Bronco and Robert . . . Friends?

Many posts here mention the allegedly contentious relationships between Anae and Reynolds, or Reynolds and Doman, or Doman and Anae. In my ignorance I will buy into one of those being the case, and that said derision spilled into the locker room and onto the playing field.

My question is: does anybody know how Robert and Bronco get along? Are they friends outside of football (or at least, are their basic personalities such that they would be friends if they worked next to each other on a production line)?

Another question or two that come from the first:

Do you guys think that a coaching staff should be friendly; share an “espirit de corps,” if you will? Or is just being a dang good coach (who happens to not ‘gel’ the other coaches’ basic personality) work out okay as far as X's & O's go?

Next, looking beyond the "Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator" relationship; how aligned do an Offensive Coordinator and Defensive Coordinator need to be? Can it really be a case that that the two units are completely segregated in practice and on the side-lines? Does an OC ever consult with the DC when game planning? And vice versa?

Finally, I am reading the TH is letting BM and RA work together to select and assign the offensive staff. What do those meetings look like? Do they have a similar mindset? Do they eat pizza and drink healthy juices in a working lunch? Do their families get together and barbeque?

I know these questions (at least the specifics of them) may have no consequence. But I am hoping someone can paint a picture of our “top men.”

Ygridiron4ever wrote:
Many posts here mention the allegedly contentious relationships between Anae and Reynolds, or Reynolds and Doman, or Doman and Anae. In my ignorance I will buy into one of those being the case, and that said derision spilled into the locker room and onto the playing field.

My question is: does anybody know how Robert and Bronco get along? Are they friends outside of football (or at least, are their basic personalities such that they would be friends if they worked next to each other on a production line)?

Another question or two that come from the first:

Do you guys think that a coaching staff should be friendly; share an “espirit de corps,” if you will? Or is just being a dang good coach (who happens to not ‘gel’ the other coaches’ basic personality) work out okay as far as X's & O's go?

Next, looking beyond the "Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator" relationship; how aligned do an Offensive Coordinator and Defensive Coordinator need to be? Can it really be a case that that the two units are completely segregated in practice and on the side-lines? Does an OC ever consult with the DC when game planning? And vice versa?

Finally, I am reading the TH is letting BM and RA work together to select and assign the offensive staff. What do those meetings look like? Do they have a similar mindset? Do they eat pizza and drink healthy juices in a working lunch? Do their families get together and barbeque?

I know these questions (at least the specifics of them) may have no consequence. But I am hoping someone can paint a picture of our “top men.”

I don't think anyone has to be best buds, but you do have to have a good working relationship--and of course, the kids can't see the parents fighting. That causes fractures that have messed up more than one season for the football team. So, yes, I believe there needs to be a healthy respect for one another. They seems to have that right now.

Mike Ditka and Buddy Ryan Hated / Hate each other from what I understand, and they were able to assemble one of the best football teams ever to play in the NFL.



I think that even if you don't like someone you can produce in your position of responsibility, do your job and not let your feelings for that person affect your performance. I have several co-worker / peers that I don't like, share the same views on life, or trust, but I am able to work with them and have success in my job life.

MesaCougFan wrote:
Mike Ditka and Buddy Ryan Hated / Hate each other from what I understand, and they were able to assemble one of the best football teams ever to play in the NFL.



I think that even if you don't like someone you can produce in your position of responsibility, do your job and not let your feelings for that person affect your performance. I have several co-worker / peers that I don't like, share the same views on life, or trust, but I am able to work with them and have success in my job life.

That is a mature position. I believe coaches could work together and not particularly like eachother. However, the problem is the players who are not as mature. They can end up taking sides and creating fractured locker rooms. If it can happen over QBs, it can certainly happen over coaches.

As I was reading "Running Into the Wind", I thought that Bronco has a coach assigned to "coach morale". THis would be a coach who plans outside activities for the coaches and their wives. In the past Weber did this.

I've worked with some people that I don't particularly care for, would never associate with outside of work, and annoyed me anytime I was in the room with them. Most often these people were good at their jobs. I'm sure I annoy people at work too.



No one at work ever knew how annoyed I was by them. Loose lips sink ships. Part of the job is making sure you get along with your coworkers enough to get the job done. It's a job, not marriage.



