is to get him a couple of snaps in case Whitmer goes down with injury". Diaco didn't say that. He said he'd play. How much he plays will depend on what he does. Wouldn't surprise me if he is starting in a few games, playing the same role that Cochran had in the original plan.

 

[UConnDan97]

The plan is clearly to have Whitmer play much more of the game than Boyle, based on Diaco's comments. There's no other way to look at it, especially when you consider that Boyle didn't take snaps against the 1-AA team. And I think it's better for our chances to win the game if 1 QB gets a majority (if not all) of the snaps during the game. Whoever that ends up being, I hope they have the game of their career.

Having said that, if we fail to establish the run the way we did last week, it's not going to matter much who the QB is...

 

[Bonehead]

Yes, but the plan was never to make Whitmer the starter. Agreed? So the old plan is gone and now there is a new plan. My guess is that they will see what Boyle brings now as a sophomore and what whether Whitmer can be anything other than a turnover machine. Nobody said that the "the plan is to get him a couple of snaps in case Whitmer goes down with injury". Diaco didn't say that. He said he'd play. How much he plays will depend on what he does. Wouldn't surprise me if he is starting in a few games, playing the same role that Cochran had in the original plan.

I disagree that they will see what Boyle Brings -

Bob Diaco Updates Quarterback Position
September 9, 2014 Football
@MattSchonvisky
We will have much more on Casey Cochran’s retirement, on The Boneyard Roadshow, which will come out tomorrow. However, football needs to be played and UCONN needs to win games.
As expected, Chandler Whitmer remains the starter, no surprise there. Diaco did say, Tim Boyle will play, convincingly. He also said that the split between the two, will not be close to what we saw when Cochran was healthy.
Translation, the job is Chandler’s, unless one of two things happen. The first, he is completely unproductive, while the second, he suffers an injury, which he was uncomfortably asked several times about, following Diaco’s meeting with the media.
Boyle will see time in case he needs to be thrown in the fire, but again, football is a very fluid game. With that in mind, here are the head coach’s thoughts on the sophomore quarterback and the role he will play.

Whitmer has zero turnovers FYI.

 

[sdhusky]

Whitmer has zero turnovers FYI.

Fumbles don't count?

 

[Bonehead]

Fumbles don't count?

my bad - 1 turnover - turnover machine is right!

 

[HuskyHawk]

The plan is clearly to have Whitmer play much more of the game than Boyle, based on Diaco's comments. There's no other way to look at it, especially when you consider that Boyle didn't take snaps against the 1-AA team. And I think it's better for our chances to win the game if 1 QB gets a majority (if not all) of the snaps during the game. Whoever that ends up being, I hope they have the game of their career.

Having said that, if we fail to establish the run the way we did last week, it's not going to matter much who the QB is...

This week? Of course. No argument. It is clear they didn't think he was ready. But these things are hard to predict. In the event that Boyle, over the next few games, shows a command of the offense, an ability to deliver the ball accurately and avoid the rush, and the team is moving the ball under his leadership better than it does with Whitmer, then he'll play more. I'd give that a 50-50 chance right now.

P.S. 16 INTs in 2012. 6 in more in 4 games last year. He has cut down the INTs by pulling the ball down and running more.

 

[Husky25]

Whitmer has zero turnovers FYI.

If a QB gets sacked and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays (i.e. without getting a 1st down to erase the lost yardage), I personally count that as a turnover.

 

[UConnDan97]

This week? Of course. No argument. It is clear they didn't think he was ready. But these things are hard to predict. In the event that Boyle, over the next few games, shows a command of the offense, an ability to deliver the ball accurately and avoid the rush, and the team is moving the ball under his leadership better than it does with Whitmer, then he'll play more. I'd give that a 50-50 chance right now.

P.S. 16 INTs in 2012. 6 in more in 4 games last year. He has cut down the INTs by pulling the ball down and running more.

Well, yeah, it should go without saying that if Boyle shows he can perform better than Whitmer that he should get the nod. And I agree with your assessment that Whitmer is trying to do more with his legs as part of the way to help him avoid the costly turnovers. I would love for a situation where we don't need him to be our leading rusher though...

