Not sure what this title should be but I think: Back Off

[junglehusky]

The only reason to play Whitmer is if he helps you win now. If there is no difference why wouldn't you play the sophomore if your focus is development and the future?

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

 

[Sean]

Some random thoughts, in no particular order...

1.) What amazed me most in Diaco pulling CC is that he did it in the Red Zone. If I had to have one QB drive me down the field, and a different in the RZ...I would go with CC in the RZ and CW down the field. CW in the red zone is the last guy I'd want, unfortunately.

2.) Three years from now, if Diaco is fired and coaching at Georgia State, I have no doubt that he would do things differently in his new gig. I can't imagine he'd go for that FG at the end. That's stuff that he's going to have to learn, but I think he can and probably will.

3.) This team has very little talent, and right now, Diaco has very little talent. It's like a team of freshmen with a freshman coach. We have to hope to see SOME positive improvement so that we have reason to wait for senior year.

4.) I can't believe some of you guys defending Diaco still say you think this team goes 6-6 or 7-5. I am all for being patient and being positive, but if you think the team you saw Friday is about to go 7-4 the rest of the way...I really question your football evaluation abilities. Right now, it's more likely that we lose to Stony Brook than finish 7-4, I'm afraid.

 

[whaler11]

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

It wasn't an in game decision. It was the plan all along.

 

[UConnDan97]

UD97. Believing in the players and the coach should go hand in hand, especially after GAME 1....yeah GAME 1....You know what go ahead and be critical all you want. People have different personalities, don't try to project and make other people so negative though. IT WAS GAME 1. AGAINST a very good team. We didn't lose to Stony Brook. And really I believe if just two plays go different early on it is a very close game at the end. (Take away MD fumble and CC pick) Add a FG instead of CC pick and consider we would have kicked a FG down 14 not 21 instead of fake FG.

I don't know about you guys but I was at the game and then I watched the game on ESPN 3 the next day. After watching it and dissecting every play I had a much better feeling and outlook. I get the experience felt a little t y the other night but all sports are played game to game. The mistakes we made are very correctable, there is no need to start losing respect and faith in our head coach. GET FHCPP out of your mind and don't hold that against HCBD. I know I didn't even start losing faith in FHCPP till back to back losses to CUSE and USF mid way through year 2. It's a joke how excited some people get for the year and how highly the talk about a person and then how quickly they throw him under the bus.

I think you need to re-read what I said. The power of your reaction is not equivalent to the power of my statement...

 

[UConnDan97]

One can't like everything he did without consciously closing their eyes and being a suckup. But one can recognize it was his first game, and not one we ever had a material chance of winning, and not feel the needd to criticize everything down to the press conference.

It's not either or.

As a matter of clarification, Biz, are you agreeing with me? I've read your post a couple of times, and I'm not sure if it's aimed at me or someone else...

 

[Nostical]

Just so I understand those of you railing against Diaco's early season dual QB approach, I assume that had Whitmer scored when brought in at the end of the CC drive, and the mix of QB's had resulted in BYU's defense having some trouble adapting-- resulting in a very close loss for us--say 35-31--you still would have used about 8 threads decrying the use of the two QB system?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Why would BYU be confused by switching our QBs mid drive(aside from how idiotic it was)?

In the history of football how many teams have used a 2 QB system substituting mid drive with QB with very similar skill sets?

Unless you think Diaco and UConn football are changing the paradigm of modern football... I'm still left questioning how that was defensible

 

[whaler11]

Just so I understand those of you railing against Diaco's early season dual QB approach, I assume that had Whitmer scored when brought in at the end of the CC drive, and the mix of QB's had resulted in BYU's defense having some trouble adapting-- resulting in a very close loss for us--say 35-31--you still would have used about 8 threads decrying the use of the two QB system?

Yes.

 

[Nostical]

Well, OK Whaler. I respect that. I'm not a fan of 2QB's either but too many folks love to beetcb about various aspects when we lose but never say boo about them if we win. Winning becomes a convenient antiseptic. At least you get high marks for consistency.

 

[kcc1442]

I think you need to re-read what I said. The power of your reaction is not equivalent to the power of my statement...

"But those positive feelings for the present and future shouldn't preclude me from having real concerns about Diaco's approach to a 2-QB system, or his admitted management of a game to simply get people an extra play, despite it not being the right thing to do (i.e., Puyol's FG, down a lot)."



