I guess the O will try to score this year

What a thought! Passing downfield? Not being scared to go for it all? Perhaps setting a goal higher than 24 points? I can't stand conservative offenses and that's all we've run under Doman (blame the O line and Q if you will that's fine) and very often with Anae as well.



Obviously it's just talk right now but I hope we actually play to go for the jugular.



http://byu.scout.com/2/1278011.html

I will be very disappointed if we don't average 24 ppg. Even 2010 we still averaged 26.2 ppg and our offense was AWFUL. I'd like to see us above 32 ppg.

Remember the day when Riley said something to the effect, "all our games will be close, where we will barely out score our opponents"? Scary. Was that Dmans philosophy or a realistic estimation of limitations or just Riley? Not bagging on Riley, per se, just glad a different Sheriff is it town. But then again, I was high on Anae when he got into town the first time.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Remember the day when Riley said something to the effect, "all our games will be close, where we will barely out score our opponents"? Scary. Was that Dmans philosophy or a realistic estimation of limitations or just Riley? Not bagging on Riley, per se, just glad a different Sheriff is it town. But then again, I was high on Anae when he got into town the first time.

The 24pts that gets quoted is simply a pillar just like giving up less than 24 pts is a pillar for the defense. None of that is a goal. Bronco just studies statistics and set those pillars due to the percentages that a team wins when they score more than 24pts and hold teams to less than 24 points.



Now responding to the quote above. I liked that Riley had that attitude. I would rather see some humility and expectation that every game be a fight in order to foster hard work and a commitment to play at 100% all the time then to see players cocky and thinking they are going to roll everyone. Attitudes like that foster bad losses to 1 win teams like when we lost to utep in the 80's.

Yes - I read about 2 long TD passes and 3 picks.



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

frdbtr wrote:



The 24pts that gets quoted is simply a pillar just like giving up less than 24 pts is a pillar for the defense. None of that is a goal. Bronco just studies statistics and set those pillars due to the percentages that a team wins when they score more than 24pts and hold teams to less than 24 points.

I seem to recall Doman and Riley saying before the season started last year that the goal was 24 pts/game something like 300+ yards passing and 150+ yards rushing.



24 pts/game was the goal, whether you want to call it a pillar, objective, standard, or whatever. The goal was 24 pts/game.

Gunk wrote:

The 24pts that gets quoted is simply a pillar just like giving up less than 24 pts is a pillar for the defense. None of that is a goal. Bronco just studies statistics and set those pillars due to the percentages that a team wins when they score more than 24pts and hold teams to less than 24 points.

I seem to recall Doman and Riley saying before the season started last year that the goal was 24 pts/game something like 300+ yards passing and 150+ yards rushing.



24 pts/game was the goal, whether you want to call it a pillar, objective, standard, or whatever. The goal was 24 pts/game.

I want to see the quote where Doman or Riley said that 24 pts per game was a goal. I have only heard it as one of the offenses pillars to score at least 24 points per game. There is a different between a stated pillar and a goal. Bronco has had the 24+ pts per game pillar since he took over the team in 05 but Robert Anae came out and stated they wanted to average 40pts per game as an offensive goal back then. 2 different things.

BYU is 65-8 (.890) under Bronco when scoring 24 or more points.



BYU is 14-22 (.389) when allowing 24 or more points.

SpiffCoug wrote:
BYU is 65-8 (.890) under Bronco when scoring 24 or more points.



BYU is 14-22 (.389) when allowing 24 or more points.

What is the winning percentage when the defense holds an opponent to less than 24pts per game since that is one of the defensive pillars?

24 Points would have



Beaten those pesky Utes after going to OT

Easily beaten those pesky Broncos

Easily beaten ND

Lost to OSU

Beaten SJSU



12-1 - Not Bad

it is great to want to go downfield downfield downfield but always easier said than done. cant wait to see how well our offense executes come virginia time.

frdbtr wrote:

I want to see the quote where Doman or Riley said that 24 pts per game was a goal. I have only heard it as one of the offenses pillars to score at least 24 points per game. There is a different between a stated pillar and a goal. Bronco has had the 24+ pts per game pillar since he took over the team in 05 but Robert Anae came out and stated they wanted to average 40pts per game as an offensive goal back then. 2 different things.

Next time you don't meet your goals for work, try going and telling your boss that it actually wasn't a goal by a pillar... :roll:



If you want to "see" the quote, go run a Google search instead of trying to get someone else to show you a sign.

Gunk wrote:

I want to see the quote where Doman or Riley said that 24 pts per game was a goal. I have only heard it as one of the offenses pillars to score at least 24 points per game. There is a different between a stated pillar and a goal. Bronco has had the 24+ pts per game pillar since he took over the team in 05 but Robert Anae came out and stated they wanted to average 40pts per game as an offensive goal back then. 2 different things.

