1-2 starts is the new norm for BYU

This is the 7th time in 9 seasons that BYU has started 1-2. So by game 3 of 7 of the last 9 seasons, we have known that the possibility for a special season was over. Also, Bronco is now 1-8 in game 3. That is dreadful, and inexcusable.



As a fan, that just sucks. I plan my fall around BYU Football, so it sucks to have my enthusiasm kicked in the privates by September 20 or so each season, with still two months to go. It is honestly hurting my passion as a fan. I know that BYU is not Bama or Florida or even USC or Texas, but I do expect a magical season once every 5 years or so. We last got one in 2008 when we started 8-0, and it has now been 5 years since. 2009 we started 2-1, but since then it has been ugly. 2010 we went 1-4. 2011 we went 1-2, 2012 we went 2-1 but it took a FCS game in week 2 to do it, then back to 1-2 this year.



And from from 2010 through now, the QB play has been pretty subpar, coupled with subpar Oline play. This points to recruiting and development of talent issues, along with play calling issues. You should not have the same issues 4 seasons in a row. Bronco needs to wake up, if that is even possible. BYU has to recruit elite LDS players better, but also has to put them in a better position to succeed. That just has not happened of late.



We're not in the MWC anymore, so the staff needs to stop acting like it. The D is mostly holding up its end, but the O is a pathetic mess, that once again, lacks any rhyme or reason to the play calling.

I can handle 1-2 starts provided I feel good about the general direction of the program. This is the fourth year now where offensive futility is taking its toll.



This is also the fourth year in a row where the offense lacks an identity. To suggest we are a dual threat offense is to suggest we believe our quarterback can throw the ball. The body of evidence suggests that is not the case - at least for now - with Taysom Hill.



What I struggle to understand it how the coaching staff always needs time to "figure the team out." Shouldn't that happen during spring ball and fall camp?



There were many who noted that Hill struggled with accuracy during fall camp...so that we have to go through this exercise at the expense of the fan is rather irritating.

Lawboy wrote:
We're not in the MWC anymore, so the staff needs to stop acting like it.

That's it right there. The main reason for the multiple 1-2 starts (including the abysmal 1-8 record in game #3) was that Bronco would usually do worse against the better out-of-conference opponents before settling in against an easier, more familiar MWC schedule.

Lawboy wrote:
This points to recruiting and development of talent issues, along with play calling issues. You should not have the same issues 4 seasons in a row. Bronco needs to wake up, if that is even possible. BYU has to recruit elite LDS players better, but also has to put them in a better position to succeed. That just has not happened of late.



We're not in the MWC anymore, so the staff needs to stop acting like it. The D is mostly holding up its end, but the O is a pathetic mess, that once again, lacks any rhyme or reason to the play calling.

How can BYU recruit LDS talent better?



There are 112 LDS football players at the Division 1 FBS level in 2013 THAT HAVE SERVED LDS MISSIONS. 112!



http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1742/0/Returned-Mormon-missionaries-in-2013-FBS-college-football.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



The list is probably a bit longer if you count LDS players who haven't served missions.



BYU has a ton, obviously, but so do Utah and Utah St. Also, I notice that Oregon St. (x2), Arizona St. (x2), Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, California, and Georgia have LDS returned missionaries on the roster.



That's 9 returned missionaries that would likely make the BYU roster that chose to go to other great programs. How do you get those guys to BYU over (mostly) PAC 12 competition? Is "Win!" the only answer?



[BYU's line would get a MAJOR boost by Hamani Stevens (starting RG-Oregon) and Xavier Su’a-Filo (starting LG-UCLA)]



BYU also needs to continue to go after non-LDS athletes that want/can live the honor code. With names like Hoffman and Williams (and McMahon) on that list, I think this is the way BYU HAS to go to rise up.



Note - the list also includes Hawaii (x2), UNLV, Navy, and Boise St.

Don't worry, Lawboy, we'll still hammer out 6 wins and get invited to a bowl that can barely fill half the stadium. Success!



Wash, rinse, and repeat.

YNot wrote:

BYU also needs to continue to go after non-LDS athletes that want/can live the honor code. With names like Hoffman and Williams (and McMahon) on that list, I think this is the way BYU HAS to go to rise up.

McMahon didn't abide by the honor code. In his book (McMahon, written in 1986) he mentioned getting called into LaVell's office several times for drinking, and had hard feelings toward 'spies' who were turning him in. He also said that one of the coaches kept a bottle in his desk that he nipped from occasionally.



