The Arrogance of Bronco

redneckjedi wrote:

Like I said in the podcast, it's not the call I would have made, but to call the call wrong or arrogant is incorrect, especially when arguably the best coach in college football says that he would have made the same decision.



The only reason it was "wrong" was because it didn't work.

I figure it's like going all in with a small pair in a poker game. You could scare everyone else into folding, or get lucky, but your odds are better if you play it more conservatively at that point.

Whats interesting is that an aggressive play caller who gets it more often then misses will become known as great. We only have to look at the other side to Chris Petersen who many consider the best coach in college football because he chooses to go for it a lot and usually gets it (though in the BYU game he went for it on 4th down 5 times and didn't convert a single one.

Yes byu has a kicking game in this context especially.. 60 some odd PAT made in a row. Riley has shown he can make the chip shots too. Also since i was comparing BSU vs Byu, Byu definately had a kicking option.....



Also hawkwing; I agree all this madness about the "call" wouldn't be going on had we converted the 2 point conversion. What still stands is that it was a call that put Byu in a situation where you didn't have the best chance to win. Get it and you still give up 3:37 for BSU to drive the field(with timeouts)... Byu's defense was dominating, but that point helps the case to go for one more than it helps the case to go for two.



AGAIN, the call wasn't arrogant. To not admit it was the wrong thing to do is... It like Bronco defending the play call to punt it vs Boston College... Put the bias away that we all like bronco and admit that regardless of the outcome of the play it was a BAD call. Might as well say that BSU faking the punt early in the game would have been a good call if it worked.... To imply that it's a good call if it works, is like saying there is no such thing as a good or bad call, just plays that work and plays that don't. I like to think that there is such a thing as good calls and bad calls. The difference is the backlash from the fans when bad calls don't work.

Something I have not seen discussed anywhere is...



With the amount of time our D spent on the field, Bronco may have been concerned about making the defense have to deal with overtime. Not only did the defense spend plenty of time on the field, but they exerted tons of effort on the goal line stand. Bronco may have been concerned that his defense didn't have much more stamina to deal with an overtime.



I don't think this was the # 1 factor, but if I were him, I would have that in mind in deciding on the 2 point conversion. It's true that our D was awesome the whole game, but they may not have continued to be as tough in overtime. Just another part of the consideration in my opinion.



I wanted him to go for 2 personally, but I also thought we would win out in the trenches (our OL vs. their DL) at that point of the game. Guess not.

sandiegoblue wrote:
Something I have not seen discussed anywhere is...



With the amount of time our D spent on the field, Bronco may have been concerned about making the defense have to deal with overtime. Not only did the defense spend plenty of time on the field, but they exerted tons of effort on the goal line stand. Bronco may have been concerned that his defense didn't have much more stamina to deal with an overtime.



I don't think this was the # 1 factor, but if I were him, I would have that in mind in deciding on the 2 point conversion. It's true that our D was awesome the whole game, but they may not have continued to be as tough in overtime. Just another part of the consideration in my opinion.



I wanted him to go for 2 personally, but I also thought we would win out in the trenches (our OL vs. their DL) at that point of the game. Guess not.

If you are afraid of a gassed D, then you don't kick it deep. You onside kick it. As I have said, I didn't hate the two point conversion call. I hated the decision to kick it deep when the 2 point failed.

stgeorgefan wrote:
Yes byu has a kicking game in this context especially.. 60 some odd PAT made in a row. Riley has shown he can make the chip shots too. Also since i was comparing BSU vs Byu, Byu definately had a kicking option

Not saying they're terrible but I don't know that the odds of us winning on a field goal were any better than going for 2. Like has been discussed, our offense had barely moved the ball all game. If the overtime was typical to the game (not saying it would have been with Hill) we're left with a 35-40 yard try to win. Our kickers last attempt was a game winning 39 yarder and he missed. Our other kickers last kick was a longer attempt for a game winning try and he missed. (well it was blocked but seeing how our line performed on the 2 pt conversion...) The previous kick before those two was missed.



I think going for 1 was probably a better choice given the total situation but I think it's close enough to 50/50 that I'm glad to see us be aggressive.

stgeorgefan wrote:
Yes byu has a kicking game in this context especially.. 60 some odd PAT made in a row. Riley has shown he can make the chip shots too. Also since i was comparing BSU vs Byu, Byu definately had a kicking option.....



Also hawkwing; I agree all this madness about the "call" wouldn't be going on had we converted the 2 point conversion. What still stands is that it was a call that put Byu in a situation where you didn't have the best chance to win. Get it and you still give up 3:37 for BSU to drive the field(with timeouts)... Byu's defense was dominating, but that point helps the case to go for one more than it helps the case to go for two.