I agree with you in the sense that the the power of my reaction is more to do with the others in this thread that are insanely fickle. Maybe the difference lies within the way that I would have expressed myself versus these other people. I understand if you say simply that there was things to work on, there were errors, many physical (1 noticeably tactical) but those errors will obviously all be corrected and are expected for a first game ever coached. What I have a major problem with is the sky is falling people who are projecting negativity and claiming that this means HCBD needs to change his philosophies. 1 game is not a sample size and people are casting judgement and negativity all over the person they called a savior a week ago.

As to your comments I get and believe you still hold trust and faith in him and I know you will always support the program. However I just keyed in on the whole I have real concerns part of your post(as if 1 game of sampling can lead you to have real concerns). Whether it has to do with any of what you said: management of the game or 2-QB system, I don't think its right that as a fan base we expect him after 1 game to stray from his plan, be a master game manager, dissect his every word in the pressers (directed towards others), or have concern that insinuates that he is not going to do whats right for the program.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

One can't like everything he did without consciously closing their eyes and being a suckup. But one can recognize it was his first game, and not one we ever had a material chance of winning, and not feel the needd to criticize everything down to the press conference.

It's not either or.

I don't think that RD was using the BYU game as a scrimmage or didn't care about win/loss. I do think he had, and continues to have, a need (and goal) to find out much more than he can by having his players bang heads with each other in an indoor practice facility. For a new coach, skepticism and/or cynicism are an absolute requirement. How does a coach, new to his roster, confirm that a player that looks good in practice is not taking advantage of a lesser talent? Both wheat, both chaff, or one of each? What can he use as a gauge? BYU was the first time the staff had the opportunity to see UCONN compete against a tough, well-coached group that has had demonstrable success. Of course the staff is still evaluating. It has no choice.

To me, once able to live with the fact that RD is still evaluating, whether in agreement or not, complaints about things like player substitutions and play calls lose a lot of merit. It's become obvious that RD had a specific reason for each and every move. It's his plan, not ours. By the way, I'm not a gambler, but if I were, I wouldn't go near a UCONN game until conference play begins.

 

[UConnDan97]

"But those positive feelings for the present and future shouldn't preclude me from having real concerns about Diaco's approach to a 2-QB system, or his admitted management of a game to simply get people an extra play, despite it not being the right thing to do (i.e., Puyol's FG, down a lot)."



I agree with you in the sense that the the power of my reaction is more to do with the others in this thread that are insanely fickle. Maybe the difference lies within the way that I would have expressed myself versus these other people. I understand if you say simply that there was things to work on, there were errors, many physical (1 noticeably tactical) but those errors will obviously all be corrected and are expected for a first game ever coached. What I have a major problem with is the sky is falling people who are projecting negativity and claiming that this means HCBD needs to change his philosophies. 1 game is not a sample size and people are casting judgement and negativity all over the person they called a savior a week ago.

As to your comments I get and believe you still hold trust and faith in him and I know you will always support the program. However I just keyed in on the whole I have real concerns part of your post(as if 1 game of sampling can lead you to have real concerns). Whether it has to do with any of what you said: management of the game or 2-QB system, I don't think its right that as a fan base we expect him after 1 game to stray from his plan, be a master game manager, dissect his every word in the pressers (directed towards others), or have concern that insinuates that he is not going to do whats right for the program.

Make no mistake, I still believe we are going 12-1.

Now that I got that out of the way, you say that "those errors will obviously all be corrected," and then you follow that up with "I don't think it's right that as a fan base we expect him after 1 game to stray from his plan..." So which is it? Because it can't be both. If we all agree that the 2-QB switching system is an error (and I believe we do, because we have all complained about it for 3 straight years, going all the way back to the McCummings wildcat inserts), then clearly all the errors from game 1 will NOT be corrected. He has already stated that he will stick with the 2-QB system going into Stony Brook.

And that should also answer Nostical's comment: I am with Whaler in my consistency of hating the 2-QB system, as I have hated it for years. I am a firm believer in the famous coaching mantra that if you have two quarterbacks, you have none...

