Management vs. talent

For the entire three hour ride home from Rutgers last night I actually thought about UConn's playcalling on offense, the 12-10 loss, and the role that playcalling and performance dealt with the loss.

Does the fact that UConn missed three field goals and had horrible field position because of the return game invalidate what was an incredible conservative package of plays?

Does the fact that field position, starting inside your five three times, limit what you can do?

These points all have to be taken into account. Instead of shooting off an opinion I came back home, took a look at the live game blog for an unfiltered view of how I thought the game was going, and started to take the entire weeks planning in mind.

In UConn coach Randy Edsall's mind, if UConn executed and didn't make bad plays, and Tony C hit the field goals, UConn wins this game. He is right on that account. Kenny Britt did some damage in the passing game (he is a good player), but I don't think UConn struggled to stop Rutgers on offense.

In a micro sense Edsall is right. UConn lost the game because Tony C missed three field goals, Robbie Frey panicked at the 1 yard line, and Jasper Howard couldn't make a correct decision whether to field a punt or let it go. So, in that sense, if UConn doesn't make those mistakes they win.

One word kept creeping into my mind however -- management. When asked Thursday how they wanted Zach Frazer to play all they wanted Frazer to do was "manage the game." After a three interception week, UConn wanted Frazer to execute the offense in low risk situations where his inexperience wouldn't hurt UConn.

In that sense, Frazer gets an A+ on Saturday.

Through three quarters Frazer was 6-for-8 for 67 yards passing. He did exactly what he was asked to do. Not make mistakes. Look at the throws. Several bubble passes to the outside for short gains. These are called plays, not reads. The goal is a low risk pass and perhaps to get 7-8 yards off it.

He wasn't asked to win the game,just asked to not lose it.

UConn,Edsall and Ambrose, are trying to manage the game. The offense's goal is to move the chains and not put the game at risk by turning it over. How many of Frazer's throws were to the outside on the sidelines, or short to the backs? UConn was not going to put Frazer in a position to throw an interception. UConn never looked down the field.

It was too big a risk. It's wasn't until UConn was down 12-3 that the urgency of the game dictated UConn pass the ball.

That's the problem. Edsall bristles whenever playcalling comes up and he assumes that the media and the fans are expecting the team to chew up yards like Oklahoma. That's certainly not the case.

It's not about trick plays, or throwing it deep,or putting up big numbers. You can be bland, and still effective. This observation is not about being flashy. No one is expecting the Huskies to go to the spread offense. UConn doesn't have the personnel.

It is about being aggressive and setting a tone. I think UConn set and awful tone with the offense on Saturday. Three passes in the first quarter, five passes at the half? Way too cautious.

Ambrose didn't call a bad game. I am sure he thought the plays would work and it came down to execution. The problem is in every instance they went with the lowest risk play. It was a conservative game calling, to the point of being risk averse.

Where is the confidence in the wide receivers and quarterback? I think Frazer can throw the ball,if I didn't, I wouldn't be writing this. At some point, it's about letting your talent go and having confidence in them.

Managing the game gets you far. Edsall has made it an art form the last two years. Without a doubt he is the best preparation and game coach in the Big East. I don't think it's close.

But, is he getting too risk averse?

As long as UConn was in the game, the coaching staff wasn't going to take any risk at losing the game with a devastating interception,or even an incompletion to get off schedule. That seems a very conservative offensive philosophy. UConn managed that game to get into the fourth quarter and pull it out. Maybe with a backup QB, that's the smart conservative play. I will cede that point.

And, Edsall is right. If they made the plays they should have UConn wins.

What does that do in the macro sense however?

Every game UConn plays doesn't exist in a vacuum. UConn has three receiving touchdowns in seven games. It's not 12 one game seasons. You have to build on past games. The passing offense has zero confidence in itself.

UConn needs a more confident attitude. They need to be confident in the passing game. How about coming out and setting an aggressive tone?Move the chains, get some tempo with the offense.

On most plays in the first three quarters UConn went a low risk play. Always cautious. Even the end around to Darius Butler in the redzone was a low risk play (what's the worst that can happen on the play?). Never did the ball go forward into the endzone. Not a single try.

A little bit of risk never hurts. You don't want to get crazy, and you don't want to get away with what is your bread and butter. But, part of managing a game is to know when to take on risk. You can't win by eliminating risk unless you have superior talent.

UConn can manage the game beautifully. Being a conservative, bland and vanilla offense is fine. It's worked so far.

Being risk adverse,however, leaves you scratching your head at the end of the game after your kicker hits the upright in the final minute.