Which is Better - Inept Offense or Inept Defense

[UConnRock]

My argument is that it is easier to change and refine a defense than change and refine an offense. UConn has it's most productive offense in years and it seems to be growing and evolving from game-to-game. I would much rather have that than the inept offense we witnessed over the last 3 years. At least there is an element of excitement in the game. UConn has a quality freshman RB, speed at WR, and a developing OL.

Defense in another story. There does not seem to be any improvement....even incremental baby steps. However, Edsall is a defensive coach and changes will be made. The speed element is hard to fix at DB and LB. UConn's DBs aren't even close enough to receivers to commit pass interference penalties. It is just pitch and catch for whatever QB they are facing. Even if they got PI calls it would mean they are at least close to the play. Bell got benched and Tahj Herring-Wilson came in. Was it a big difference? Probably not, but it got a RS freshman some experience. UConn will be playing a lot of young guys on defense as recruits are being brought in specific for the scheme. UConn lost 2 of it's very winnable games because of no pass rush and no pass coverage. 1239 passing years given up in 3 games. Edsall must be losing sleep over this.

The biggest challenge will be to keep Lashlee in the fold if his offense keeps producing.

 

[Sprague03]

This has to be what Diaco was referring to as "Fish Cake." When you have something good and then add a different ingredient to the product, it's possible to get a "Fish Cake" in return instead of a Vanilla Cake.

"You're going to make a vanilla cake...The jar of vanilla looks very similar to the jar of fish oil. It would be very easy to do, but how different it would taste. It would be a completely different product altogether. It's important with even one new ingredient, one new change, that we re-put the whole thing back together. Bob Diaco

This 3-3-5 turned into "Fish Cake"

To your point, Diaco's Defense at Nebraska looked terrible to begin the year, but it's improved dramatically as the season's progressed for the Cornhuskers. Purdue's D has looked great too. I wish I can say the same for our D.

 

[HuskiesFan1014]

This has to be what Diaco was referring to as "Fish Cake." When you have something good and then add a different ingredient to the product, it's possible to get a "Fish Cake" in return instead of a Vanilla Cake.

"You're going to make a vanilla cake...The jar of vanilla looks very similar to the jar of fish oil. It would be very easy to do, but how different it would taste. It would be a completely different product altogether. It's important with even one new ingredient, one new change, that we re-put the whole thing back together. Bob Diaco

This 3-3-5 turned into "Fish Cake"

To your point, Diaco's Defense at Nebraska looked terrible to begin the year, but it's improved dramatically as the season's progressed for the Cornhuskers. Purdue's D has looked great too. I wish I can say the same for our D.

NOPE. NO Fish Cake. Ever. Call it what you want, but not this, dammit.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Rather have an inept defense.

The days of being able to figure out how to win 6+ games by holding teams under 20 points is long gone.

You have to score. I get the mindset that a 7-6 loss is the same as a 41-38 loss. A loss is a loss. But a team that can score gives you more opportunities to win than a team that has to win by holding down other team's O's.

 

[SubbaBub]

We played 3 bad teams, so we really don't know how good the O is but, the eye test says it's a lot better. Maybe not 38 points better.

The D is bad. Numbers don't lie. I'm hoping that a couple changes can get them to at least put up some resistance.

If the reports of RE stepping in at the end of the game to press the line of scrimmage more is true, that would be nice. I think there are still jobs to be won in the secondary. We may need to resign ourselves to minimal QB pressure and an inconsistent run defense just based on the lack of depth up front.

 

[RSTuthill]

We have heard an awful lot about the 3-3-5. Let's assume that UConn is not gonna switch to four down linemen. Is is still absolutely necessary to play a really soft zone with this scheme? And can the scheme even allow for a switch to man to man? Haven't heard much discussion on these points aside from the fact that no one is banging the receivers at the line of scrimmage. I am guessing that there isn't enough speed to play tighter to the line of scrimmage and that man coverage is a bit too complex for the current level of development. But I would be interested in hearing views on these points.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Better chances for a bad D to get lucky with a TO than a bad O catching lightning in a bottle.

 

[noeynox]

You can be boring or you can be bad. You can't be both. That game Saturday wasn't boring. One of the worst games I've sat through was that win over Virginia last year.

The worst feeling in the world is when you're down 17, and you know ain't a chance in hell your offense is capable of mounting 3 scoring drives.

We are far from crisp on offense, but the scheme is so much better. We have just recruited to a 1986 ground and pound style for too long so it will take time. We have also recruited for a bend but don't break style on defense so we lack playmakers on defense.

Both these things will improve with time.

 

[Excalibur]

My argument is that it is easier to change and refine a defense than change and refine an offense.

I think it is best separated by position group. The adjustment to a new scheme is hardest for the QB. I would put the secondary second, followed by the offensive line.

 

[Nostical]

Can the scheme even allow for a switch to man to man? Haven't heard much discussion on these points

What do we have to lose by trying a man coverage--or by staying in zone but blitzing a safety. The passes are being completed even when our safeties are staying back.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

If UConn were to lose every game for the next two season (please let that not be the case), I would prefer those loses be in an exciting shoot out like yesterday. So much better than the UConn of the past three years. Better 41-38 than 16-13.