 

[Bonehead]

If a QB gets sacked and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays (i.e. without getting a 1st down to erase the lost yardage), I personally count that as a turnover.

Thats an intersting new stat. The sack counts against the QB and the OL has no part of any of the sacks? Not saying they are always at fault but what do you do to differeniate between the two?
If a RB loses yardage on a play and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays is that a turnover as well?
If a WR drops a perfectly thrown ball and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays is that a turnover as well?

 

[Husky25]

Thats an intersting new stat. The sack counts against the QB and the OL has no part of any of the sacks? Not saying they are always at fault but what do you do to differeniate between the two?
If a RB loses yardage on a play and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays is that a turnover as well?
If a WR drops a perfectly thrown ball and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays is that a turnover as well?

Fine. Call it a team turnover I don't care. I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. It's just the way I see it by the way.

My answers are no on the RB losing yardage (unless there is a screw up with ball transfer), and yes on the WR dropping a ball, especially on 3rd down with 1st down yardage (Catching the ball is just as much mental as it is physical). Unless a blocking assignment is completely blown, the QB should be able to throw the ball away, more often than not.

That said, I'd also lump in not getting a first down after a penalty a turnover.

 

[CTBasketball]

Whitmer will never throw an INT because no one can catch his passes anyways. He throws to invisible people.

 

[gioff23]

Well it was P that had him in the game plan that Weist got stuck with. He deserves at least an acknowledgement for the blame.

I will apologize to Fishy (for interrupting the roll) and to TJW who simply had no brain and agreed to do whatever his predecessor had planned but simply failed to execute. Thanks for clarifying that TJW was PP's Sgt. Schultz

 

[Nostical]

Weist said that he was against throwing Boyle into that game but he felt hamstrung by all of the hype and the media interest that had been generated by the PP announcement. On reflection, he would have done it differently. (Perhaps if the logical alternative CC had looked better in practice he would have chosen him instead, but as you know, until things got desperate and Boyle needed to be replaced, CC wasn't on any coach's radar.)

 

[Duncan Idaho]

That is EXACTLY what I think Diaco is looking for in his quarterback. None of the current crop really has that, including Cochran. P brought in Pro-style guys. What Cochran brought to the table that the others don't is the ability to make quick decisions and hit the open receiver. That is why I say the guy he wants isn't available right now so in a sense it doesn't matter who he uses. Really, I am guessing that Diaco is just trying to get through this year at quarterback and then he'll move on to try and land his type of player in his type of offense.

Quarterbacks meeting the requirements of the staff I thinks is one reason why our offense has been less than optimal. Edsall went with pro style then seemed to switch to dual-threat near the end of his term, those guys came in and P wanted pro style. those guys came in and now D wants spread. The offense will sputter until a system is in place and stable for a longer length of time.

 

[Stinger92860]

Quarterbacks meeting the requirements of the staff I thinks is one reason why our offense has been less than optimal. Edsall went with pro style then seemed to switch to dual-threat near the end of his term, those guys came in and P wanted pro style. those guys came in and now D wants spread. The offense will sputter until a system is in place and stable for a longer length of time.

I think edsall used what he had. Give him credit for managing his style based on the players. On the flip side, recruiting the qb position was not stellar with several exceptions.

 

[freescooter]

I think edsall used what he had. Give him credit for managing his style based on the players. On the flip side, recruiting the qb position was not stellar with several exceptions.

I think if you look at they guys Edsall recruited before he left, it was Box, the kid who went to Fordham, Scott McCombs, he was looking for a spread quarterback. That was his plan. Really Lorenzen was that style too. Frazer was more a case of taking an advantage of an opportunity.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

I know it's easy to forget Endres....but he really was the best QB since Dan O.

oh...and it was McCummings......Scott McCombs? That's worse than Cody Whitmer!

 

[businesslawyer]

Boy a LOT of BYers are going to eat crow after this Boise game.

I am solidly in the camp that TB will perform better than last year and will make headway and be our starter by the Temple game, bringing this program back from the dumpster.

Now the ones quoting copious statistics from TB's games as a young unprepared freshman last year (against very strong competition) will be served the dish cold. I do admire their memory of the statistics, I for one have erased them from my mind. They mean nothing.

