Youth and growing pains for Huskies (J. Silver)

[huskymedic]

http://snyuconn.com/uconn/football/tuesday-presser-youth-and-growing-pains-for-huskies/

>>When the University of Connecticut football team has a meeting he dismisses the players by class at the end.
It’s a simple and basic way to maintain a hierarchy and control where the older players who have been around get the respect they deserve. That’s the way things are done.

Diaco has noticed one thing when he does it. “I dismiss seniors and juniors, smattering of guys, dismiss sophomore and it’s a large group. And then the freshmen and the whole room gets up and walks to the dining room line,” Diaco said
.
What does that have to do what happens on the field on Saturdays? Everything.

Youth is playing at UConn. By choice and by default, and that has game consequences.<<

 

[tjhusky]

Yup. And remember when RE came in and had to play frosh and sophs for the first few years:
1999 4-7
2000 3-8
2001 2-9

Once he got his recruits in and had the luxury of red shirting most new recruits we had more options and more consistent play.

 

[Colt house75]

Yup. And remember when RE came in and had to play frosh and sophs for the first few years:
1999 4-7
2000 3-8
2001 2-9

Once he got his recruits in and had the luxury of red shirting most new recruits we had more options and more consistent play.

In 2002, we go 6 & 6, capped off with 4 straight wins to end the season including a 38 - 0 whitewash of Navy and beating a pretty decent bowl bound Iowa State team in
Ames in season finale thinking please don't make me ever endure a building of a program. PLEASE!!!

In 2003, I'm in my season's tickets seat as the Rent opens to a croaking of Indiana of the B1G as we go 9 &3 for the season thinking Jeezus Mary & St Joseph, the 30 year wait was worth it.........................

Oh man.....hope these pups develop fangs really quick......

 

[whaler11]

Yup. And remember when RE came in and had to play frosh and sophs for the first few years:
1999 4-7
2000 3-8
2001 2-9

Once he got his recruits in and had the luxury of red shirting most new recruits we had more options and more consistent play.

There are some similarities.

Edsall didn't have the Shenk. He didn't have Rentschler.

He did acquire a bare roster and lost his best quarterback immediately in year one.

Edsall did lose a home opener to Eastern Washington. He also lost to Eastern Michigan when a great punter shanked one.

They took some absolute beatings. MTSU in 2010 and Temple in 2011.

He even lost to USF in 99 in their first year as a program.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can accept Diaco losing to anyone this year. Temple? They are further along the rebuild. Tulane? It's on the road.

But don't punt down 10 with 4 minutes left and don't kick field goals under the guise of getting the kicker practice.

At least lose with dignity.

 

[BNich]

News and Notes:
For the fourth time. Nothing is wrong with Tim Boyle that will keep him from playing this week.

 

[BlueMAB]

News and Notes:
For the fourth time. Nothing is wrong with Tim Boyle that will keep him from playing this week.

Tell that to Palatine.

 

[BNich]

Tell that to Palatine.

I'd have to change it to say "For the Seventh time"

 

[Carl Spackler]

There are some similarities.

Edsall didn't have the Shenk. He didn't have Rentschler.

He did acquire a bare roster and lost his best quarterback immediately in year one.

Edsall did lose a home opener to Eastern Washington. He also lost to Eastern Michigan when a great punter shanked one.

They took some absolute beatings. MTSU in 2010 and Temple in 2011.

He even lost to USF in 99 in their first year as a program.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can accept Diaco losing to anyone this year. Temple? They are further along the rebuild. Tulane? It's on the road.

But don't punt down 10 with 4 minutes left and don't kick field goals under the guise of getting the kicker practice.

At least lose with dignity.

I cannot accept losing.

I can accept being beaten, by a team that plays better than we do.

Play on words sure.

Our coach is good with it too, play on words.

So far, he's been very clear on eliminating the things that cause losing. Big goal - eliminate the things that cause losing.

Fine.

When the fack are we going to switch over to doing the things that cause winning?

For a guy with such great skills, and motivation - I don't understand how he has not yet transitioned that simple, thought process of putting your goals into words that make positive sense.

Because we did not eliminate any of the things that cause losing yet, it was a house of cards through the first 3 weeks.

Get to practicing the things that cause winning.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Like eliminating/minimizing turnovers and penalties?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Like eliminating/minimizing turnovers and penalties?

I'm frustrated with the setback we saw Friday night Duncan. I'm more frustrated with the explanation we've gotten for what we're doing going forward. I think all this talk and writing, about the play calling and all that in the single game is nonsense, from people that might not really know WTF they are writing about. The single question that arises from that performance on Friday night, is WTF are we doing in practices all week? It's a valid question. There was nothing wrong with the game time decision making.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. what do you think?