 

[junglehusky]

I'd like to suggest a corolary : if you have no QB's, you have no QB's. I'm not saying CC (or even CW for that matter) can't be bona fide "key" starters in the future, but they are not that today. It seems most on this board think that continuing to play 2 QB's is detrimental to developing the one currently ahead in the depth charge, and the staff does not agree.I hope CC can take the job by the scruff of the neck, but I don't think he's done that yet. It was blatantly obvious the BYU game was treated like a preseason game, for the purpose of reps and evaluation. If folks don't like that, fine. My guess is that the staff wants both the starter and backup later in the season to have had those reps in case the starter is injured or not performing.

 

[kcc1442]

Make no mistake, I still believe we are going 12-1.

Now that I got that out of the way, you say that "those errors will obviously all be corrected," and then you follow that up with "I don't think it's right that as a fan base we expect him after 1 game to stray from his plan..." So which is it? Because it can't be both. If we all agree that the 2-QB switching system is an error (and I believe we do, because we have all complained about it for 3 straight years, going all the way back to the McCummings wildcat inserts), then clearly all the errors from game 1 will NOT be corrected. He has already stated that he will stick with the 2-QB system going into Stony Brook.

And that should also answer Nostical's comment: I am with Whaler in my consistency of hating the 2-QB system, as I have hated it for years. I am a firm believer in the famous coaching mantra that if you have two quarterbacks, you have none...

It can be both, because I never said that the 2-QB system is an error. "If we all agree that the 2-QB switching system is an error" is a false presumption and major generalization when you said "we all" on your part.

I haven't played a video game in long while but I feel like Diaco is stuck with 2 QB's rated around 71 overall and when you break down their attributes they both are vastly different. Not an easy choice, and all the naysayers and negative nancys would still be pissed if he chose one and that QB failed which against a team like BYU was bound to happened to some degree.

With that said I'm not a huge fan of the 2-QB system. I would love to have one defined QB play the entire time (but he needs to be a complete total QB) get more experience to progress and eventually become a seasoned veteran QB that we can all rely on. But I unlike many here don't believe that I know better than our coach at this point, especially as it relates to his system, his goals, and how he plans on using both. I personally believe that in some crazy way if they were both good enough at the particular skills they are known for (Casey- pocket presence, quick release, accuracy Chandler- escapability, big arm, tough competitor) than it could work especially in college football (not pros). As a matter of fact the most prestigious D1 football program is still going with the mindset of a 2 QB system in some fashion.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...arters-jarrick-williams-deandrew-white-injury

Who will be throwing the football to White's replacement at receiver, though, remains unclear.
Saban committed to playing both Blake Sims and Jake Coker against Florida Atlantic on Saturday, but the coach wouldn't say how the two would share reps.
"When I figure it out, I won't tell you," Saban said with a smile.
Sims started and played all but a few snaps against West Virginia, completing 73 percent of his pass attempts. Coker came on late, handing the ball off a few times before the game ended.
"I still don't hesitate to say there's a quarterback competition," Saban said.


So NO i don't not sit here 3 days later saying, Diaco needs to change his philosophy and that he has some fundamental error in his ways. I need a sample size and I will base my opinion on whether I have faith in TEAM'S execution of HIS overall plan on the results of a much larger sample size (for the hell of it: at least 15-18 games).

And to add to the point; its not like he is incapable of making a decision. He had plenty of time and reps in the offseason to do so. He either sees this as the best possible way to win right now, or the best possible way to progress for the future. JBID (JUST BELIEVE IN DIACO)....

Who knows if someone starts to take command of the spot and succeed more frequently, I'm sure Diaco will adjust accordingly. It's not like 1 QB did any better than the other on Friday night.

 

[UConnDan97]

It can be both, because I never said that the 2-QB system is an error. "If we all agree that the 2-QB switching system is an error" is a false presumption and major generalization when you said "we all" on your part.

I haven't played a video game in long while but I feel like Diaco is stuck with 2 QB's rated around 71 overall and when you break down their attributes they both are vastly different. Not an easy choice, and all the naysayers and negative nancys would still be pissed if he chose one and that QB failed which against a team like BYU was bound to happened to some degree.