Next time you don't meet your goals for work, try going and telling your boss that it actually wasn't a goal by a pillar... :roll:



If you want to "see" the quote, go run a Google search instead of trying to get someone else to show you a sign.

The burden of proof is on you dood. I'm not going to google search to prove you wrong, you need to do it to prove yourself right. I listen to every interview and read every article on BYU and I never remember anyone saying that they had a goal to score 24 points per game. I have heard Bronco Talk about offensive "pillars" multiple times. Scoring at least 24 points every game is an offensive pillar, keeping the other team from scoring 24 points is an defensive pillar. Keeping the other team from rushing for more than 100(might be 80 yards, I can't remember exactly off hand) yards is a defensive pillar. I would bet you that Bronco has more lofty goals set for the defense as far as scoring and rushing statistics though. If they don't meet those pillars in the game then the offense/defense has penalties they pay in practice and they don't get team oriented stickers for their helmets. If my work had a "pillar" that was the minimum that had to be met every year, with goals that were more lofty then I would probably need to answer for both of them.

I think Butter is pretty much on target with rhis explanation.



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

frdbtr wrote:

BYU is 65-8 (.890) under Bronco when scoring 24 or more points.



BYU is 14-22 (.389) when allowing 24 or more points.

What is the winning percentage when the defense holds an opponent to less than 24pts per game since that is one of the defensive pillars?

BYU is 66-8 (.892) when allowing 24 points or fewer. If you eliminate the games where they allowed exactly 24, they are 60-7 (.896).

I think the 24 points is the standard not the goal.



Like 135 PER is the standard, but last year's goal was 155 (average PER for SR QBs at BYU) for me. You goal can and should be higher than the standard.

Well said, Spiff.

My issue was as much with the point threshold--24, if that was ever stated, IDK, but I took issue with what was represented by Riley's quote of " we will barely score enough to win"--words to that effect. I don't like the sentiment, the scheme, the expectation or the artificial bar setting. It was probably Domans philosophy as much as Rleys, and maybe even Broncos, who knows. But it wasn't working, clearly.



I would call it reductive reasoning. What?? Never heard of that? Well, its kind of like looking in the rear view mirror to predict what is necessary for the future. I will explain,



If a QB implemented Spiffs pretty solid statistical model as a goal, it is very short-sided.



QB-"I want to hit that 135 PER mark this next game and every game, and we will win 75% of the time."

Bball-"I want to shoot 50% next game. If I can break that threshold, we will win 70% of the time.



See, it's sort of deductive reasoning, sort of, but it is short-sided, out of context of the opponent; maybe good idea, but not as a goal or strategy or scheme.



Maybe the best application of this statistical model as a scheme is with turnovers. bronco used to be pretty big and vocal on this. Turnover ratio is not only a good predictive model, it is also a good, pragmatic scheme.

In sports psychology one of the most important things a coach can do is to get peak performance out of his players. Studies have shown that when a player believes they cannot beat an opponent their performance will end up far worse than it would otherwise have been, similarly, when players believe they have no chance to lose their performance suffers. Studies have shown that when a coach can convince his players that their chance to win is an even 50/50 their performance will be peak. In that regard, having a staff telling the team that every game is going to be a hard fought game is perfectly reasonable and desirable by those who follow the science of sports psychology.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
If a QB implemented Spiffs pretty solid statistical model as a goal, it is very short-sided.



QB-"I want to hit that 135 PER mark this next game and every game, and we will win 75% of the time."

Bball-"I want to shoot 50% next game. If I can break that threshold, we will win 70% of the time.



See, it's sort of deductive reasoning, sort of, but it is short-sided, out of context of the opponent; maybe good idea, but not as a goal or strategy or scheme.



Maybe the best application of this statistical model as a scheme is with turnovers. bronco used to be pretty big and vocal on this. Turnover ratio is not only a good predictive model, it is also a good, pragmatic scheme.

Except it's not 75% of the time. It's 93% of the time. (BYU is 53-4 .930) when the QB has a PER of 135. I don't know how that is short-sighted. It's a QB telling himself, I have to be efficient with the football. I have to hit my open receivers. I have to put the ball in spaces where the receivers can make plays after the catch. I have be accurate with my throws and I have to take care of the football.



I have to control and own my performance. If I'm getting little protection, then I need to be quicker with my release. I need to make sure I'm reading the defense right, so that when I see what I saw on film, I go to the right guy.



I want to give my team the best chance I can to win. And by reaching that 135 PER standard, I'm doing that.

I doubt a qb has ever set the goal of 135 PER as their goal.