Difficulties getting into the Endzone: 2011 vs 2012

I don't remember the stats from last year and we only have one game worth of data this year, but I wonder if there is a connection between struggles vs WSU and last year.

Thoughts?

Biggest difference- Nearly every drive ended with an opportunity to score vs WSU. That was NOT the case early in 2011 when the offense was really struggling (UT, Ole Miss, Utah, Central Florida, early USU come to mind). It would be nice to get over the hump and score TDs on a more consistent basis though.

BYU scored three TDs, and attempted four FGs (missing 1) against Washington St to begin 2012. Against Ole Miss to begin 2011, BYU attempted 1 FG and scored one offensive TD.



The difference in this was the passing efficiency. In the Ole Miss game, we had 91 yards rushing on 31 carries (2.9 ypc). This year we had 123 yards on 41 carries (3.0 ypc). But our PER was nearly 50 points higher.



With a more efficient passing game, you score more and win more. When your team's PER is in the tank, you struggle to score and win.

We didn't have a problem getting into the endzone in the first half. This year will be different. We also haven't shown all our cards.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I want to see us play smash mouth football near the endzone with Zed leading the way for Pritchard or Alisa. No more of this QB option crap



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

beauso79 wrote:
I want to see us play smash mouth football near the endzone with Zed leading the way for Pritchard or Alisa. No more of this QB option crap



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

This is the point. And I probably should have titled this Bluezone offense.

W have struggled more than we should for the last three years and I mostly attribute it to the lack of dominance on the Olne. Zed even got put on his head this past week. He can't do it all.

dmcougar wrote:

I want to see us play smash mouth football near the endzone with Zed leading the way for Pritchard or Alisa. No more of this QB option crap



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

This is the point. And I probably should have titled this Bluezone offense.

W have struggled more than we should for the last three years and I mostly attribute it to the lack of dominance on the Olne. Zed even got put on his head this past week. He can't do it all.

I'd love to see smashmouth work out, but it seems like that's what the team went with in the 2nd half. And they got stuffed. I agree about the o'line dominance. It just isn't quite there.

Do you remember how we use to score with less than 10 yards to go? Tight end in motion, play action, tight ends and running back running out/corner routes. Where has this play gone? We tried smash mouth up the gut and got smashed! We need to play action, shotgun, roll the qb out, halfback pitch to hill with option to throw, etc. Until we re establish the threat of throwing it in from this distance, opposing teams will put 6 or 7 in the box and rush 5 or 6. They will be looking to put Riley on the injured list. We need to establish the quick outs and corners to our tall tight ends and receivers. Why have 6'5" receivers if we never throw the quick high outs or jump balls?!



This is the area where I feel doman has really been lacking and is utmost priority to improve.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

What about using Friel to clear the way? Watching him run over that WSU DB near the endzone was pretty funny



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I honestly think Bronco was keeping it very close to the vest in the second half. He wanted to see what the Cougars could do running it up the middle, and was quite content to kick field goals if necessary, rather than give other teams film material to prepare for upcoming games. When it's more important to score touchdowns, there will be more creativity in the play calling.

IowaCougar wrote:
I honestly think Bronco was keeping it very close to the vest in the second half. He wanted to see what the Cougars could do running it up the middle, and was quite content to kick field goals if necessary, rather than give other teams film material to prepare for upcoming games. When it's more important to score touchdowns, there will be more creativity in the play calling.

People keep saying this, but then why throw the "Fake FG in the punt formation with Hill about to kick the field goal" thingy?



I don't think they were holding any plays close to the vest. Playing conservatively in the second half? Definitely. But I don't think they were playing with a closed playbook in the second half. If so, then they would have waited until the Utah or Boise State game to throw the qb out there to kick the field goal, or potentially do the fake.



Now that whole thing is something that teams will watch for, instead of getting into that situation and immediately having to burn a timeout.

I don't think it was a fake FG/punt formation. T.Hill was routinely taking kicks during fall camp.

Look at coach Reynolds. They did it on purpose to give the other teams something to worry about.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I don't think it was a fake FG/punt formation. T.Hill was routinely taking kicks during fall camp.

I know. It was a fake trips that shifted to a FG, that shifted to us calling a timeout from poor clock mismanagement.



I am wondering why they threw it in at all. IF they were keeping the playbook closed.



And it wasn't to give anyone something to worry about. They didn't run it well and the clock ran out. My point is that they weren't closing the playbook in the first place.



Nobody is going to worry about that play. They will devote one quarter of a practice to cover the possible options. I don't mind them throwing it out there, although it didn't work. I love multiple option type plays. The thing is, they didn't throw that out there to make anyone worry. What do they have to worry about?



