Was anyone else hoping we'd score and go for two at the end of the Army game?

[RedStickHusky]

I know it would have been a 'mad hatter' call, but I didn't like the prospect of defending that option in the overtime format.

 

[coachcap]

Um ,yeah...

 

[Carl Spackler]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I was hoping we wouldn't throw an INT on that possession after the onside kick recovery. Really.

 

[RedStickHusky]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I was hoping we wouldn't throw an INT on that possession after the onside kick recovery. Really.

well yeah , the point was quickly made moot, but when we got to the six, I was thinking go for eight and steal it...

 

[Carl Spackler]

well yeah , the point was quickly made moot, but when we got to the six, I was thinking go for eight and steal it...

I can see that, I honestly didn't think that far ahead, and haven't even considered it until you wrote it. I truthfully, and I write this as a huge fan of Chandler Whitmer, and everything he is a UCONN football player, I've been consistent about that all along - this guy is our starter for this season, at least he should be given every snap this season (after Cochran went out) and he hasn't been given that opportunity - but he's still a warrior as much as it can mean on the football field, and he's without a doubt a leader and team player and tough as they come for the position. But he throws late game interceptions. Warrior has an Achilles heel.

My next thought beyond that, and we never got to it, because I was sure we wouldn't throw again (but we did) was that we wouldn't false start on trying to run it in. We had the size and strength on the OL.

What I think has been interesting, is that the majority of crap that fans have had to spew about the game, has all been focused at the defense we played against Army. Army scored 4 TD's because they had enough time to do it against a defense, that had they had less time of possession - they would have been held most likely to 3 TD's at most. Under their scoring average.

One thing we can't really question Coach Bobby on, is his aptitude when it comes to building a defense and coaching a defense. He's entirely unconventional as a coach, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Head coach Bobby though? In coming up with a plan to beat Army? FAIL. Hopefully he learns, the simplest of lessons when it comes coaching.

When you go against an offense that's difficult to stop, the easiest way to the stop them, is to keep them off the field. Run the clock with your own offense. When you are head coach, there are other things you can do, to stop the opposing offense, other than building the best defense you can. RUN the ball.

 

[UConnDan97]

I know it would have been a 'mad hatter' call, but I didn't like the prospect of defending that option in the overtime format.

No way. If anything, we probably would have been better at defending the option in OT because our safeties and corners would not have had the luxury of being 15 yards off the line of scrimmage...

 

[Stinger92860]

I believe we could have run it in for the 6 and the 2.

 

[RedStickHusky]

When you go against an offense that's difficult to stop, the easiest way to the stop them, is to keep them off the field. Run the clock with your own offense. When you are head coach, there are other things you can do, to stop the opposing offense, other than building the best defense you can. RUN the ball.

Yeah, when the alternative is to try to out score them with our offensive challenges in both execution and play calling, shortening the game was probably the better way to go. Despite obvious O-line improvement, we still haven't had a day where we could consistently move the chains behind our RBs - sometimes you have to able to do that. Army did defend Foxx's running pretty well, THEY must've watched film.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yeah, when the alternative is to try to out score them with our offensive challenges in both execution and play calling, shortening the game was probably the better way to go. Despite obvious O-line improvement, we still haven't had a day where we could consistently move the chains behind our RBs - sometimes you have to able to do that. Army did defend Foxx's running pretty well, THEY must've watched film.

During the game, after Army had gifted us a possession, with the running into the kicker penalty - Monken reamed that player a new on the sideline, followed by his position coach reaming him another. I could not hear the content of reaming, but I would wager that the content had not much to do with the fact that he had run into the kicker and given us a first down, but because he had done that, we had another possession, with which we could continue the drive, and balance out the time of possession, and reduce the offense's chances of getting back out on the field, and keep their mismatched defense on the field longer - which during the course of the entire game - that single possession could cost them the game. And indeed, the way it turned out - it was a 1 possession game again late.