Also, I think we can get a few more LDS athletes, but we're not going to get them all. Roger Reid lost his job when he tried to pressure Chris Burgess into representing his faith at BYU instead of playing at Duke. There are other LDS athletes who don't want to abide by the honor code, or don't want to live in Utah. Others who grew up fans of a local team want to live closer to family.



Bronco was a former walkon himself--he wants athletes who want to be at BYU rather than kids who have to be sold on it. Maybe getting more kids to BYU sports camps in the summer when they're high school underclassmen gets them acquainted with BYU staff and and facilities, and they make friendships with kids who are interested in BYU.

Serious question: You busted my chops for calling a BYU loss but you are now saying all the things I have been thinking and saying for quite some time. Albeit much more eloquently.



Why the change?

I don't think the offense lacks identity. I've seen that thrown around the last few days. The offense clearly knows what they want to do. They want to play at an extremely fast pace. The problem isn't the lack of an identity. The problem isn't that they don't know what they want to do. The problem is the offense is hamstrung by the play of the QB. Once it becomes more efficient and consistent - either through a new player or exceptionally improved play by THill - the supposed lack of offensive identity will disappear.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I don't think the offense lacks identity. I've seen that thrown around the last few days. The offense clearly knows what they want to do. They want to play at an extremely fast pace. The problem isn't the lack of an identity. The problem isn't that they don't know what they want to do. The problem is the offense is hamstrung by the play of the QB. Once it becomes more efficient and consistent - either through a new player or exceptionally improved play by THill - the supposed lack of offensive identity will disappear.

I so agree with this. Except we don't necessarily need to see exceptionally improved play by Hill. Completing 50% of his passes would do wonders.

Getting to 50% completion would be a 50% improvement (he's at 35%. Half of 35% is 17% [17+35 is 52]). Anytime you can improve anything you do by 50% that's exceptional.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I don't think the offense lacks identity. I've seen that thrown around the last few days. The offense clearly knows what they want to do. They want to play at an extremely fast pace. The problem isn't the lack of an identity. The problem isn't that they don't know what they want to do. The problem is the offense is hamstrung by the play of the QB. Once it becomes more efficient and consistent - either through a new player or exceptionally improved play by THill - the supposed lack of offensive identity will disappear.

Going fast is not good enough. You need to go fast with a purpose. And it is hard to find a purpose in running repeated dives up the middle on 1st and 2nd downs. Especially when defenses are basically giving you short passes. My biggest complaint is with how Hill is used in the passing game, and what routes are being run. Every D has soft spots, so you need to attack those, not run right into their strengths repeatedly.



We ran far too few slants, crosses and WR screen types passes, and the Utes were lined up to give those to us all game long. When we did run t hen, guess what? They worked, unless they got dropped, which happened far too often.



Point being, going fast is not good enough. Because all that does is lead to quick 3 and outs. You gotta be better at attacking the soft spots. Right now, BYU has not done that, accept against Texas. We failed at it vs. Virginia and Utah. So to me, this is partially a scheme issue, partially a QB read issue, since so much is on Taysom.

Lawboy wrote:

I don't think the offense lacks identity. I've seen that thrown around the last few days. The offense clearly knows what they want to do. They want to play at an extremely fast pace. The problem isn't the lack of an identity. The problem isn't that they don't know what they want to do. The problem is the offense is hamstrung by the play of the QB. Once it becomes more efficient and consistent - either through a new player or exceptionally improved play by THill - the supposed lack of offensive identity will disappear.

Going fast is not good enough. You need to go fast with a purpose. And it is hard to find a purpose in running repeated dives up the middle on 1st and 2nd downs. Especially when defenses are basically giving you short passes. My biggest complaint is with how Hill is used in the passing game, and what routes are being run. Every D has soft spots, so you need to attack those, not run right into their strengths repeatedly.



We ran far too few slants, crosses and WR screen types passes, and the Utes were lined up to give those to us all game long. When we did run t hen, guess what? They worked, unless they got dropped, which happened far too often.



Point being, going fast is not good enough. Because all that does is lead to quick 3 and outs. You gotta be better at attacking the soft spots. Right now, BYU has not done that, accept against Texas. We failed at it vs. Virginia and Utah. So to me, this is partially a scheme issue, partially a QB read issue, since so much is on Taysom.

