dclenden

I don't disagree that there's lack of execution, however, this is only a chapter in a much larger novel.

Can we assume these poor field conditions that you mention were actually played in by both teams? Sounds like many are making excuses for a really poor performance., that's all. I've heard poor field conditions, not wanting QF injured to hiding the playbook. Add these to the list of excuses I guess. I just want to know how many games people need (or blocked punts for that matter) before we can have a real exchange about the problems here. With each quarter and each subsequent game of poor performance I'm assuming most will buy out of the idea of some hidden playbook.

Several have defended the play of the first two games. Moreover at least as many have defended the play calling citing sandbagging, etc (even with the blocked punts). I'm not sure I've met a coach 'hiding the playbook' losing into the fourth quarter to a grossly inferior opponent they've paid to whip (at least willingly that deep into a game). I have however met many who've tried to explain away a poorly executed game as being such. I think we've learned who this team is a little with each quarter. Let's hope things come into focus for the players and the coaches while it still matters this season.

May we please...

I doubt most even watched highlights let alone the game itself to determine our ranking. Most relied on glancing at the final score. I'm guessing we stay tight where we were.

You're right bipolar is critiquing my post. Sound.

NEB- What's strange to me is that it seems most on here are defending games 1 and 2 USF play citing convoluted excuses ranging from hiding the playbook and other unsound reasoning and not the reality- meanwhile the rest of us are scratching our heads wondering when they'll be adjustments.

I think you missed my point.

Reasoning why we need to adapt doesn't feel good + sound alternatives to the first two games failed approach = cute gifs and troll attacks. Stick to the topic Triple (2nd request). It's easier. Personal stuff isn't required. We're all Bulls even if we don't agree. It's beneath you. Besides, what are you even arguing at this point- that's the first two games were ....?

In order: 1. Losing in 4th quarter to Stoned Brook 2. blocked punt (2nd in two games) 3. Poor play calling 4. Poor adaptation. Dm me for numbers 5-26.

Triple B- stick to football. Dropped passes, infantile and non adaptive play calling, blocked punts- the easy stuff- enough discussion fodder there. Personal stuff so beneath you...save that for Orlando team. back to the discussion...grab my hand I'll bring you back to the front of the line...

Oh I see what you did there.... *napkin passed under table 'can you DM us what you did there individually so no ones left wondering'

you're right- offense ran concervative due to the mud. Blocked punt from the last coupled from the one from this game also related to the mud from this game. Solid reasoning.

Respectfully, you sound like a fat kid who fancies cheetohs explaining why they're fat while never mentioning overeating, portion control or lack of excercise and merely reciting an excuse about their leptin receptors being 'off' leading them to be fat. No reality or responsibility for the real problem. Bottom line: Winners win. Losers explain why they lose in perfectly cited bundles of bullsh** meant to never really reveal the real reason and still allowing them to believe it's not only not their fault, allow them to remain average while believing inside they they aren't. Far easier to sleep explaining why you suck and how it really unrelated to you as compared to exposing why you suck.

Again, you're pointing out a false equivency- you're the only one 'calling for heads'. I've only asked for adaptation.

'Personally' Nick Saban doesn't make time for awaiting better execution, he requires it. It's a mandate to be a part of the system. It's why everyone left 'losing' is in his dust arguing lack of player 'execution', the merits of 'trying to not reveal your play book', the challenges of a 'new' coach, and the rest. You sound like bunch a losers looking as who has to whose forced to lay grasp on the losers trophy. Act like a BULL, not someone developing a well rounded line of excuses as to why we're not winning. Just win. Period. That, and leave the excuses to the losing team.

DM me and I'll give you the Cliff notes.

I think 8 quarters of what we've seen is sufficient to begin developing early judgement. I'll choose data over my head in the sand. Unless of course you also subscribe to the idea that two blocked punts was also a form of coach sandbagging so teams don't know what we're 'really' gonna do when the game 'really' counts. This set of replies has taken me on a virtual cruise ship journey from the land comical to the sea of delusional to the strait of spiritual to its my final destinatiom sad and nauseous. Either way I'm glad that none of the crew figured out I had Tito's in my case of 2 liter Poland springs I brought on board. This journey required its use- this and the scopolamine patch.

Anyone suggesting this is a coaching group sandbagging are delusional and maladaptive. This is what below average teams hope is what's going on when losing in the 4th quarter at home to the projected #8 team in the CAA. Maladaptive. Let me ask you- when we lose to a team finally playing as we do, will you then believe or will it take a second loss? Ask yourself.