Our coaching staff and offense came back with that gift of clock and possession, and promptly threw a long ball into double coverage for an INT and took almost no time off the clock. I guarantee that after that INT, that player was feeling like "phew - lucky that they didn't score".

And I agree - I bet they watched lots of film on our offense.

I would love to talk to them, to find out if they can figure it out.

 

[RedStickHusky]

I just have a sense that our play calling is being driven by what we think we can execute vice what's the best way to attack this defense. It'll keep getting better, and I'm not asking for 'wallpaper' but we don't seem to be running a full playbook in games.

 

[Bonehead]

No. I wasn't. Take it to OT. Too much of a comeback to lose on going for two. IMO.

 

[Waquoit]

Didn't enter my mind for a second.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I just have a sense that our play calling is being driven by what we think we can execute vice what's the best way to attack this defense. It'll keep getting better, and I'm not asking for 'wallpaper' but we don't seem to be running a full playbook in games.

I've given up trying to understand what I'm seeing offense.

 

[J187Money]

I called it. We were going to score, go for 2, Whitmer would throw the ball into the stands ala DJ Hernandez, fireworks would ensue, a B-52 would fly overhead, Delany would jump out and present Diaco with Paul Bunyan's axe, kick Minnesota out of the B1G and welcome us to the show.

Sadly, just another pick 6.

 

[RedStickHusky]

I called it. We were going to score, go for 2, Whitmer would throw the ball into the stands ala DJ Hernandez, fireworks would ensue, a B-52 would fly overhead, Delany would jump out and present Diaco with Paul Bunyan's axe, kick Minnesota out of the B1G and welcome us to the show.

Sadly, just another pick 6.

Get out of my head.

 

[BoatShow]

Up until that pick I was praising all things Chandler Whitmer. I was praying we'd go for 2 because I had no doubt we'd get it. Alas...

 

[Nostical]

We talked about going for two. Seemed like the right move and we were debating it when my 13 year-old grandson said "stop talking about it you'll jinx then for the TD."

 

[RioDog]

Yup.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

After the long scramble on the first play after the onside kick I was convinced we would score. My thought then was if it goes ten overtimes great. The atmosphere was fantastic and I was in no hurry to leave.

 

[BugsyCT]

Would have been fine just getting it to OT.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I can see that, I honestly didn't think that far ahead, and haven't even considered it until you wrote it. I truthfully, and I write this as a huge fan of Chandler Whitmer, and everything he is a UCONN football player, I've been consistent about that all along - this guy is our starter for this season, at least he should be given every snap this season (after Cochran went out) and he hasn't been given that opportunity - but he's still a warrior as much as it can mean on the football field, and he's without a doubt a leader and team player and tough as they come for the position. But he throws late game interceptions. Warrior has an Achilles heel.

My next thought beyond that, and we never got to it, because I was sure we wouldn't throw again (but we did) was that we wouldn't false start on trying to run it in. We had the size and strength on the OL.

What I think has been interesting, is that the majority of crap that fans have had to spew about the game, has all been focused at the defense we played against Army. Army scored 4 TD's because they had enough time to do it against a defense, that had they had less time of possession - they would have been held most likely to 3 TD's at most. Under their scoring average.

One thing we can't really question Coach Bobby on, is his aptitude when it comes to building a defense and coaching a defense. He's entirely unconventional as a coach, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Head coach Bobby though? In coming up with a plan to beat Army? FAIL. Hopefully he learns, the simplest of lessons when it comes coaching.

When you go against an offense that's difficult to stop, the easiest way to the stop them, is to keep them off the field. Run the clock with your own offense. When you are head coach, there are other things you can do, to stop the opposing offense, other than building the best defense you can. RUN the ball.