With that said I'm not a huge fan of the 2-QB system. I would love to have one defined QB play the entire time (but he needs to be a complete total QB) get more experience to progress and eventually become a seasoned veteran QB that we can all rely on. But I unlike many here don't believe that I know better than our coach at this point, especially as it relates to his system, his goals, and how he plans on using both. I personally believe that in some crazy way if they were both good enough at the particular skills they are known for (Casey- pocket presence, quick release, accuracy Chandler- escapability, big arm, tough competitor) than it could work especially in college football (not pros). As a matter of fact the most prestigious D1 football program is still going with the mindset of a 2 QB system in some fashion.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...arters-jarrick-williams-deandrew-white-injury

Who will be throwing the football to White's replacement at receiver, though, remains unclear.
Saban committed to playing both Blake Sims and Jake Coker against Florida Atlantic on Saturday, but the coach wouldn't say how the two would share reps.
"When I figure it out, I won't tell you," Saban said with a smile.
Sims started and played all but a few snaps against West Virginia, completing 73 percent of his pass attempts. Coker came on late, handing the ball off a few times before the game ended.
"I still don't hesitate to say there's a quarterback competition," Saban said.


So NO i don't not sit here 3 days later saying, Diaco needs to change his philosophy and that he has some fundamental error in his ways. I need a sample size and I will base my opinion on whether I have faith in TEAM'S execution of HIS overall plan on the results of a much larger sample size (for the hell of it: at least 15-18 games).

And to add to the point; its not like he is incapable of making a decision. He had plenty of time and reps in the offseason to do so. He either sees this as the best possible way to win right now, or the best possible way to progress for the future. JBID (JUST BELIEVE IN DIACO)....

Who knows if someone starts to take command of the spot and succeed more frequently, I'm sure Diaco will adjust accordingly. It's not like 1 QB did any better than the other on Friday night.

All of this is nonsense, really. I mean, you brought up the analogy of Alabama, yet you failed to mention that Blake Sims made all of the throws against West Virginia. I repeat; ALL OF THE THROWS! How on earth is your analogy even close to a system that replaces a QB once a team enters the red zone? It's a mistake. If you polled 100 coaches, I'm betting that over 95 of them would say that it's a mistake.

I'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore. We all know where we stand respectively. But nobody on this board or anywhere else is going to convince me that it is good for the team's present OR future to do this back-and-forth series nonsense with the two QB's. I believe in both of them. I'm hoping he sticks with one of them...

 

[whaler11]

Well, OK Whaler. I respect that. I'm not a fan of 2QB's either but too many folks love to beetcb about various aspects when we lose but never say boo about them if we win. Winning becomes a convenient antiseptic. At least you get high marks for consistency.

I have made this as clear as I possibly can. They got beat by a better team. In no way is that Diaco's fault. 35-10, 42-7, 38-23 - the score did not matter.

 

[Carl Spackler]

All of this is nonsense, really. I mean, you brought up the analogy of Alabama, yet you failed to mention that Blake Sims made all of the throws against West Virginia. I repeat; ALL OF THE THROWS! How on earth is your analogy even close to a system that replaces a QB once a team enters the red zone? It's a mistake. If you polled 100 coaches, I'm betting that over 95 of them would say that it's a mistake.

I'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore. We all know where we stand respectively. But nobody on this board or anywhere else is going to convince me that it is good for the team's present OR future to do this back-and-forth series nonsense with the two QB's. I believe in both of them. I'm hoping he sticks with one of them...

This is what I consider a coaching staff trying too much to control what happens on the field. The QB position in football, is simply unique in team sports. That is not a position that you rotate in and out depending on your plan. You don't rotate a company commander out of the middle of a battle. You don't rotate the officer on deck in the middle of a battle the same way you would on a watch at anchor in safe harbor. You don't rotate you QB'S in the middle of a game. Sometimes football coaches are just not so smart.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I remember reading an article (from a long interview with) Jim Calhoun shortly after the Dream Season in which he stated (I'll paraphrase) that when hired, Toner told him that year one should be devoted solely to 'stopping the bleeding, after that he could worry about wins and losses'. JC stated in that article (again I'll paraphrase) something along the lines of 'Normally winning every game we play is most important to me but if I took that approach that year things never could have gotten better'.

Could we have beaten BYU this past Friday? I doubt it. It would have been far different if we didn't turn the ball over on our first two possessions but I believe the answer was clear when after scoring to make it 21-10 with a little more than two minutes left in the first half, where a stop would have given us the second half kickoff and an opportunity to make it a one possession game, BYU carving us up in a little more than a minute put that thought to rest.