 

[sportsart]

I'm frustrated with the setback we saw Friday night Duncan. I'm more frustrated with the explanation we've gotten for what we're doing going forward. I think all this talk and writing, about the play calling and all that in the single game is nonsense, from people that might not really know WTF they are writing about. The single question that arises from that performance on Friday night, is WTF are we doing in practices all week? It's a valid question. There was nothing wrong with the game time decision making.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. what do you think?

You do realize it was a monsoon at USF Friday night, right? You also realize the first 4 plays were a disaster, in terms of the passing game, right?

I'm sure practice during the week, in terms of passing, there was for a holding penalty, a blind sided fumble, an intentional grounding penalty and more, when getting ready for USF.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You do realize it was a monsoon at USF Friday night, right? You also realize the first 4 plays were a disaster, in terms of the passing game, right?

I'm sure practice during the week, in terms of passing, there was for a holding penalty, a blind sided fumble, an intentional grounding penalty and more, when getting ready for USF.

I don't have a problem with the way the game was called, and I've remarked several times, in the past few days, that I didn't blink an eye, or see anything wrong, with the scrapping the entire passing game out of the game plan in the first half. After that chop block, I had seen enough of the passing game.

I would have been curious to see what they would have done coming out of the half, if they were still down 14-0, but we did get a bounce our way, and it was 14-7 coming out, no need to change what we were doing in 1 possession game. In the 4th quarter, when it was necessary to start changing we did, when it comes to play calls - strategy, tactics. Based on what I've seen through 3 games up til then, I would have been surprised if we tried to continue the same thing in the second half, down 14-0, but we werent' so it's no matter. Diaco managed the game fine, I think.

The issue I have is that we suck at blocking, fundamentals. When we needed our defense to make a play the most, we broke down, not in scheme, or play calling, but in fundamentals - tackling. that is about practice and preparation - both short term, and long term.

My problem, moving forward, comes with this statement Diaco made - not anything about the play calling in the game: this is out of the Hartford courant:

"When you play freshmen and sophomores as much as we do, those are things we have to deal with. To do something different, play 11 players for four quarters, I am not going to do it. We are building a foundation of strength."...

Well - we saw what our foundation looks like on Friday, and it's not a foundation of strength - yet. I don't understand how the rotations we are using is supposed to get those freshmen and sophomores the reps, that I believe they need get developed and have a foundation of strength built on blocking and tackling, without settling on a starting 11, that is going to get heavily weighted reps. I would love to hear a rational explanation, other than the head coach has truly decided that we are going to treat this entire season like a very, very long training camp. I don't want to accept that explanation, because it makes me mad, to have spent the money I did this year.

Is that clear enough?

 

[sportsart]

I don't have a problem with the way the game was called, and I've remarked several times, in the past few days, that I didn't blink an eye, or see anything wrong, with the scrapping the entire passing game out of the game plan in the first half. After that chop block, I had seen enough of the passing game.

I would have been curious to see what they would have done coming out of the half, if they were still down 14-0, but we did get a bounce our way, and it was 14-7 coming out, no need to change what we were doing in 1 possession game. In the 4th quarter, when it was necessary to start changing we did, when it comes to play calls - strategy, tactics. Based on what I've seen through 3 games up til then, I would have been surprised if we tried to continue the same thing in the second half, down 14-0, but we werent' so it's no matter. Diaco managed the game fine, I think.

The issue I have is that we suck at blocking, fundamentals. When we needed our defense to make a play the most, we broke down, not in scheme, or play calling, but in fundamentals - tackling. that is about practice and preparation - both short term, and long term.

My problem, moving forward, comes with this statement Diaco made - not anything about the play calling in the game: this is out of the Hartford courant:

"When you play freshmen and sophomores as much as we do, those are things we have to deal with. To do something different, play 11 players for four quarters, I am not going to do it. We are building a foundation of strength."...

Well - we saw what our foundation looks like on Friday, and it's not a foundation of strength - yet. I don't understand how the rotations we are using is supposed to get those freshmen and sophomores the reps, that I believe they need get developed and have a foundation of strength built on blocking and tackling, without settling on a starting 11, that is going to get heavily weighted reps. I would love to hear a rational explanation, other than the head coach has truly decided that we are going to treat this entire season like a very, very long training camp. I don't want to accept that explanation, because it makes me mad, to have spent the money I did this year.

Is that clear enough?

How's this for being clear enough? If you play, with what you have, to win a few games this year, and not look at the big picture, you are destined to stagnation.

He was left with talent, that was NOT coached up, and he feels it is important to build depth for the future.