'Writing off coaching staff and season' - a nice counter though something only you suggested. Yours is a false equivalency. Let's not continue to mentally masturbate about our two near misses against really bad teams. I'm standing by the idea of continuous self awareness and what it will take to become relevant and it isn't arguing the merits of near misses to SJSU and Stony Brook at a home opener. Oh how far the expectations have fallen in 8 quarters. We went from shocking the word on NYE with our Heismann winner to the merits of near misses with the projected #8 team in the Colonial Arhletic Conference. Ask yourself, which side of this reality are you bought into at this point? You keep subscribing to the merits of losing to the CAA projected #8 in the fourth quarter at your home opener and I'll keep dreaming just a bit bigger than this. My God how rapidly expectations get reassigned, reasoning thrown away in the name of what feels good even at the expense of reality. We're bad, kids. Current coaches are non adaptive. That's all that we know. The rest is just feel good, wannabe and poor coping.

This is what irrelevant teams argue about... fact is buck stops at Strongs door. Man up fans. Team sucks against two high school teams. You want to be UCF then continue mentally masturdating arguments why everything is ok after these two outcomes over these two irrelevant opponents. This is just sad to have to argue about near misses out stony and San Jose state. Also this isn't a new coach. This is a seasoned coach with more than a decade to figure in the majors how to beat the likes of Stony Brook and SJSU. You guys sound like Holtz holdouts and the fact that you're somehow acting like we had close games with the likes of relevant teams makes me just sad.

Neolsky and whose your data- you're missing the story line and the point and the messaging. Adaptation is the talking point. Not CWT or not giving Strong enough leash or other. Front and center: what you're doing isn't working so start thinking outside the frame. oppositional is easy- reasoning is far more difficult.

It's hard to adapt, let's be honest were creatures of what we 'know'. I've had success buying gold in 2014. Doesn't mean I buy it in 2017. It's a bad approach. But gosh it's 'what I've had success with before'- see how much money I made in 2014? CCS don't assume this role....resist the human temptation to default to what you've always done. You're older and accustomed to thinking that too much changing is just trying to 'adjust' unnecessarily. It's doesn't mean you're wavering on your approach- there's something between 'wavering' and 'adjusting'. It's time for you to act rationally and adjust to evidence. Your last two games are evidence. Your 'gut' instinct which is what you're responding to currently is what will reveal you to be overtly wrong by those who will judge you shortly. Thing is, this adjustment back to last years play book is so easy. Why? Because it's already proven itself over the last two years. Most coaches don't have this advantage of knowing the winning combination ahead of time. You do. Stop overlooking it. Be observant and open, CCS, not oppositional to what's so obvious to everyone else. Fact is, your approach already proved itself wrong- it's just so easy to say that you're 2-0 and ignore it. Get in front of it before it's so obvious and they're asking you about your resistance to change to a previously unbroken system that scored unrelentlessly on ESPN in 4 weeks time when you're 2-4. At this point you should be scoring more than last year, not tripping over your shoe laces to just get what you already had the last two years.

For those that think somehow Gilbert et al are keeping the playbook close to their chest, you're wrong. It isn't. This is a case of two guys who've previously had successes with with this style offense whose strategy is to force square blocks in round holes no matter the outcome and refuse to adapt to the players strengths. A smart coach adapts as CWT did. This needs to happen now and not after 1-2 losses. Bring back the bubble screens, designed QB runs and with it erase the offensive predictability you've somehow created in 8 quarters of play. If I am Uconn I'm kicking my chops with what appears to be overt evidence that CCS and Gilbert are unwilling to adapt. It's far easier to blame dropped balls and 'execution' rather than what this really is- a feeble move to adjust a top 10 offense and the mechanics of a senior quarterback who was eliciting Heismann discussion before you showed up midstream because it's 'the way you're used to doing it'. CCS- don't be an old ball coach who refuses to see his hand in front of his face. Show your team the respect they deserve by responding by mixing up the plays with the elements that gave them so much success. If not, then you guys are just destined to be the coaches that somehow took a senior class of highly performing offensive players and made them dead average or less. Wake the **ck up coaches- you can turn away and avert your eyes from the wall but it doesn't mean the writing on it goes away. Adapt. Fast. Otherwise you're just old, academic coaches refusing to be novel and adaptive thinkers.

Low scoring game. Tulane is a solid win if they pull it out. Tulane's current RPI is 36 and ours, 41. Solid.