Basically, by not playing only our starters, we (at least in the eyes of some fans) sacrificed the opportunity to win Friday. I won't debate that at the moment but do fully believe that it is a debate that would make those who believe coaching did cost us the game look foolish. I will instead address what was lost by not beating BYU on Friday. Given our current station in college football, our only shot at making the final four (and this would have been a stretch even if we did pull it off) would have been to go undefeated throughout the regular season. Therefore, we lost the national title on Friday, no more, no less.

That said, I will happily debate whoever claims that the lack of a national title this year in football would be due to coaching. If someone is in the camp that believes we actually need to turn this ship around before we can compete for a title, there is no need to debate as I am in the same camp.

 

[whaler11]

I remember reading an article (from a long interview with) Jim Calhoun shortly after the Dream Season in which he stated (I'll paraphrase) that when hired, Toner told him that year one should be devoted solely to 'stopping the bleeding, after that he could worry about wins and losses'. JC stated in that article (again I'll paraphrase) something along the lines of 'Normally winning every game we play is most important to me but if I took that approach that year things never could have gotten better'.

Could we have beaten BYU this past Friday? I doubt it. It would have been far different if we didn't turn the ball over on our first two possessions but I believe the answer was clear when after scoring to make it 21-10 with a little more than two minutes left in the first half, where a stop would have given us the second half kickoff and an opportunity to make it a one possession game, BYU carving us up in a little more than a minute put that thought to rest.

Basically, by not playing only our starters, we (at least in the eyes of some fans) sacrificed the opportunity to win Friday. I won't debate that at the moment but do fully believe that it is a debate that would make those who believe coaching did cost us the game look foolish. I will instead address what was lost by not beating BYU on Friday. Given our current station in college football, our only shot at making the final four (and this would have been a stretch even if we did pull it off) would have been to go undefeated throughout the regular season. Therefore, we lost the national title on Friday, no more, no less.

That said, I will happily debate whoever claims that the lack of a national title this year in football would be due to coaching. If someone is in the camp that believes we actually need to turn this ship around before we can compete for a title, there is no need to debate as I am in the same camp.

FCF if you find one person who thinks coaching cost UConn the game on Friday night I will donate $500 to the athletic department.

It literally took one BYU drive to understand who was going to win the game. Parcells giving Ditka a piggy back ride could not have coached UConn to a win.

I do not see a single person who expects Diaco to turn water into wine. I am confused by posts where people make some leap that pointing out bad decisions means that they altered the results.

If someone wants to make the point who cares about decisions if they don't impact the result? Totally on board if I can expect good decisions going forward.

 

[Jimdish255]

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

Sounds interesting, but your heart really wasn't in it. I want to cut the new Coach some slack too, and I will in a number of areas. Just not in this one. I hope he changes course so Casey can get the snaps and the game experience he needs for us to be successful.

 

[metsfan2323]

FCF if you find one person who thinks coaching cost UConn the game on Friday night I will donate $500 to the athletic department.

I think coaching cost us the game.

 

[jdb50]

Deferring the opening kick to a Heisman candidate was lunacy and putting accepted strategy before reality but they won because they were way better.

 

[whaler11]

I'm speculating, but the scenario I could see is that they have a progression that they want CC to go through in his development, learning/mastering more of the offense between now and the end of the season. Maybe the staff thinks having him takes all the snaps in the first 2-3 games comes at a detriment to the long term progression. The general idea being continued competition to motivate the player to learn and elevate his play. Not saying I completely agree with this, and still agree that yanking CC mid-series looks like a bad in-game coaching decision.

Speculation based on what we've heard about Diaco and Whitmer does not end well.

 

[itgoeslike]

I think coaching cost us the game.

On behalf of the Athletic Department, we thank you for your recent joint donation. . .

 

[mauconnfan]

25 point loss looks better than 28? Name the last coach that you liked at Uconn that played to make a loss look better?

I am concerned that Diaco had this down as a loss so WTF did it matter to run a fake and then get the kicker work when going for it sent a better message to the team and fans since a loss is a loss and I knew it was a loss before the game started.

Diaco a looked liked the rookie he is last night. Hope the learning curve is short and steep.

Watch the game again and focus on the play calling and strategy. Watch the substitutions on offense. And then tell me if I should shut up.

Ok, STFU……..you're an idiot. As I said before Kevin Ollie looked like a rookie for 8-10 games his 1st year if you know anything about basketball….even times after that. You know why, they ARE rookies and you're a damn internet coach…..I like Diaco's chances of being successful rather than the likes of you!

One game and the ignorance is rampant!