 

[scoobydoo]

The worst feeling in the world is when you're down 7, and you know ain't a chance in hell your offense is capable of scoring drives.

fify

 

[RSTuthill]

I will take a boring win over yesterday anytime.

 

[UConnRock]

I will take a boring win over yesterday anytime.

But the "boring wins" were far too infrequent to justify the ultra-conservative/dysfunctional offense, the permanent ban on punt returns, and the other Diaco gimmicks. We sat through many boring wins with HCRE1.0, but we knew that HCRE was coaching based on the player's talents and not on a system that did not fit the skills. As fans we would gladly accept those "boring" 7 or 8 wins in a heartbeat, but there is also a realization that the offenses in college football have advanced to a point where that "boring" defensive style generally does not work. Yesterday sucked, but there was more excitement and plays to cheer for than in a 1/2 season under Diaco. There was nothing more demoralizing than being down by 14 points and not having a chance for a comeback. I felt that demoralization yesterday, but was reminded quickly that this is not a Diaco/Vertucci team. If only they completed the comeback......

 

[Chin Diesel]

We played 3 bad teams, so we really don't know how good the O is but, the eye test says it's a lot better. Maybe not 38 points better.

The D is bad. Numbers don't lie. I'm hoping that a couple changes can get them to at least put up some resistance.

If the reports of RE stepping in at the end of the game to press the line of scrimmage more is true, that would be nice. I think there are still jobs to be won in the secondary. We may need to resign ourselves to minimal QB pressure and an inconsistent run defense just based on the lack of depth up front.

I know it's a chicken and egg thing but I believe a big part of the secondary getting lit up is no pressure on the QB. These QB's literally look like they're playing pitch and catch in shoulder pads and shorts. The few times UConn did get pressure, it affected Sirk.

I'd like to see some press coverage from the DB's and pressure from the line and LB's on the QB. See what happens. Because right now the defense is garbage at all three levels.

 

[CL82]

You can be boring or you can be bad. You can't be both.

Um, last year?

 

[Palatine]

If you're awful on offense, you never really get a chance to cheer on scores.

 

[bmayuc]

The move to a 3-3-5 is going to be great long-term. More athletes, more adaptability, more coverage.

But it is a particularly harsh schematic change considering 2 things:

1. Personnel is all mismatched. Diaco recruited terribly and those he did recruit are all big/strong/slow to fit his 3-4. We have no speed players at DL period. No Trevardo, no Sio. Its a huge issue right now. Considering 335 is all about getting more LB/DB athletes on the field and those are our two CRITICAL needs for depth, that is problematic.

2. Injuries - Even with our terrible, limited depth... 3 quality players were missing this week, forcing a couple LBs and a S to see action. And they all made just... really bad mistakes with regards to tackling and recognition almost immediately.

3. I'll add this one. God our corners are bums! Tre Bell is so, so bad.

 

[UConnRock]

For a 3 game stretch Tre Bell has been the worst CB I have seen in a UConn uniform. How he was a 3*/38th best CB in the nation in HS and had over a dozen major offers is an absolute mystery. I watched Summers get schooled by the Syracuse WR last year, but that was 1 game.

 

[uconnbill]

We played 3 bad teams, so we really don't know how good the O is but, the eye test says it's a lot better. Maybe not 38 points better.

The D is bad. Numbers don't lie. I'm hoping that a couple changes can get them to at least put up some resistance.

If the reports of RE stepping in at the end of the game to press the line of scrimmage more is true, that would be nice. I think there are still jobs to be won in the secondary. We may need to resign ourselves to minimal QB pressure and an inconsistent run defense just based on the lack of depth up front.

Virgina went on the road to beat up on Bosie St. So either Bosie St stinks more or Virginia is not that bad after all. I know giving credit to a UConn opponent is something you're not used to.

Stupid question as the offense is far ahead of the defense at this time.

 

[noeynox]

I will take a boring win over yesterday anytime.

True, but you can be bad or boring. If you're both simultaneously, kiss fan support goodbye.

 

[blue93]

Better chances for a bad D to get lucky with a TO than a bad O catching lightning in a bottle.

Definitely. Too many time last year we went down 14-0 in the first half and the deficit felt insurmountable because of the horrendous offense. There's always some hope with an efficient offense.

 

[Redding Husky]

A possible bright spot? We had 5 drives of 75 yards or more in the second half against ECU. It looks like the offense has bottomed out and is possibly improving.

On defense, that's HCRE's area of expertise. I have to believe it will improve gradually. It may take 2 or 3 years.

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

For a 3 game stretch Tre Bell has been the worst CB I have seen in a UConn uniform. How he was a 3*/38th best CB in the nation in HS and had over a dozen major offers is an absolute mystery. I watched Summers get schooled by the Syracuse WR last year, but that was 1 game.

Gary Wilburn was worse imo, but Bell is struggling back there for sure. Maybe 2nd worst.

 

[RSTuthill]

Definitely. Too many time last year we went down 14-0 in the first half and the deficit felt insurmountable because of the horrendous offense. There's always some hope with an efficient offense.

Well, yes, there is always that. Call me crazy, but when the score was 10-27 or something, I had this passing thought that we had them right where we wanted them.