Random Thoughts

[FfldCntyFan]

You've lost your mind. Nobody has claimed that Diaco is among the worst hire ever. If you want to continue to play Nelson and create Strawmen that's your business. But you've lost your mind.

I haven't lost my mind. There are quite a few on this board who have however judging from their reaction to a three point loss.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Why do we call where we park a driveway, and where we drive a parkway?

Why do you take a sh---T, or take a p-I--ss?

Shouldn't you leave it?

 

[whaler11]

It is very easy to claim that we could have done better with x, y or z. Hell, someone could postulate that if we fielded five linemen and six running backs, continued running options from a wildcat (true wildcat, not GDL's version) and even threw in a few rugby plays with continual laterals as we moved the ball downfield we would have had a better chance at winning.

As far as risk/reward, educate me.

Show me a mathematical model, show me a chart, show me a table, show me something that demonstrates that by throwing more on Friday evening we actually may have had a chance at pulling out that game; keep in mind that you will need to factor in the questionable accuracy of our QB under the best conditions, the weather conditions of that game, the quality of offensive line play we had at our disposal and the effect additional pressure front the defense, a wet football (Danny Kannel, who actually played QB in that state would not stop commenting on that) and rain would have on the acuracy of our QB. Better yet, show me something, anything that provides mathematical proof of you assertion that the manner in which we played gave us a 5% chance of winning and something that shows similar prrof to your 10% assertion. You are the expert so this should not be a difficult task.

What gets me is that we lost by three points, on the road, in a venue where we've only won once, ever yet half the board is losing their f$&king minds.

For what is at least the third time - I am not asserting that the percentages in my example are accurate. For the probably 20th time nobody is really on him for the fact they lost - but you continue to rebuild that strawman every other post.

There is no point in doing any mathmatical work as it is all built on assumptions and nobody is going to agree to the required assumptions.

In a nutshell to me and at least some others he gave them almost no chance to win BASED OFF OF FOUR PLAYS.

That I believe any other strategy would have given them a better chance is just something as a group we have diametrically opposed opinions of with both sides entrenched in their beliefs. We know what actually happened - we can never know what might have happened.

They went 2 and half quarters where they gained like 30 yards and didn't have a first down. Which is exactly what you'd expect when the entire nation knows you are running the ball on every play.

The height of the night was when they ran the same running play twice in a row and Johnson got blown up in the backfield at the exact same spot on both plays.

But tell us some more about Seton Hall and then accuse others of losing their minds.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Lots of emotion here, that's good I suppose. I'm going to start with a premise and ask you to think back the summer. Here is the premise: Bob Diaco is not a freaking moron. Here is why that's my premise, if it is false, we're done. Besides that, he has the credentials and worked with some big time coaches. The results stink so far, on that we can all agree.

Once you accept that premise, you should accept along side of that premise, two more. 1. He's a rookie coach, learning on the job and is going to make mistakes and 2. he has reasons for doing what he does, based on his experience and his plan. Right now it is hard to see how the plan comes together, but maybe there is a method to the madness. I will cut a little slack because the monsoon affected the game. But simply stated, no 1st Q fumble and UConn wins, despite the boring and ineffective offense. One last thing, when he let CW throw on that 2nd scoring drive it worked fairly well. And I hope and believe he learned something from that and will perhaps have a tiny bit more faith in the guys next week.

 

[Waquoit]

For the probably 20th time nobody is really on him for the fact they lost

So what you're telling me here is that all of your criticism to date is about style points. I think one-third of a season is too short of a timeframe to judge whether the style will be successful or not.

 

[noeynox]

Why do you take a sh---T, or take a p-I--ss?

Shouldn't you leave it?

Why do we take a package, put it on a plane send it somewhere, and call it a SHIPment, but when we send that same package on a boat, we call it CARgo?

 

[whaler11]

So what you're telling me here is that all of your criticism to date is about style points. I think one-third of a season is too short of a timeframe to judge whether the style will be successful or not.

My criticism - like I've said a half dozen times - is on decision making. You can have a year long pass on your record from me if you aren't doing and saying bizarre things. But I'm not going to ignore things that make no sense.

I am extremely interested in how they come out Saturday. I think what he did Friday night has the potential to really impact this team emotionally going forward. We will find out pretty quickly I think just how strong this 'brotherhood' we hear about is. We are already seeing some signs of fraying on the sidelines.

Also, I don't know if we ever will know or not, but to say I'm skeptical of what we've heard about Boyle's availability Friday is an understatement.