AGAIN, the call wasn't arrogant. To not admit it was the wrong thing to do is... It like Bronco defending the play call to punt it vs Boston College... Put the bias away that we all like bronco and admit that regardless of the outcome of the play it was a BAD call. Might as well say that BSU faking the punt early in the game would have been a good call if it worked.... To imply that it's a good call if it works, is like saying there is no such thing as a good or bad call, just plays that work and plays that don't. I like to think that there is such a thing as good calls and bad calls. The difference is the backlash from the fans when bad calls don't work.

So Bronco is arrogant be cause he doesn't agree with you? I don;'t agree with you on this, does that make me arrogant? (I'm sure that your're thinking - no that makes you stupid.) Most people say that reasonable minds can differ on that call, the only one who is not saying that is you, and yet you think that someone else is the arrogant one....

hawkwing wrote:
Whats interesting is that an aggressive play caller who gets it more often then misses will become known as great. We only have to look at the other side to Chris Petersen who many consider the best coach in college football because he chooses to go for it a lot and usually gets it (though in the BYU game he went for it on 4th down 5 times and didn't convert a single one.

I was at the game in Boise and was loudly expressing my disagreement with the two point call while it played out. However, I changed my opinion several days later when I read that BSU Coach Petersen not only agreed with Coach Mendenhall's decision to go for two abut also said that he would have been really surprised if Mendenhall had not done so. Petersen said he would have done exactly the same thing in the same circumstances (tight game on an away field, poor offensive performances by both teams, strong defensive performances by both teams, etc.) He even acknowledged that momentum was then in BYUs favor, but suggested that might not have been the case in an overtime. Based upon Petersen's analysis, I have decided to give Mendenhall full credit for making a gutsy call in a difficult situation.



Aside from the stellar play of the BYU defense, and the fact that BYU was in a position to win in the closing minutes, the best part of the game for me was seeing and hearing the BSU fans repeatedly and loudly booing the BSU offense each time it left the field in the final 20 minutes of game time. The BSU crowd was loud and rocking the first half. I wonder what the stadium would have been like in an overtime?

The crowd would have been loud in OT. Good fans. If we had gone up a touchdown when on the one, it would have been a lot quieter. Yes their fans were upset with the BSU offense. I heard one guy say that they needed to go to page 2 of their playbook.

ABYUFAN wrote:

AGAIN, the call wasn't arrogant. To not admit it was the wrong thing to do is...

So Bronco is arrogant be cause he doesn't agree with you? I don;'t agree with you on this, does that make me arrogant? (I'm sure that you're thinking - no that makes you stupid.) Most people say that reasonable minds can differ on that call, the only one who is not saying that is you, and yet you think that someone else is the arrogant one....

Bingo!

Yndian wrote:

stgeorgefan wrote:

AGAIN, the call wasn't arrogant. To not admit it was the wrong thing to do is...

So Bronco is arrogant be cause he doesn't agree with you? I don;'t agree with you on this, does that make me arrogant? (I'm sure that you're thinking - no that makes you stupid.) Most people say that reasonable minds can differ on that call, the only one who is not saying that is you, and yet you think that someone else is the arrogant one....

Bingo!

I don't think anyone is stupid OR arrogant for disagreeing with me. My opinion that he is arrogant for not admitting it was the bad call is based on this:



Odds. IMO ( and others, like the ESPN announcers ) Is that the best chance Byu had to win was to kick the PAT and go into overtime. The game came down to one play when it didn't have to. Once again I'm not just saying this because we lost. It was a huge risk/huge reward when you could have low risk/high reward.



Also what comes into play is the past. Bronco's remarks about fans. Bronco being conservative game manager. I mentioned the Boston College game back in BM first year. His reaction to the boo's was more of a "how dare you" than "maybe it was the wrong call".



I'm not trying to come across as being smarter than Bronco or that if you disagree that i believe your stupid. I believe it was the wrong call and that Bronco should do a little more pandering to the fans. Whether bronco is arrogant in person is not what i'm referring to. Does Bronco act arrogant to THIS fan..yes... OF course since I disagree with the play call Bronco believes I don't know football. Right or wrong assuming i or anyone else that disagree's with him doesn't, is arrogance.

When has Bronco said that if you disagree with him you don't know football? All I've heard him say is that, based on all the information and intuition he had, he and his coaching staff thought it was the right call.



And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what are the actual odds of a PAT/OT win compared to the success/failure rate of 2-pt conversion trys?

Yndian wrote:
When has Bronco said that if you disagree with him you don't know football? All I've heard him say is that, based on all the information and intuition he had, he and his coaching staff thought it was the right call.