I expect the same from BYU's coaches. All this he said this, he said that, so-and-so offended so-and-so, etc. makes BYU's coaches look like a bunch of preteen mall rats at a pajama party.

And while true, Gunk, I doubt you ever engage in the type of intensity and highs and lows of wins and losses. At work, folks can ignore cracks in the foundation of inter-office interactions/annoyances/conflict.

With Collegiate football, or other sports teams with so much on the line, the cracks in the foundation can lead to serious problems.

The forces of collusion or synergy are always in play. Without trying to sound flip, It's why it's called a team. The sum of the parts are either leading to greater outcomes or worsening effectiveness. Now some organizations sort Of just float along with an average, doldrum-like state. But the crucible is too intense with college football to simply ignore prolonged, profound conflict or division.

I've worked on a team where there was a lot of dislike between certain members. Everyone acted professionally and did their jobs, but some people didn't like others. We were a very well performing group in the company, one of the better. But then the team changed and some people that were more problematic than others ended up leaving. The team became much more unified and friendly with one another and the increase in productivity was amazing.

It's amazing how well you can get along with people you don't like when you are winning.



Losing makes things tough no matter how good your friendships.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
And while true, Gunk, I doubt you ever engage in the type of intensity and highs and lows of wins and losses. At work, folks can ignore cracks in the foundation of inter-office interactions/annoyances/conflict.

With Collegiate football, or other sports teams with so much on the line, the cracks in the foundation can lead to serious problems.

The forces of collusion or synergy are always in play. Without trying to sound flip, It's why it's called a team. The sum of the parts are either leading to greater outcomes or worsening effectiveness. Now some organizations sort Of just float along with an average, doldrum-like state. But the crucible is too intense with college football to simply ignore prolonged, profound conflict or division.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. All the squabbling like little girls among the coaches clearly was dysfunctional and some people needed to go.



But I disagree football is different from other vocations and therefore excuses or sympathy needs to be extended for childish behavior among the coaches. There are plenty of high-stakes, result oriented careers where the pressures are higher and professionals are able to put their differences behind them. Is a game really earth-shattering? Maybe that's the problem. Maybe some coaches take football too seriously. It's a game.



I'm in marketing in the Tech industry. I would describe it as intense, winner-take-all and certainly from my perspective there are all sorts of highs and lows - success of one campaign vs. another; got into the WSJ for this but not that and now my career is in jeopardy. You're only as good as what you're currently doing; who cares what you did last month. To be successful, you have to make it work with your team. Sometimes it comes naturally, other times it takes effort.



I hope Doman at the very least leaves BYU having learned the value of putting differences behind him.

I'm all for whatever makes the best conspiracy theory.

I see no way Anae is back if Bronco did not like him. Bronco seems to prefer cohesion on his staff above all else, so not buying it.



Now, as to some players who did not love Anae, I know that to be true. Hoping those issues get resolved.

There may be some players who dont like Anae, but the real question, is there enough of a critical mass (Coach/player alliance = Reynolds/Reynolds) to actually "compose a movement in opposition"** to the powers that be.



**softer words since some of you can't handle the harder truth ;-)

But what this all points to, to some degree, is, what's up with Bronco's leadership?

Either he was oblivious to the Reynolds/Anae feud OR he felt powerless to do anything about it?

Maybe he couldn't/wouldn't cut Reynolds loose, assuming he and Robert are friends; and because a prospective All-American in Matt Rynolds would be disaffected, not to mention that younger brother Houston might leave BYU. Or maybe Reynolds had attained the "legacy" status and as "Assistant Head Coach" couldn't be removed, Or maybe Anae was in the wrong. Who knows. But it does look a little suspiciously like Anae bowed out bc Bronco would not or could not stand by his "friend" and OC. And since we know that TH has absolutely "NOTHING" to do with coaching decisions outside of the HC, it couldn't have been him. Right?

I don't think that you fire a guy because you're friends with the other guy, and you can't always solve personality conflicts -- there are just some people who will never get along very well.

Agreed. Particularly if the one guy is berating your son.



But my point relative to this topic is, if friendship was also present, in addition to the fact that I think that a HC has to protect and side with the Coordinator, his left hand man, over other coaches, that friendship did not exactly manifest itself in 2010.

Yup, just saw that Harmon tweeted that Bronco and Robert are officially "besties".