It leads to three and outs because THill has been atrocious in the passing game. The runs up the middle worked against Texas because the runs to the outside were working. They didn't work against UVA or Utah. They didn't work against those schools because the runs to the edge weren't working and those weren't working because the passing game didn't soften up the run defense.



If THill starts throwing the ball better and efficiently, it opens up everything. It's the key to our success right now.

RIght, so in order to improve the passing game, Ane needs to implement more passes that have a higher success rate. That means fewer passes where Taysom is 1) Rolling out, and 2)throwing to guy more than 15 yards down the field on the sidelines.



My biggest complaint with Anae v1.0 was how his passing game rarely attacked the middle of the field. This still holds true with v2.0. Utah was basically giving us slants and crossing patterns and we still didn't take them. And when we did throw them, they worked really well. They need to add more of them. GIve taysom easier throws. THat will improve the passing game.

Lawboy wrote:
RIght, so in order to improve the passing game, Ane needs to implement more passes that have a higher success rate. That means fewer passes where Taysom is 1) Rolling out, and 2)throwing to guy more than 15 yards down the field on the sidelines.



My biggest complaint with Anae v1.0 was how his passing game rarely attacked the middle of the field. This still holds true with v2.0. Utah was basically giving us slants and crossing patterns and we still didn't take them. And when we did throw them, they worked really well. They need to add more of them. GIve taysom easier throws. THat will improve the passing game.

Both aspects can be solved with greater TE involvement. Then again, Richard Wilson is probably back in Anae's doghouse.

Lawboy wrote:
RIght, so in order to improve the passing game, Ane needs to implement more passes that have a higher success rate. That means fewer passes where Taysom is 1) Rolling out, and 2)throwing to guy more than 15 yards down the field on the sidelines.



My biggest complaint with Anae v1.0 was how his passing game rarely attacked the middle of the field. This still holds true with v2.0. Utah was basically giving us slants and crossing patterns and we still didn't take them. And when we did throw them, they worked really well. They need to add more of them. GIve taysom easier throws. THat will improve the passing game.

Passing game is a chicken/egg problem right now. Both will be fixed essentially at the same time.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I don't think the offense lacks identity. I've seen that thrown around the last few days. The offense clearly knows what they want to do. They want to play at an extremely fast pace. The problem isn't the lack of an identity. The problem isn't that they don't know what they want to do. The problem is the offense is hamstrung by the play of the QB. Once it becomes more efficient and consistent - either through a new player or exceptionally improved play by THill - the supposed lack of offensive identity will disappear.

I suppose my view is that the offense knows what it wants to be...but I am not sure that it has what it takes to do it. Hard to have an identity without tasting success. Otherwise, it is, in the words of Bronco, the INTENT to have execution catch up with the speed.



Are we really convinced that - as currently constituted - this go fast, go hard offense is a sustainable formula for BYU offensive success? I have some doubts...but I am open to being proven wrong.



I am not sure why tempo became the solution...given that last year's team was nearly good enough at normal tempo minus the offensive futility.



Basically, I think BYU's offense has one critical resource to it - passing efficacy. For all that has been said thus far, BYU had a clear identity when it had John Beck and Max Hall.

Rob Morris said on the big show yesterday that it is one thing to know what you want your identity to be - but it is another thing to arrive at that identity. That is probably the best statement on the matter. I see the difference, and I don't think BYU has arrived at an offensive identity.

pjmuli wrote:
Rob Morris said on the big show yesterday that it is one thing to know what you want your identity to be - but it is another thing to arrive at that identity. That is probably the best statement on the matter. I see the difference, and I don't think BYU has arrived at an offensive identity.

BYU has arrived at what the identity to be. They just haven't arrived at being that identity - at least not at an effective, efficient or acceptable level.



They need time. It's been three games.

So, what is the identity of this offense? Go Fast? They do that. Going fast is a tactic ... it is a feature. What is this team going to be ... a smash-mouth middle run team? a spread? Run first? Pass first? There are lots of options to choose from ... and still go fast. So, when you say they have an identity ... but haven't grown into it, what is it? Looks to me like smash mouth football and we have the wrong O-line for that.

Yes, Going Fast and Going Hard is the identity. Is not smash-mouth middle run also a tactic? Passing first is a tactic.



The team is going to be a fast-paced, run-oreinted offense.