And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what are the actual odds of a PAT/OT win compared to the success/failure rate of 2-pt conversion trys?

The quote i'm talking about came about when Max Hall was getting grilled about turnovers... after a few google searches here are 2 links with varied slants

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2009/10/5/1072046/byu-head-coach-bronco-mendenhall

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/267730-does-bronco-mendenhall-need-to-apologize-to-byu-fans-over-comments-nope



As to the odds question.. I obviously don't have a %... But if you watched the game and heard the espn guys talking, they summed up the pros and cons of going for two. I agreed with their assesments.

The strength of this years team is the defense, special teams, offense, in that order.

The weakness is offensive line, quarterback, play calling.

The game is on the line who do you trust to win the game? The defense, Special teams????...Neither, Bronco put the worst unit on the field to win the game and what happens? The offensive line get blown up and the freshman Qb has to try and make a play...

Odds suggest that the defense would have held BSU to either a punt, failed 4th down conversion or a missed FG. With T hill at QB you have the odds of moving the ball or either TO's or penalties, with a shot at a FG..

I think it is really obvious that the best chance BYU had to win was to go into OT. If you disagree, FINE. Hindsight is 20/20. Cougs play in 3 hours and nothing i say is gonna change anything... I dislike having to have stick up for my opinion that the head coach made the wrong choice. Esp. on a message board under a thread titled "the arrogance of Bronco" Goodness its like its 2004 again and I'm getting called Airwolf the realist/antichrist :blush:

stgeorgefan wrote:
As to the odds question.. I obviously don't have a %... But if you watched the game and heard the espn guys talking, they summed up the pros and cons of going for two. I agreed with their assesments.

Ummm no they didn't they jumped to the conclusion that going for two was wrong, and then completely left out significant facts from their discussion to support thier position. I disagreed with them and my wife was wondering why I was telling the TV that it was wrong. They never once acknowledged that our offense sucked worse than the BSU offense up to that drive,a nd that we could win it with one play. They talked like we'd have an easy time scoring regularly against the BSU defense and that the stadium would be nice and quiet in the overtime.

stgeorgefan wrote:

When has Bronco said that if you disagree with him you don't know football? All I've heard him say is that, based on all the information and intuition he had, he and his coaching staff thought it was the right call.



And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what are the actual odds of a PAT/OT win compared to the success/failure rate of 2-pt conversion trys?

The quote i'm talking about came about when Max Hall was getting grilled about turnovers... after a few google searches here are 2 links with varied slants

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2009/10/5/1072046/byu-head-coach-bronco-mendenhall

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/267730-does-bronco-mendenhall-need-to-apologize-to-byu-fans-over-comments-nope



As to the odds question.. I obviously don't have a %... But if you watched the game and heard the espn guys talking, they summed up the pros and cons of going for two. I agreed with their assesments.

The strength of this years team is the defense, special teams, offense, in that order.

The weakness is offensive line, quarterback, play calling.

The game is on the line who do you trust to win the game? The defense, Special teams????...Neither, Bronco put the worst unit on the field to win the game and what happens? The offensive line get blown up and the freshman Qb has to try and make a play...

Odds suggest that the defense would have held BSU to either a punt, failed 4th down conversion or a missed FG. With T hill at QB you have the odds of moving the ball or either TO's or penalties, with a shot at a FG..

I think it is really obvious that the best chance BYU had to win was to go into OT. If you disagree, FINE. Hindsight is 20/20. Cougs play in 3 hours and nothing i say is gonna change anything... I dislike having to have stick up for my opinion that the head coach made the wrong choice. Esp. on a message board under a thread titled "the arrogance of Bronco" Goodness its like its 2004 again and I'm getting called Airwolf the realist/antichrist :blush:

No offense, but pros and cons from announcers do not equal actual statistical data.



Based on how our offense just marched down the field, and taking into account all the other factors (defense, etc.) I would think (and notice that I also have no numbers to back me up :whistle: ) the odds of successfully executing a single 3-yard play against the tired/on-their-heels BSU defense are better than those of 1) making the field goal, then 2) successfully shutting out BSU for the rest of the game, then 3) holding them to a FG or less in OT, then 4) scoring a FG or better ourselves. I think the longer you play, the more chances there are that something flukey happens and you lose. And let's say BSU has the ball first in OT and scores a TD. Then is it okay to go for two, or do you wait to do it until the rules require it?



I just think it's one thing to say "I think Bronco made the wrong choice" and another to say "That choice was absolutely indefensible and Bronco is arrogant to try and defend it."



And now that the Hawaii game has started, I think we're all ready to move on. 8)