Or . . . score touchdowns. Passing or running, whatever gets the ball in the endzone is what will win games (see Big 12 conference). Army only scored 28 points (the last TD was by their defense). 5 or 6 touchdowns would have made Army's offense actually work against itself by eating clock. It's not a good offense for playing from behind. Moral of story . . . get ahead, stay ahead. Scoring TD's, not running and hoping to shrink the game clock, is what wins games.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Or . . . score touchdowns. Passing or running, whatever gets the ball in the endzone is what will win games (see Big 12 conference). Army only scored 28 points (the last TD was by their defense). 5 or 6 touchdowns would have made Army's offense actually work against itself by eating clock. It's not a good offense for playing from behind. Moral of story . . . get ahead, stay ahead. Scoring TD's, not running and hoping to shrink the game clock, is what wins games.

For once, you are absolutely correct. If we had that type of offense to score that often.

We were down 14-0, and had only ourselves to blame for stopping drives, when Tim Boyle came in the game. The concept of sustaining any consistency on offense, and composure has simply been non-existent this season with our offense. There was absolutely no reason, in this game, to do anything, but spend a minimal amount of time in game planning on D, focused only on a very few specific things, but spend all of our effort, building an offensive plan to be relentlessly calling offensive plays that would have our front 5, and at times front 7, given the task of physically matching up and blocking with force and attitude against an undersized defensive front.

We ran the ball effectively in the game to start, and only had our ongoing inconsistency and lack of composure to blame for stopping ourselves. Boyle threw 5 consecutive passes, for no time off the clock, then we false started again on a very crucial 4th and 1, with Boyle at QB. As Levy was falling to his knees on that play, palpably upset at himself, I was wondering to myself how many times he's listened to Boyle's cadence in any sort of similar practice situation.

I swore off trying to evaluate what I'm seeing of offense a few weeks ago, for exactly where I'm at right now. It's inexcusable.

 

[Palatine]

I was just hoping we would score. Hadn't thought about anything else.

 

[RedStickHusky]

IMHO, those arguing that this game was lost on defense are correct; as are those arguing that we lost it on offense. I think that any combination of two better series, whether from the defense or offense, would have gotten us over the top. It's a cliché to say that the sub-units need to complement and support one another but this game is a great example of the truth of that cliché. Losing the turnover battle in this game was probably decisive. Yes, the most obvious answer to beating Army is to outscore them but at this point in our process we seem to put rely more on the defense to step up in key situations and to try avoid asking too much of the offense. Winning shoot-outs is not how we roll (yet?). The offense is getting better week-week, at least showing flashes of being able to do more things, but consistency and being big in big moments aren't there yet. Carl, you're looking for some explanation of what you're seeing on offense. I think we go in every week hoping to run the ball, get stuffed, get behind, give up on the run and transition to a low-risk high reward passing (bubble screens, swing screens). We take an occasional shot just to loosen the defense up but we don't seem to go into full-up attack mode until desperation time. I'm sure a big part of that is fear of turning the ball over although we've shown a propensity to do that even running low risk offense. A confident team attacks on offense from the start -- I don't think that is us just yet but I do see us building the pieces.

 

[Bonehead]

IMHO, those arguing that this game was last on defense are correct; as are those arguing that we lost it on offense. I think that any combination of two better series, whether from the defense or offense, would have gotten us over the top. It's a cliché to say that the sub-units need to complement and support one another but this game is a great example of the truth of that cliché. Losing the turnover battle in this game was probably decisive. Yes, the most obvious answer to beating Army is to outscore them but at this point in our process we seem to put rely more on the defense to step up in key situations and to try avoid asking too much of the offense. Winning shoot-outs is not how we roll (yet?). The offense is getting better week-week, at least showing flashes of being able to do more things, but consistency and being big in big moments aren't there yet. Carl, you're looking for some explanation of what you're seeing on offense. I think we go in every week hoping to run the ball, get stuffed, get behind, give up on the run and transition to a low-risk high reward passing (bubble screens, swing screens). We take an occasional shot just to loosen the defense up but we don't seem to go into full-up attack mode until desperation time. I'm sure a big part of that is fear of turning the ball over although we've shown a propensity to do that even running low risk offense. A confident team attacks on offense from the start -- I don't think that is us just yet but I do see us building the pieces.

You left out ST's - fake field goal for first down!