Think about it: Would you rather show that you can do a fake punt, (I know it wasn't a punt, stay with me here) or just *do* one (A la BSU) in game with the defense completely unprepared?

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Nobody is going to worry about that play. They will devote one quarter of a practice to cover the possible options. I don't mind them throwing it out there, although it didn't work. I love multiple option type plays. The thing is, they didn't throw that out there to make anyone worry. What do they have to worry about?



Think about it: Would you rather show that you can do a fake punt, (I know it wasn't a punt, stay with me here) or just *do* one (A la BSU) in game with the defense completely unprepared?

I don't know. Practice time is limited. Now we've forced opponents to spend time on a play they don't need to worry about. And maybe that time could have been spent preparing for a play we will run. It's sixes.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

I honestly think Bronco was keeping it very close to the vest in the second half. He wanted to see what the Cougars could do running it up the middle, and was quite content to kick field goals if necessary, rather than give other teams film material to prepare for upcoming games. When it's more important to score touchdowns, there will be more creativity in the play calling.

People keep saying this, but then why throw the "Fake FG in the punt formation with Hill about to kick the field goal" thingy?



I don't think they were holding any plays close to the vest. Playing conservatively in the second half? Definitely. But I don't think they were playing with a closed playbook in the second half. If so, then they would have waited until the Utah or Boise State game to throw the qb out there to kick the field goal, or potentially do the fake.



Now that whole thing is something that teams will watch for, instead of getting into that situation and immediately having to burn a timeout.

Uhh, that play would not be a surprise to anyone since it was reported in the media that Hill was kicking FG's and extra points in camp. It did force WSU to take a time out though which is good strategy in a close game (not relavant here but could be in the future).

frdbtr wrote:

IowaCougar wrote:
I honestly think Bronco was keeping it very close to the vest in the second half. He wanted to see what the Cougars could do running it up the middle, and was quite content to kick field goals if necessary, rather than give other teams film material to prepare for upcoming games. When it's more important to score touchdowns, there will be more creativity in the play calling.

People keep saying this, but then why throw the "Fake FG in the punt formation with Hill about to kick the field goal" thingy?



I don't think they were holding any plays close to the vest. Playing conservatively in the second half? Definitely. But I don't think they were playing with a closed playbook in the second half. If so, then they would have waited until the Utah or Boise State game to throw the qb out there to kick the field goal, or potentially do the fake.



Now that whole thing is something that teams will watch for, instead of getting into that situation and immediately having to burn a timeout.

Uhh, that play would not be a surprise to anyone since it was reported in the media that Hill was kicking FG's and extra points in camp. It did force WSU to take a time out though which is good strategy in a close game (not relavant here but could be in the future).

Actually BYU called the time out because we were about to get a delay of game penalty.



Plays like this are okay to show early in the season because it makes every opponent prepare for it for the rest of the season. On the flip side, I have only seen that alignment successfully ran for a 1st down/TD/2 point conversion once or twice. If the defense isn't prepared for it they will call a time out. If they are prepared for it they will line up exactly like WSU did and wait for BYU to shift into regular fieldgoal formation and kick it. As long as we also don't waste time preparing to run this play in practice its not bad to show on film...

We didn't need to spend practice time running it, we wasted game time practicing it. The entire 2nd half was essentially free practice time.

IowaCougar wrote:
I honestly think Bronco was keeping it very close to the vest in the second half. He wanted to see what the Cougars could do running it up the middle, and was quite content to kick field goals if necessary, rather than give other teams film material to prepare for upcoming games. When it's more important to score touchdowns, there will be more creativity in the play calling.

Exactly. No need to worry yet.

I don't agree in the approach of closing the play book the first few games when a team can practice their best plays in live competition and make more of a statement in winning. I would rather show a team that we scored 6 touchdowns using 6 different plays, forcing them to prepare for all 6 (impossible), and having BYU prepared to execute these plays with more detail and with slight variations, and blow WSU out of the water.



We should have beat WSU 49-6 (actually 49-0 if you get rid of the false PI calls), we could have scored touchdowns 7 times, using 7 different plays with different personal, and heck, throw in a fake extra point or onside kick just to keep teams guessing. Let Utah prepare for those 7 looks, then we can call a slight variation of each of those 7 AND hopefully we have another dozen or two red-zone short yardage plays still in the playbook. Let Utah prepare for that, a well-oiled machine with TOO MUCH tape to prepare for. That is how Boise, OKST, Texas, OK, etc do it. If we are trying to protect our playbook, maybe it is time for a LARGER one.



But we seriously need to bring back the play action outs to wide receivers and TE or swing passes to RB. Lets get our play makers in space and give them a chance to use that athletic ability to make something happen. Sometimes I think our coaches rely too much on coaching in the red zone instead of letting our guys use that ability we recruited them for.