DEFENSE

I've heard a few criticize Hill. I don't think Hill is the problem. Here's how I see the defensive issues currently, ranked in order of biggest problem to least:



1. Offense. When the offense has a hard time staying on the field, whether by scoring too little or too much, our defense suffers. Part of that problem is that at many positions, we are thin with good talent.



2. DL. Jan Jorgensen can beat most people one-on-one, but won't typically win double teams. Unfortunately, there's no one else on the DL that requires double teams. When we successfully apply pressure to the QB, it's because a LB sneaks in. Failing to get pressure on the QB in turn puts pressure on the DBs. I don't care how athletic you are, the WR's will usually win, since they know where they are going, and the DB does not.



This is also why BYU's offense suffered against TCU. BYU's receivers can get open when they have time to create separation. But when Max only has 2 seconds to throw, that's not enough time to create separation against superior defensive talent.



3. Middle LBer speed. I seriously consider Kelly Poppinga to be one of the most under-appreciated players of the BM era. He was quick and strong. Right now, we don't have anyone who is either, except that Hooks is pretty strong. This will change with this recruiting class, as I understand a few of those kids--particularly Kolin Keoshian (or however you spell his name) have the size and speed to keep pressure off other facets of the defense.



I don't see it as a coordinator issue. And I don't place too much blame on the corners. If we rush 4 guys, and the QB has more than 3 seconds to throw, that's a DL problem, although the corner gets the grief.



Thoughts?

We are definitely missing Benard Afutiti. I hate it when we rush 3 guys and drop 8 and give the QB all day to complete a pass or scramble. I don't understand that philosophy. If we don't have the guys up front that can put pressure on the QB then we either need to rush more guys or drop even more guys. I'd prefer the former. Why not line-up 4 DL or be more creative with our blitzes? We seemed to mix up our bliztes a lot better vs Oklahoma than any other game.

mcgregor wrote:
I've heard a few criticize Hill. I don't think Hill is the problem. Here's how I see the defensive issues currently, ranked in order of biggest problem to least:



1. Offense. When the offense has a hard time staying on the field, whether by scoring too little or too much, our defense suffers. Part of that problem is that at many positions, we are thin with good talent.



2. DL. Jan Jorgensen can beat most people one-on-one, but won't typically win double teams. Unfortunately, there's no one else on the DL that requires double teams. When we successfully apply pressure to the QB, it's because a LB sneaks in. Failing to get pressure on the QB in turn puts pressure on the DBs. I don't care how athletic you are, the WR's will usually win, since they know where they are going, and the DB does not.



This is also why BYU's offense suffered against TCU. BYU's receivers can get open when they have time to create separation. But when Max only has 2 seconds to throw, that's not enough time to create separation against superior defensive talent.



3. Middle LBer speed. I seriously consider Kelly Poppinga to be one of the most under-appreciated players of the BM era. He was quick and strong. Right now, we don't have anyone who is either, except that Hooks is pretty strong. This will change with this recruiting class, as I understand a few of those kids--particularly Kolin Keoshian (or however you spell his name) have the size and speed to keep pressure off other facets of the defense.



I don't see it as a coordinator issue. And I don't place too much blame on the corners. If we rush 4 guys, and the QB has more than 3 seconds to throw, that's a DL problem, although the corner gets the grief.



Thoughts?

I see it much the same way. I think the DL's have become a bigger problem than the slow MLB's. But I think fast LB's is virtually a necessaty nowadays. I understand that the incoming LB's are much faster and that will pay huge dividends to the defense in the future. i think something that has contributed though is the way the defense is being called. They never stunt and seem more preoccupied with the running game first with a pass rush as an afterthought. You can see in games where we have a large lead, the DL's pin their ears back and get real pressure. But against FLa and TCU I didn't see anything but keeping your containment. I think if this is going to be the attitude then we need to blitz more. Against TCU nearly every time BYU blitzed, Dalton through a bad pass. I could see that BYU wanted to force Dalton to throw instead of letting the RB's control the game. But the problem is that if a QB has time he will pick your D apart. And with the slower than should be ILB's, we paid the price on Sat. I am surprised Hooks didn't play more. He seems to be the one ILB who really gets around and makes a huge impact.



I also think that if Jamie takes a HC job somewhere that we should go after the LB or DL coach from TCU as the DC.

I think Bronco knew our front 3 was going to be bad, and talked Tialavea into staying. Even with him, we are really bad. They are ok against the run, but all 3 are garbage in pass rush. I think the D line has 1, maybe 2 sacks all year. All sacks are by blitzing LBs. In other words, we have to gamble to get pressure. Bronco used to love this approach with the 3-3-5. Now he hates it.



