Moorhead speaks

There was a nice round table today with UConn assistants Hank Hughes, Lyndon Johnson and of course the man of the hour -- Joe Moorhead.

It's a wonder we don't do this more often. All three were terrific and handled it well. It's nice to get a different voice in stories.

Anyhow,I will whet your appetite with some quotes from Moorhead on the offense. I have to finish writing and depending when, I will post before a detailed look at what went down. Here is some brief thoughts from Moorhead.

Here is some more info on the offense. It is a west coast offense passing game that will be no huddle to start. The running game is going to stay the same. The point is to create tempo and be aggressive on offense. It isn't going to be a crazy passing offense like Texas Tech. The Huskies are still going to run the ball, but they hope to do it with a quicker tempo.

He learned the offense under Walt Harris at Pittsburgh, where he was a grad assistant, and Incorporated a bunch of things from different stops.

Moorehead quotes:

On Zach Frazer's 40 point a game thoughts.

"I appreciate Zach’s exuberance, but we have to crawl before we can walk. We got to figure out who we are and who we can be before we talk about scoring any points."

On Running game:

“You will not see many major changes in run game. It was (will be) tweaked, but the run game was tremendously productive and not much of a reason to change. It is a strong suit of the UConn football program.”

On offensive style and how it will look:

"I would be remiss. I don’t know what these kids can do. We will try a bit of everything. I don’t think we can necessarily have personnel fit scheme. The scheme fits the personnel.

On Personnel:

“The offensive line is an exciting thing. To produce a 2000 plus yard rusher like they did in Donald Brown, and they were 15 in country in sacks, that strikes you. Any offense begins with what happens up front. Those guys, losing Will Beatty and the center are big blues, but the guys who replace are adequate"



"We have a tremendous stable of running backs. We saw first hand what Andre Dixon can do 2 years ago, and Jordan Todman does some exciting things.”



Wide receivers: “A bunch have been on the field, we just got to see what they do in the spring and how we develop.”

On a no huddle offense being soft:

“It doesn’t. That is another thing. The definition of the spread and you hear a team is going into the shotgun carries a connotation that it will somehow make you soft upfront. That can't be any further from the truth. We will line up, be physical, and look to knock people off the ball. All you are doing is moving the quarterback and move him 5 yards away from center"



"We will come at people with a physical mindset. Any idea that this is some finesse offense where we will be passive is sorely mistaken. Linemen are linemen. They are going to knock people over in the running game and protect the quarterback.”

Lastly, Lyndon Johnson is doing well after undergoing a cornea transplant last week. He has a degenerative eye condition and lost most of his vision in his left eye necessitating the replacement. He will need the same for his right eye eventually. He is doing well.

Good luck to Lyndon.

Don't expect miracles

Congratulations to Rob Ambrose. As far as coaches I have met, he rivals UHart men's soccer coach Dan Gaspar with his charisma. That's saying something for anyone who knows Gaspar (know him well covering the old Connecticut Wolves pro soccer team).

I know there are some who blame Ambrose for the stale UConn offense on play calling. I am perhaps more critical of play calling than most. But the Huskies aren't going to suddenly get a coordinator who will design a game plan that looks like Oklahoma's.

Here is the new strategy -- personnel, personnel, personnel and recruiting, recruiting, recruiting.
Huskies WR corps needs a major talent infusion with speed and game breaking ability out wide. The QB play has to get better. The offense was built with Lorenzen in mind, and his strength isn't sitting back there and throwing it 30 times.

With Zach Frazer or Cody Endres next year the offense will pass more. But, they have to be more accurate and the wide receivers need to make a play now and then.

There was a penchant to be overly conservative this year. Perhaps they were trying to hide the lack of game breaking ability.

Can't fault the coach for that after watching the team. It's not a scheme issue. It's a recruiting issue on the outside. That's no secret.

I do know the quarterbacks had a great relationship with Ambrose. That is going to be tough to replace considering the Huskies need to break in a new starter next year. I would expect a swift hire before the players return to campus if it can be done.

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.

In wednesday's JI

Here is the story on Randy Edsall defending the offense and coordinator Rob Ambrose.

Here are some of my thoughts on the offense. I understand the need for Edsall to defend his coordinators, it is entirely justified and considering the Huskies record the last year I do think there is something to be said about not ruining the game. first job of a coach is to "do no harm." The coaching staff has managed these games almost perfectly the last two years, and the formula is don't lose the game on offense.

Also, to critique the Temple game as an example of conservatism is unfair considering the driving rain storm, and the fact they moved the ball at will on the ground with 293 yards rushing. I would take that number every game.

Those are all good points. The Huskies' success is ball control and good defense. It's their best bet to another good bowl game. The coaching staff has done a good job overall.

On the flip side: Edsall is being overly dramatic on the "throw the ball 60 times". No one is asking for that. No one is asking to run the spread.

Observationally, why can't the Huskies ever get the ball down the field? Watching other college games every team seems able to at least throw the ball deep to someone, or at least try. Temple is hardly the bastion of passing but they had 3 or 4 big shots down the field.

You would think with the kind of rushing game that the Huskies can get some guy 1-on-1 and make a big play in the passing game. I just don't see that developing. There is little YAC from the receivers, and they don't get downfield. This is my observation watching the team from late last year, spring, and fall camp and the first two games.

By saying it's not the play-calling, then that means the players at the skill position are too young or aren't talented enough to make the plays. That may be so, the Huskies have struggled at WR the last three years. Mike Smith is a keeper (get him the ball please) and Kashif Moore is fast. But, they are so young it's hard to rely on them.

At QB, Lorenzen came in from Palomar with a 70 percent completion percentage. He was pretty good last year in an up tempo and quick hit passing game. He did throw for 298 yards against Duke and at Virginia he was excellent at times throwing. The Huskies offense was able to pass the ball productively last year for most of the season.

Where is that these days? Why is the efficiency so far down? Is it an anomaly? Is it scheme?, Predictability? QB decision making? Conservatism on offense? Talent at WR? Or just game conditions such as weather, score and opponent?

It's a fair question to ask when a good passing game could get this team back in position to win a Big East championship.

It should be a wait and see approach. It is too early to panic, and Edsall certainly isn't. But, Edsall knows the passing game has to get better, and Saturday night against Virginia would be a good time to try.