I hate it as much as anyone, but to see the over the top judgement I have seen, is ridiculous.

Diaco is not a stupid man and has had plenty of years of experience with high quality head coaches. Guess what? He has seen the inside of what was a severely broken program. There is not one person on this board who has a clue on how to build a top notch football program. Never mind building one where the damage was critical.

 

[Carl Spackler]

How's this for being clear enough? If you play, with what you have, to win a few games this year, and not look at the big picture, you are destined to stagnation.

He was left with talent, that was NOT coached up, and he feels it is important to build depth for the future.

I hate it as much as anyone, but to see the over the top judgement I have seen, is ridiculous.

Diaco is not a stupid man and has had plenty of years of experience with high quality head coaches. Guess what? He has seen the inside of what was a severely broken program. There is not one person on this board who has a clue on how to build a top notch football program. Never mind building one where the damage was critical.

I see a head coach, that is treating an entire season, as a football training camp. I have never, repeat, never see a football coach go through an entire season with rotations like I am seeing. If anyone else has examples of this, let me know. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, that what this guy is doing, works - to get a team to develop from where we started in August, to where we need to be come December.

If he is, treating the entire season like a max rep, max exposure program divided between players - a season long training camp/practice? Own up to that. Admit and deal with backlash. If not - explain yourself. Do you really expect players to develop when they are getting limited / divided reps during the week? Why? How? Are the coaches we have really that good? Do we have a single person in the press that even knows what this means?

I can't speak for anyone else, but it pisses me off, to think that I've spent the money I did on my UConn donations and season tickets, to watch practice on game days, and it makes me embarrassed and apologetic for the 4 new season ticket buyers I recruited this year, that are all wondering the same thing as to how we can expect not just one, but three rookie tailbacks to develop, with the way this guy is dividing reps. That kind of thing is happening, with TE's, G's, T's, FB's, LB's, DE's, CB's, and S. We're going through a season, dividing reps, so that we're expecting 2-3 players at every position to develop?

It's like frigging communism. Not everybody is equal, and playing time is not equally shared, when you expect to win.

I really gotta stop writing for awhile. I'm so frigging tired of seeing bad football, all around, I'd much rather be complaining about good football. I got better thigns to do.

CYA in a few weeks. I hope I'm wrong about it all.

 

[huskymedic]

I really gotta stop writing for awhile.

Please... Same message points over and over getting old.

 

[SubbaBub]

Yup. And remember when RE came in and had to play frosh and sophs for the first few years:
1999 4-7
2000 3-8
2001 2-9

Once he got his recruits in and had the luxury of red shirting most new recruits we had more options and more consistent play.

There is a not insignificant difference between transitioning from 1A talent to BCS talent. If you want to blame P for poor instruction, then I'm right there. If you want to blame him for bad recruiting, i I might go along, but that was rarely discussed at the time.

There is a issue that needs to be addressed. You would expect a high level staff to address it well enough to show better on Saturdays by week 4. If not solve it, mask it or work around it.

Growing pains for now, serious problem if it keeps up. Recruiting won't fix it for next season and you don't get 3 years of losing/building anymore at any school.

 

[whaler11]

How does not throwing the ball develop anyone for the future?

Seems to me the opposite is more likely. Shutting down half your options only keeps you from developing.

 

[whaler11]

I see a head coach, that is treating an entire season, as a football training camp. I have never, repeat, never see a football coach go through an entire season with rotations like I am seeing. If anyone else has examples of this, let me know. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, that what this guy is doing, works - to get a team to develop from where we started in August, to where we need to be come December.

If he is, treating the entire season like a max rep, max exposure program divided between players - a season long training camp/practice? Own up to that. Admit and deal with backlash. If not - explain yourself. Do you really expect players to develop when they are getting limited / divided reps during the week? Why? How? Are the coaches we have really that good? Do we have a single person in the press that even knows what this means?

I can't speak for anyone else, but it pisses me off, to think that I've spent the money I did on my UConn donations and season tickets, to watch practice on game days, and it makes me embarrassed and apologetic for the 4 new season ticket buyers I recruited this year, that are all wondering the same thing as to how we can expect not just one, but three rookie tailbacks to develop, with the way this guy is dividing reps. That kind of thing is happening, with TE's, G's, T's, FB's, LB's, DE's, CB's, and S. We're going through a season, dividing reps, so that we're expecting 2-3 players at every position to develop?

It's like frigging communism. Not everybody is equal, and playing time is not equally shared, when you expect to win.

I really gotta stop writing for awhile. I'm so frigging tired of seeing bad football, all around, I'd much rather be complaining about good football. I got better thigns to do.

CYA in a few weeks. I hope I'm wrong about it all.