And to those that think me and CHB and Jimmy are crazy - that's fine you are entitled - but go read Chip M. Read Silver's twitter feed from Friday night. Read Ed's twitter feed. Read Matt's blog here:
Those are hardly guys who overreact emotionally and they have a lot of questions too.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This argument is getting tiresome. Come on guys. The head coach is nothing if not 'extreme'. He's learning on the job. He made the decision to scrap a portion of a game plan. I have seen, and heard nothing of this dissent on the team, other than the posters here on this website.

(Note: I don't trust anything I read on this website, nor should anyone else - sometimes I Don't even trust what I write)

It will be interesting to see what happens against Temple, because how they pick themselves up after a game like that one on Friday night - with an extra day now - this week, is a good marker of those difficult define concepts labeled as "dealing with adversity".

I have no reason to doubt that they will come out and once again, compete, and be in position to win. My only problem with Diaco, is that I myself, perceive a huge lack of fundamentals. That's going to be expected with a lineup of so many freshmen and sophomores, but it's also expected that the coaches should come up with a system, that would address and fix it.......before next season.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This argument is getting tiresome. Come on guys. The head coach is nothing if not 'extreme'. He's learning on the job. He made the decision to scrap a portion of a game plan. I have seen, and heard nothing of this dissent on the team, other than the posters here on this website.

(Note: I don't trust anything I read on this website, nor should anyone else - sometimes I Don't even trust what I write)

It will be interesting to see what happens against Temple, because how they pick themselves up after a game like that one on Friday night - with an extra day now - this week, is a good marker of those difficult define concepts labeled as "dealing with adversity".

I have no reason to doubt that they will come out and once again, compete, and be in position to win. My only problem with Diaco, is that I myself, perceive a huge lack of fundamentals. That's going to be expected with a lineup of so many freshmen and sophomores, but it's also expected that the coaches should come up with a system, that would address and fix it..before next season.

Agreed. Here is his reasoning. Says he was trying to win. Don't misread the 35-0 comment as a guy just trying to keep it close, he wants to keep it close so he can win. 35-0 is game over. By the way, once it was clear we weren't going to throw, I think it was a huge mistake not to mix in some play action and try to burn the safeties over the top to Davis or Foxx. But I understand he had to stop the bleeding and the self inflicted damage.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Agreed. Here is his reasoning. Says he was trying to win. Don't misread the 35-0 comment as a guy just trying to keep it close, he wants to keep it close so he can win. 35-0 is game over. By the way, once it was clear we weren't going to throw, I think it was a huge mistake not to mix in some play action and try to burn the safeties over the top to Davis or Foxx. But I understand he had to stop the bleeding and the self inflicted damage.

They, as a coaching staff, through 4 games, have demonstrated clearly, the ability to adjust to things happening during a game, and come out after the half and do things differently, if need be. Question you want, all you want, about the merit of decision making, because we are 1-3, but to my mind, there is only one single decision so far, at it happened in the BYU game, where the decision clearly, went against everything that had to do with the concept of winning a game. We have been in position, to compete during these games, and be in position to close out for wins, at the end, but we've failed. On offense, it was mistakes that killed u s at home, through 3 games - it was another set (2) of interceptions late against Boise, to go with a first quarter fumble/TD. It was a fumble/TD against Stony Brook in the first quarter. Against USF, it s was a fumble/strip/sack again in the first series. He had enough - and so did I really. I had no problem with the way we played the rest of the game. The announcers, watching haven't watched UCONN football for the past 15 years. Most of the people around the country haven't either. It seems that a lot even here, haven't been paying that much attention.

What would have been interesting, is to see what they would have done in the second half, if they managed to keep it to 14-0 coming out of the half on defense. The only logical thing to have done, would be do exactly what you suggest and start trying to throw the kitchen sink of run play fakes at USF, to try to open up the field (basically the same thing that Boise did to us, in the 2nd Quarter last week). But that would have opened up the blocking floodgates again and risk of turnover, but now you're int eh second half, down two scores, and need points - different situation than the first half. That didn't happen though.

The ball bounced our way, late in the 2nd Quarter, and a senior CB, didn't drop it and took it to the house, and that made it so that nothing really needed to be changed in the second half as it was a single possession game, battle out field position, and prevent turnovers? I'm ok with it. We lost on the USF punting game, and failed plays, there to be made on offense late in the game.

That is going to be hard for lots of people to understand, that Diaco did nothing wrong, or highly questionable in this game when it came to game management. Where he's got problems that I seriously question, is his practice and preparation.