Whose Fault is the D? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Whose Fault is the D?

History Geek said:
Key word in this post, repeated twice -- "yet." I agree. Endure the nightmare now, enjoy the fruits later.
Expand ...
It’s like what they say to athletes, “Trust the process.” When you tell an athlete to trust the process or fall in love with the process you’re referring to all the slow, tedious preparation that happens off the field. The premise is to enjoy the struggle because when you do, the dividends will almost always pay out. Fans alike, we may have lost some during this process but the ones that stick around will enjoy what this team looks like in a few years. I would love for the Rent to be packed and see the fans fighting alongside this young team. How cool would that be? UConn football would be the talk of the town. Recruits would strongly consider coming to a place where the stadium is packed even when the team is losing. They would imagine bringing their talent in to help that kind of rebuild. It would set us apart from most programs. Parents of those recruits would be even more impressed to see that kind of support system for their kids.
Alas, that’s not gonna happen because fandom doesn’t operate that way- but it should. We want our athletes to trust the process, trust and fall in love with the grind. Imagine if we did the same?
We’d be the talk of the town
 
Chief00 said:
It would be easier to be patient, if we saw an actual improvement in recruiting. Thus far, RE has been disappointing in that area. Since he was here 7 years ago technology improvements and greater football staffing levels devoted to recruiting make the under the radar guy less likely. More often who we get is a result of us not getting the guy who went somewhere else. Putting RE’s BS aside that’s what we are dealing with here.
Expand ...
May I ask a question Chief? How do you know when a recruit is good or a bust? Because you’ve already deemed RE recruiting a failure thus far. Just want to know what’s your measuring stick with this year (his first full year of recruiting).
 
True, he had one “full year” of recruiting but he is currently recruiting his third recruiting class. Thus far, the rankings have been low and we haven’t seen any evidence of on field improvement. True, Randy has a very good eye for talent potential in under the radar guys. My concern is since Randy last stop here , with all the non coaching staff teams have now to support recruiting and technology - there may be less under the radar guys to mine.
I do agree in practice the guys seem faster and more athletic than a couple years ago but the 3-4 upper tier AAC teams we play are noticeably faster on the field.

Perhaps, it is too early and I am impatient and unfair - so your criticism is probably justified to some extent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chief00 said:
True, he had one “full year” of recruiting but he is currently recruiting his third recruiting class. Thus far, the rankings have been low and we haven’t seen any evidence of on field improvement. True, Randy has a very good eye for talent potential in under the radar guys. My concern is since Randy last stop here , with all the non coaching staff teams have now to support recruiting and technology - there may be less under the radar guys to mine.
I do agree in practice the guys seem faster and more athletic than a couple years ago but the 3-4 upper tier AAC teams we play are noticeably faster on the field.

Perhaps, it is too early and I am impatient and unfair - so your criticism is probably justified to some extent.
Expand ...
We are athletic but young.
When these kids learn the game from this level they’ll play much faster. They haven’t learned how to anticipate plays yet. That comes with experience and countless reps. I’m sure they’re still thinking a bit too much out there.
Remember, high school offenses and defenses are as vanilla as ice cream. The level of study down there pales in comparison to what’s needed here.
Give it time. I like what I see
 
Irishfan said:
Bleacher Report did a ranking of the youngest teams in CFB. Based on the years of the 22 starting players (not counting special teams). Uconn did not make the top 25. (Houston wa# #2 and Michigan was #5).
Expand ...
huskymedic said:
Got a link to either article you have mentioned regarding youngest teams in CFB?

The only Bleacher Report one I found w/ Houston #2 and Michigan #5 was from 2013.
Expand ...

From UConn v. URI Game Notes: UConn played 11 true freshmen on opening night with eight playing on the defensive side of the ball. Here is where UConn ranks nationally:

Georgia: 18 (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 special team)
Minnesota: 16 (7 offense, 9 defense)
Missouri: 14 (8 offense, 6 defense)
Ohio State: 14 (5 offense, 9 defense)
Florida: 14 (9 offense, 5 defense)
Clemson: 13
TCU: 13
Nevada: 12 (7 offense, 5 defense)
UConn: 11 (3 offense, 8 defense)
Georgia Tech: 11 (2 offense, 9 defense)
USC: 11 (6 defense, 4 offense, 1 special teams)
Oregon: (5 defense, 3 offense, 2 special teams)
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
From UConn v. URI Game Notes: UConn played 11 true freshmen on opening night with eight playing on the defensive side of the ball. Here is where UConn ranks nationally:

Georgia: 18 (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 special team)
Minnesota: 16 (7 offense, 9 defense)
Missouri: 14 (8 offense, 6 defense)
Ohio State: 14 (5 offense, 9 defense)
Florida: 14 (9 offense, 5 defense)
Clemson: 13
TCU: 13
Nevada: 12 (7 offense, 5 defense)
UConn: 11 (3 offense, 8 defense)
Georgia Tech: 11 (2 offense, 9 defense)
USC: 11 (6 defense, 4 offense, 1 special teams)
Oregon: (5 defense, 3 offense, 2 special teams)
Expand ...
Presumably, those are the number of true freshman who played for UGA, Minn, Mizzou, etc. How many started?
 