As much as I hate mentioning this, we are very much like Notre Dame. Good offensive players, poor defense that lacks speed. Recruiting is the only remedy, and it will take 3 years or so for it to show. But Bronco has this team in a position to go after athletes now. When he took over for Crowton, he went with character guys first and foremost to clean up the messes. This came at the expense of better, but questionable atheletic types that may not fit BYU. The culture is in place not to bring guys in like this. Before, it just was not. So Phase I for Bronco was clean things up an start to win. Phase II started with 2009 recruit class, and it is to get better athletes. Phase II just started. Give it time, because it will pay off in 2-3 years..

I actually think we got some decent pressure on Dalton throughout the game. He was rushed into a few throws and get knocked down a few times. We just didn't have it translate into any turnovers or huge game-changing plays.

Short_Change wrote:
Why not line-up 4 DL or be more creative with our blitzes? We seemed to mix up our bliztes a lot better vs Oklahoma than any other game.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!



Congratulations, you are the winner.



Hall isn't the only QB who crumbled when he is pressured... it happens to just about anyone.

Pressure is key.

And when I say "pressure," I don't mean "The quarterback is .2 seconds away from getting sacked every time he gets rid of the ball."

I mean "pressure" as more of a mental affect than a physical one. Most QB's are paying too much attention to their receivers, they dont' have time to say "ok, that guy there is pretty tied up, that dude there is about a second away from being close enough to grab my legs, that guy there..."

The vision/attention that they have of the pass rush is secondary to their vision/attention of their own receivers. There were several times in the OU game where we had several players blitz and it looked like they were running into a brick wall as they hit the OU o-line... HOWEVER... it worked!!! Bradford/Jones would kind of panic and get rid of the ball quickly and it would usually fall imcomplete.

We will never see players in our secondary run around trying to cover a WR for five seconds, and then amazingly leap in front of them and intercept the pass. It just doesn't work that way. Interceptions are created by hasty or poor decisions. Even if our D-Line and LB's are not athletic enough to get the quarterback (and they aren't), the pressure of having six guys rushing you at once will usually be enough for the QB to feel "pressured" and rush the play. Worked well against OU... don't know why it suddenly came to a halt.



PS - If you don't believe me, count how many sacks we actually had against OU. And yet... that was our best game in pressuring the quarterback. Do the math.

I'm glad someone is talking about this. Seems like this was going to be a good defensive year (or at least a better one). Now, I think we have the same results as last year, we're just playing much better teams so it's a wash.



I think it is also safe to ask how much of our defensive woes this year are related to Hill's first year calling defense? There's got to be some growing pains, no matter how long he's been on the defensive staff.



I think we all saw an amazing increase in our Defense with Hill coaching our DB's but is it possible his skill is more in coaching the technicalities of position players rather than play calling and strategy? (Think why Norm Chow isn't a head coach today...) Now, granted I'm a spectator and not a player, but is is possible we'd be better off with Hill coaching players instead of calling plays?

CougarClaw wrote:
I think we all saw an amazing increase in our Defense with Hill coaching our DB's but is it possible his skill is more in coaching the technicalities of position players rather than play calling and strategy? (Think why Norm Chow isn't a head coach today...) Now, granted I'm a spectator and not a player, but is is possible we'd be better off with Hill coaching players instead of calling plays?

This is what I wonder about Anae? If you look around both pros and college you will see coordinators bounce from HC back to coordinators all the time, and I am sure it is the same for position coaches.... some just have the knack for stepping up to a bigger picture position and some need to just stick with the details of specific position.

Mars wrote:


My question about our defense, is:



How often are we utilizing the nickel defense? On 3rd down? In the redzone?

I agree with this. On known passing downs, I wonder why we do not bring in an extra Corner or Safety to cover a receiver. Pendleton may be a good LB, but he is an LB, and TCU mismatched him on Curley with great success. Perhaps if Aguirre was in that slot, or Buckner, maybe those plays are not there.



I just wish our D was able to pressure with the front 4. TCU sure was able to. We have not been able to all year. In order for us to pressure, we have to bring 5 or 6. And if the pressure does not get their in time, we give up big plays. I think that is why the D plays conservatively, all part of the philosophy that works great v. teams with bad QBs, but gets killed vs teams with good QB play.

[/quote]In order for us to pressure, we have to bring 5 or 6. And if the pressure does not get their in time, we give up big plays.[/quote]



And since they will probably ultimately score anyway, what do we have to lose? In fact, some of the time, we'll probably get the sack or a loss in yardage. I recall one series vs TCU where they lost yardage and was like 2nd and 29. The next play gave them a gain and they were 3rd and 12. The next play they had a first down. And it wasn't because a DB got burned. It was simply playing to keep everything "in front of them" regardless of the yardage given up. Ultimately, TCU scored. So I'm not so sure we give up a lot by trying to put heat on the QB with defensive schemes and taking our chances with the "one-on-one" DB coverage.

#2 on McG's list is the one that sticks out the most to me this year. I've heard a lot of people ripping the secondary, but that DL gets NO pressure, SDSU tore BYU apart because they had so much time to throw it. When you face a team like TCU, its going to end up costing too many points. Without that pressure the "bend but not break" philosophy turns into "bent and broken".