Hey when I coach I do the exact same thing. Everyone plays the same amount.

Of course I coach Kindergarten soccer and they play 3 on 3 and there are 6 players on the team.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get Carl's frustration on this. And no, nobody else does it. I think the reason is simple, they are worried more about their jobs than the long term future of the program. I think Diaco is an outlier, because he is thinking much father ahead than we are and certainly than most coaches ever do. I think he is building the 2015-16 team right now. He knows this team can't win many games, but hopes that they progress fast enough to get a few Ws. But what I think he really wants is a team that takes a big leap next year, rather than flatlining for 3 years as Edsall's teams did. It's a gamble. I think Whitmer is the starter for two reasons (a) to give us a slightly better chance to win due to his mobility and (b) because he can't lose Boyle to an injury and our OL is swiss cheese. It is unorthodox, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I get Carl's frustration on this. And no, nobody else does it. I think the reason is simple, they are worried more about their jobs than the long term future of the program. I think Diaco is an outlier, because he is thinking much father ahead than we are and certainly than most coaches ever do. I think he is building the 2015-16 team right now. He knows this team can't win many games, but hopes that they progress fast enough to get a few Ws. But what I think he really wants is a team that takes a big leap next year, rather than flatlining for 3 years as Edsall's teams did. It's a gamble. I think Whitmer is the starter for two reasons (a) to give us a slightly better chance to win due to his mobility and (b) because he can't lose Boyle to an injury and our OL is swiss cheese. It is unorthodox, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I will write one more, b/c you've actually seemed to get what I'm saying, and the stuff I'm writing, contrary to suggesting the stupidity that a coach isn't doing something to win - is actually important and highly questionable, and I disagree vehemently with what's going on.

He is an outlier. But coaches don't rotate like this with young players, not for their own job security, they do it because fundamentals of football are important. TO winning, to developing a team for the future, to frigging god damn player safety. Never mind the missed assignments, lets talk about what's been happening when they do make contact.

We had a CHOP BLOCK penalty. When was the last time you saw a chop block called - unless it was intentional, and a player was sending a message or something? That is dangerous play. We have seen young defenders knock themselves out with poor tackling form in the open field. We've seen a young RB knock himself out of a game on a poorly executed blocking form in the kick return game.

You settle on a lineup, and you drill your young players on fundamentals.

The next time a player goes to the sidelines in the next few weeks, because of something like this - think about it. We didn't have it against BYU, because they just came out of camp. We are in season now, and with the rotations, we have seen it get worse and worse.

It's all about getting your reps, improving in football, and in life.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Diaco’s opinion on the line was striking.
” There isn’t a whole bunch of dudes there who are going to play competitive winning football for 12 games this season,” (Silver)
I guess people had to see that 2nd Ray Rice video from within the elevator to be convinced, just seeing him drag her unconscious past its threshold wasn't enough. What did they think happened in there?

 

[BNich]

I will write one more, b/c you've actually seemed to get what I'm saying, and the stuff I'm writing, contrary to suggesting the stupidity that a coach isn't doing something to win - is actually important and highly questionable, and I disagree vehemently with what's going on.

He is an outlier. But coaches don't rotate like this with young players, not for their own job security, they do it because fundamentals of football are important. TO winning, to developing a team for the future, to frigging god damn player safety. Never mind the missed assignments, lets talk about what's been happening when they do make contact.

We had a CHOP BLOCK penalty. When was the last time you saw a chop block called - unless it was intentional, and a player was sending a message or something? That is dangerous play. We have seen young defenders knock themselves out with poor tackling form in the open field. We've seen a young RB knock himself out of a game on a poorly executed blocking form in the kick return game.

You settle on a lineup, and you drill your young players on fundamentals.

The next time a player goes to the sidelines in the next few weeks, because of something like this - think about it. We didn't have it against BYU, because they just came out of camp. We are in season now, and with the rotations, we have seen it get worse and worse.

It's all about getting your reps, improving in football, and in life.

Confused by your post. Not sure if you are being positive or negative towards the team.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Confused by your post. Not sure if you are being positive or negative towards the team.

Carl wants combat troops to at least complete basic training.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl wants combat troops to at least complete basic training.

Duncan, if we end up in a game like that again, I hope he at least has learned to tell Foxx, to catch the punts.

 

[uconnflyer88]

There was a comment from Des's article that for some reason can't be pulled up, but it struck me as fanscinating and alarming, it went something like:

"When we walked into the meeting room on Monday, you could see their faces and you knew they were expecting to get yelled and screamed at for the performance....."

If someone can open the article and copy and paste the quote I think it is telling at the task Diaco has at changing the culture for the UConn program