If for some reason Whitmer plays lights out, and TB is bad, I will gladly eat two helpings.

From your mouth to God's ear. But I would point out that what you basically said was "the facts mean nothing because I have my beliefs." Our minds work differently.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Quarterbacks meeting the requirements of the staff I thinks is one reason why our offense has been less than optimal. Edsall went with pro style then seemed to switch to dual-threat near the end of his term, those guys came in and P wanted pro style. those guys came in and now D wants spread. The offense will sputter until a system is in place and stable for a longer length of time.

You're dangerously close to suggesting the square peg, round hole conundrum. Let's not go there.

 

[businesslawyer]

If a QB gets sacked and the offense is forced to punt within the next 3 plays (i.e. without getting a 1st down to erase the lost yardage), I personally count that as a turnover.

LMAO. That's the equivalent of a woman explaining why, after having sex, she is still a virgin.

Words have meaning. You don't get to make up your own meanings for them.

 

[Husky25]

You're dangerously close to suggesting the square peg, round hole conundrum. Let's not go there.

Diaco won't cut corners, so he'll widen the hole.

 

[Husky25]

LMAO. That's the equivalent of a woman explaining why, after having s e x, she is still a virgin.

Words have meaning. You don't get to make up your own meanings for them.

Intercourse or oral? I'd expect you to 1) keep your options open, 2) require more detail, you being an attorney and all.

 

[Limbo Land]

Gavin Keefe ‏@GavinKeefe 1m
Whitmer said he has had three concussions -- one in high school and two at UConn.

The real question we need to address is the cause of our QB's getting all these concussions. Poor line play. They have to step it up.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

Balis needs to toughen up their brains.

 

[BlueMAB]

Boy a LOT of BYers are going to eat crow after this Boise game.

I am solidly in the camp that TB will perform better than last year and will make headway and be our starter by the Temple game, bringing this program back from the dumpster.

Now the ones quoting copious statistics from TB's games as a young unprepared freshman last year (against very strong competition) will be served the dish cold. I do admire their memory of the statistics, I for one have erased them from my mind. They mean nothing.

If for some reason Whitmer plays lights out, and TB is bad, I will gladly eat two helpings.

I would love for you to be right. I just want to win. I support giving Boyle snaps and bringing him along slowly to see how he performs. I don't think throwing him back in as the starter like we did last year is the smart move.

I may not like some of Diaco's statements, and his decisions, but I trust he's got a plan. Whether it's Boyle or Whitmer, it's going to take time to fix this program, and I'm all in for the ride.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I would love for you to be right. I just want to win. I support giving Boyle snaps and bringing him along slowly to see how he performs. I don't think throwing him back in as the starter like we did last year is the smart move.

I may not like some of Diaco's statements, and his decisions, but I trust he's got a plan. Whether it's Boyle or Whitmer, it's going to take time to fix this program, and I'm all in for the ride.

That Diaco has a plan, is not debatable. He most certainly has a short term, intermediate and long term plan for all aspects of the program.

There are really only two questions:

#1. Is the whole of the plan, all the aspects of the program a good plan?

(Time will tell - so far we're 1-1 in 2014 win and loss, we've initiated positive change in the culture of the program, from conditioning, to nutrition, to attitude and teamwork, and we've got a recruiting class set up that has definite traits------so far, so good)

#2. Is the plan flexible? Especially during things like regular season games? (special inflection to be placed on 'regular' )

#1, doesn't concern me, #2, sort of does. But time will tell again.

Along the way, it's safe to say that the collective consciousness that is the boneyard football community online, will continue to be certain to point out any and all flaws to be found, real or otherwise imagined, whether it be the most minutiae detail of something, to a gross incompetence, we'll find it, shine a light on it, and write pages and pages about it, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. That is our mission. That is our birthright.

Bring on Boise State vs. Diaco's Plan,,,,,,,I mean Boise State vs. UCONN.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

You're dangerously close to suggesting the square peg, round hole conundrum. Let's not go there.

Nope, Just want a successful coach and staff that will/can be here for 5-8 or longer.