Husky25 said:
Presumably, those are the number of true freshman who played for UGA, Minn, Mizzou, etc. How many started?
Expand ...

Not listed in Game Notes.

The lead-in to the above numbers was this statement:

>>The Huskies’ season-opening two-deep featured 11 first-year players (true and redshirt freshmen) on defense and six on offense. An additional three players on the special teams unit are also first year players. The week-two depth chart features five true freshmen defenders on the top-line. Additionally, 11 first-year players (freshmen or r-freshmen) are included in this week’s depth chart on the defensive side of the ball.

I highly doubt the age of the offense starters on the depth chart skew the age data significantly. Someone else can chase that rabbit down the hole. Two Deep URI - UConn Huskies
 
Irishfan said:
Bleacher Report did a ranking of the youngest teams in CFB. Based on the years of the 22 starting players (not counting special teams). Uconn did not make the top 25. (Houston wa# #2 and Michigan was #5).
Expand ...

Don't confuse the posters with facts. It upsets them.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
I highly doubt the age of the offense starters on the depth chart skew the age data significantly. Someone else can chase that rabbit down the hole. Two Deep URI - UConn Huskies
Expand ...

My point was more driving to the fact that UConn has freshmen (regardless of who) at key positions at all times. The other schools listed may have freshmen in their positional rotations, but there is experience on the field for most of the game.
 
Palatine said:
Don't confuse the posters with facts. It upsets them.
Expand ...

Here are the facts.

True freshman starters of the teams listed above:

UConn: 1 on offense, 5 on defense

Georgia: 0 on offense, 1 on defense
Minnesota: 2 on offense, 1 on defense
Missouri: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Ohio St: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Florida: 0 on offense, 1 on defense
Clemson: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
TCU: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Nevada: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Georgia Tech: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
USC: 1 on offense, 0 on defense
Oregon: 1 on offense, 0 on defense

What about true freshman starters for UCF and Boise St?

Both, 0 on offense, 0 on defense.

True freshman starters in the AAC?

UCF: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
USF: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
ECU: 1 on offense, 0 on defense
Cincinnati: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Temple: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Navy: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Tulsa: o on offense, 0 on defense
Houston: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
SMU: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Tulane: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Memphis: 0 on offense, 0 on defense

In the AAC, there are 2 true freshmen starters on offense (1 UConn) and 6 true freshmen starters on defense (5 UConn).

In other words, UConn has almost double the starting true freshmen on defense than Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio St, Florida, Clemson, TCU, Nevada, Georgia Tech, USC, and Oregon COMBINED! And, 5 times the starting true freshmen compared to the ENTIRE AAC!

The lack of experience on defense for UConn is unheard of in college football. At many schools, if a new coach had inherited UConn's roster mess, the new coach would have recruited a group of JuCos, but that is not the way it happens at UConn for many reasons.
 
UConnJim said:
Here are the facts.

True freshman starters of the teams listed above:

UConn: 1 on offense, 5 on defense

Georgia: 0 on offense, 1 on defense
Minnesota: 2 on offense, 1 on defense
Missouri: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Ohio St: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Florida: 0 on offense, 1 on defense
Clemson: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
TCU: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Nevada: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Georgia Tech: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
USC: 1 on offense, 0 on defense
Oregon: 1 on offense, 0 on defense

What about true freshman starters for UCF and Boise St?

Both, 0 on offense, 0 on defense.

True freshman starters in the AAC?

UCF: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
USF: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
ECU: 1 on offense, 0 on defense
Cincinnati: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Temple: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Navy: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Tulsa: o on offense, 0 on defense
Houston: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
SMU: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Tulane: 0 on offense, 0 on defense
Memphis: 0 on offense, 0 on defense

In the AAC, there are 2 true freshmen starters on offense (1 UConn) and 6 true freshmen starters on defense (5 UConn).

In other words, UConn has almost double the starting true freshmen on defense than Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio St, Florida, Clemson, TCU, Nevada, Georgia Tech, USC, and Oregon COMBINED! And, 5 times the starting true freshmen compared to the ENTIRE AAC!

The lack of experience on defense for UConn is unheard of in college football. At many schools, if a new coach had inherited UConn's roster mess, the new coach would have recruited a group of JuCos, but that is not the way it happens at UConn for many reasons.
Expand ...


LOL dunking on Pal.
 
Dicko is the man to blame. He recruited FCS players the last couple years and now we are paying the price. We are easily the youngest team in the country.

We are starting 11 underclassmen on defense right now. How is it possible that not a single upperclassmen can beat out all the underclassmen. Not 1!!! 17 of the 22 players on the defensive 2 deep are underclassmen.

This is a complete rebuild from a talent perspective.
 
This is really tough to watch. One of the softest defenses that I can ever remember watching on any level, including high school. Not tough enough to get off any blocks. Not fast enough to create angles. Not strong enough to tackle anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,154
Messages
4,554,958
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom