S
SpiffCougIt's virtually impossible to know if the correct calls are being called right now when the passing game poses very little threat. Teams know they can suck in in rush defense and THill can't beat them with his arm right now.
Archived Topic
What's Your Alternative to GFGH?
by snoscythe · 9/25/2013
Advertisement
S
stuckinbig10countrySpiffCoug wrote:
It's virtually impossible to know if the correct calls are being called right now when the passing game poses very little threat. Teams know they can suck in in rush defense and THill can't beat them with his arm right now.
My comment was more directed towards looking at how Oregon runs it. They get to the line quickly, but even then they change the play a lot, even from the sideline.
S
stuckinbig10countryI'm also much more concerned that a 60% passer from last year (in the 2 starts) has dropped 20%+ in accuracy. Sno says it's something from the injury. I think it has to do with that and some coaching as well. Also, receivers are dropping a TON of balls.
Reading Ogletree's comments, 8 of the first 15 incompletions were WR issues, not QB issues (5 drops and 3 bad routes). At that point, assuming all of the bad routes and drops had been catches, he's 20 for 27 at that time.
Reading Ogletree's comments, 8 of the first 15 incompletions were WR issues, not QB issues (5 drops and 3 bad routes). At that point, assuming all of the bad routes and drops had been catches, he's 20 for 27 at that time.
S
snoscythestuckinbig10country wrote:
I'm also much more concerned that a 60% passer from last year (in the 2 starts) has dropped 20%+ in accuracy. Sno says it's something from the injury. I think it has to do with that and some coaching as well. Also, receivers are dropping a TON of balls.
Not to mention he has even less pass protection up front this season than we had last year.
M
mormonrastaI like GFGH.
It is not an offense that requires the QB to complete 65% of his passes which is good given our talent level on the OL, QB, and WR.
We have a very good stable of running backs and the most athletic quarterback in school history. Running the ball should be the primary priority. The tempo is important because it doesn't allow for defenses to be creative. A fast tempo also wears defenses down.
As far as whether or not BYU has the speed to run this offense, I think we have to manage expectations. This offense can be very effective without Oregon speed. The reason Oregon runs "only" 75-80 plays a game is because they have substiantially more big plays. They have 4 or 5 guys that are home run hitters that can break a tackle and take it 80 yards for a TD.
BYU has 1 home run hitter (Hill), three doubles hitters (Williams, Hine, Hoffman), and a bunch of very effective singles hitters. And that's OK. Just like we adapted the TT style passing game to a more methodical offense using the TE; we can adapt the Oregon or Arizona speed offense into a more methodical power offense that requires 90-95 plays instead of 75-80.
But like our old offense under Anae, because we do not have much in terms of big play capability we need to be efficient on 3rd down. We've been woefully bad so far especially in the passing game. 7 completions on 37 attempts on 3rd down is awful. If we can get that to 40% or 50% this offense could really excel.
It is not an offense that requires the QB to complete 65% of his passes which is good given our talent level on the OL, QB, and WR.
We have a very good stable of running backs and the most athletic quarterback in school history. Running the ball should be the primary priority. The tempo is important because it doesn't allow for defenses to be creative. A fast tempo also wears defenses down.
As far as whether or not BYU has the speed to run this offense, I think we have to manage expectations. This offense can be very effective without Oregon speed. The reason Oregon runs "only" 75-80 plays a game is because they have substiantially more big plays. They have 4 or 5 guys that are home run hitters that can break a tackle and take it 80 yards for a TD.
BYU has 1 home run hitter (Hill), three doubles hitters (Williams, Hine, Hoffman), and a bunch of very effective singles hitters. And that's OK. Just like we adapted the TT style passing game to a more methodical offense using the TE; we can adapt the Oregon or Arizona speed offense into a more methodical power offense that requires 90-95 plays instead of 75-80.
But like our old offense under Anae, because we do not have much in terms of big play capability we need to be efficient on 3rd down. We've been woefully bad so far especially in the passing game. 7 completions on 37 attempts on 3rd down is awful. If we can get that to 40% or 50% this offense could really excel.
Advertisement
G
Guestpjmuli wrote:Lark stunk. It took SDSU one game of film to completely shut him down. BYU's bread and butter has always been a QB who could efficiently throw the football.
Right now BYU is now on year four of not having one.
As for the marathon comparison, you're correct. Anae used the same comparison. He said the GFGH offense is a marathon that shouldn't be judged after the 3rd mile. He said it was going to take until at least mile 13 (half the season) before it should be judged.
But the passing game MUST be fixed. I think GFGH gives THill his best chance to do that right now. He has passing lanes, he has open receivers. He's just missed them more often than not.
Once he starts throwing accurately and efficiently, the offense will take off.
Interesting thoughts. After watching SDSU, I actually thought that had Lark played the entire season, we would have won a couple more of the close games. While he did not punch it in the end zone often, he was fairly effective at making some throws to improve the field position battle. When Nelson played in that same game, the floor caved in.
The reason why I don't like GFGH at the moment is because I believe it will wear down the defense as the season carries on. Would love to be proven wrong...but if we are going to have three and outs, GFGH seems like defensive suicide.
Also, it just seems a bit pollyanna to expect Hill to develop into an accurate passer within the scope of this season. I am not saying it will not happen - but there is very little evidence to support that viewpoint. He is the worst passing quarterback in the nation. To hold out hope that he will transform himself does not appear to be grounded on solid footing.
So long as the passing game is one of the worst in recent history, teams will load the box and the zone read will become more difficult and the offensive line will continue to look worse. Of course the offensive line looks terrible when the defense has no reason to drop into coverage.
Can GFGH compensate for athletic deficiencies? Probably...but one has to seriously question the degree to which we were outclassed athletically at any point this season. Exactly when will it be that the GFGH makes up this enormous gap? I don't see any game on our schedule where that is the case.
The bottom line is that the difference between being 8-5 last year and 12-1 was quarterback play. I think the difference between being 3-0 and 1-2 is the same this year - and it is mildly amusing that our solution is to speed up tempo and try to have a dual threat quarterbacks who are actually one dimensional.
Lark was absolutely terrible in that game, I just rewatched it before the season started and the game was a miserable experience offensively. After I rewatched it, I realized that our win/loss record would have been no different if Lark had started.
W
WolfmanSpiffCoug wrote:
Lark stunk. It took SDSU one game of film to completely shut him down. BYU's bread and butter has always been a QB who could efficiently throw the football.
The Aztecs were #3 in total defense last year going into the bowl game... Hill would have had the same problems if not more so because at least Lark was an accurate passer. I know it was New Mexico State, however, Lark completed 70% of his passes in that game last season at the end of the year before the bowl game en route to 50 points and 400 yards passing. Even vs. SDSU, he was completing 55% of his passes and threw for 250 yards.
Right now BYU is now on year four of not having one.
As for the marathon comparison, you're correct. Anae used the same comparison. He said the GFGH offense is a marathon that shouldn't be judged after the 3rd mile. He said it was going to take until at least mile 13 (half the season) before it should be judged.
He's grasping at straws, hoping this silly GFGH scheme will work out, but right now, it's painfully obvious it doesn't work and will not work against decent defenses. Texas' D was horrific and BYU took advantage of it... they would have run for 400+ yards even without the GFGH style.
But the passing game MUST be fixed. I think GFGH gives THill his best chance to do that right now. He has passing lanes, he has open receivers. He's just missed them more often than not.
Exactly... missing more than not.
Once he starts throwing accurately and efficiently, the offense will take off.
You can't teach accuracy or touch... either as a guy has it or he doesn't.
W
WolfmanAlso, there's a high likelihood that Olsen will play at least 1-2 quarters in the game Friday night as the Cougs should not get much of a challenge out of MTSU... if he comes in and starts leading the offense more efficiently than Hill and connecting with receivers consistently, Bronco and Anae are going to have a big decision and controversy come Saturday.
S
SpiffCougWolfman wrote:Lark stunk. It took SDSU one game of film to completely shut him down. BYU's bread and butter has always been a QB who could efficiently throw the football.
The Aztecs were #3 in total defense last year going into the bowl game... Hill would have had the same problems if not more so because at least Lark was an accurate passer. I know it was New Mexico State, however, Lark completed 70% of his passes in that game last season at the end of the year before the bowl game en route to 50 points and 400 yards passing. Even vs. SDSU, he was completing 55% of his passes and threw for 250 yards.
As good as SDSU's defense was, Lark made them look even better. BYU was 77.5 rushing yards BELOW what SDSU gave up on average. BYU was 50.2 yards BELOW what SDSU was giving up in total yards. And BYU was 50.5 PER points BELOW the average SDSU opponent.
W
WolfmanSpiffCoug wrote:SpiffCoug wrote:
Lark stunk. It took SDSU one game of film to completely shut him down. BYU's bread and butter has always been a QB who could efficiently throw the football.
The Aztecs were #3 in total defense last year going into the bowl game... Hill would have had the same problems if not more so because at least Lark was an accurate passer. I know it was New Mexico State, however, Lark completed 70% of his passes in that game last season at the end of the year before the bowl game en route to 50 points and 400 yards passing. Even vs. SDSU, he was completing 55% of his passes and threw for 250 yards.
As good as SDSU's defense was, Lark made them look even better. BYU was 77.5 rushing yards BELOW what SDSU gave up on average. BYU was 50.2 yards BELOW what SDSU was giving up in total yards. And BYU was 50.5 PER points BELOW the average SDSU opponent.
6 TD passes in one game Spiff is hard to do, even against a team like the NMSU Aggies. Look, I'm not saying Lark would have been a world-beater last year, but he was clearly a better passer than any other QB on the team and he rode the bench for 11 games. Bronco and his staff have mismanaged the QB spot (and offense for that matter) 4 years running now... he is a D Coordinator and obviously primarily concerned with the defense... he is not a head coach by traditional standards as a true head coach would have addressed the offensive woes years ago and not made the blunders that have been made now for 4 years in a row. And keep in mind... most NCAA coaches would be on the hot seat for losing to their rival 4 straight seasons and add to that the offensive woes, mismanagement of the QB spot, the silly man-crush with Riley and absurd comments about loving and sticking with his QB even in the face of poor performances... how can you defend that?
Advertisement
S
SpiffCougI believe this year has proven that you can learn nothing from playing New Mexico St about your own team.
And other than the passing touchdowns, Lark didn't do anything special against New Mexico St. It was an awful pass defense. Lark was only 24.6 PER points above their defensive average. Nelson, in the season opener was 24.1 PER points above Washington St. Anyone want to argue Nelson was lights out against those Cougars?
Lark also threw the ball 22 more times than most opponents did. Remember how excited everyone was back in 2010 because Heaps was tearing it up against UNLV, CSU, and UNM? He was only 26.5 PER points above those average defenses. Roughly 24 PER points, while nice isn't a whole bunch.
For the record, I do think Lark was the best passing QB on the team last year. I do think had he been given more reps and more games, he likely would have been somewhere between his game against SDSU and NMSU. He also would likely have improved over the course of the season. BYU likely would have won at least two more games last year if he were the full-time starter.
And other than the passing touchdowns, Lark didn't do anything special against New Mexico St. It was an awful pass defense. Lark was only 24.6 PER points above their defensive average. Nelson, in the season opener was 24.1 PER points above Washington St. Anyone want to argue Nelson was lights out against those Cougars?
Lark also threw the ball 22 more times than most opponents did. Remember how excited everyone was back in 2010 because Heaps was tearing it up against UNLV, CSU, and UNM? He was only 26.5 PER points above those average defenses. Roughly 24 PER points, while nice isn't a whole bunch.
For the record, I do think Lark was the best passing QB on the team last year. I do think had he been given more reps and more games, he likely would have been somewhere between his game against SDSU and NMSU. He also would likely have improved over the course of the season. BYU likely would have won at least two more games last year if he were the full-time starter.
W
WolfmanSpiffCoug wrote:
BYU likely would have won at least two more games last year if he were the full-time starter.
Agreed... in fact, I think if Lark had been the starter all year, they'd have beaten every team except Oregon State and would have been 11-1 and in a BCS bowl... that's how special the D was last year. But when you have a head coach and O Coordinator that don't know what they are doing offensively or with the quarterbacks, that's when you go from potentially being 11-1 to 7-5.
S
stuckinbig10countryWolfman wrote:BYU likely would have won at least two more games last year if he were the full-time starter.
Agreed... in fact, I think if Lark had been the starter all year, they'd have beaten every team except Oregon State and would have been 11-1 and in a BCS bowl... that's how special the D was last year. But when you have a head coach and O Coordinator that don't know what they are doing offensively or with the quarterbacks, that's when you go from potentially being 11-1 to 7-5.
They wouldn't have been in a BCS bowl, as Northern Illinois picked up the only open spot, and would have under the rules of the BCS.
R
runbyu1SpiffCoug wrote:
I believe this year has proven that you can learn nothing from playing New Mexico St about your own team.
And other than the passing touchdowns, Lark didn't do anything special against New Mexico St. It was an awful pass defense. Lark was only 24.6 PER points above their defensive average. Nelson, in the season opener was 24.1 PER points above Washington St. Anyone want to argue Nelson was lights out against those Cougars?
Actually, yes I do. I don't know if it bore out statistically, but I remember being STOKED after the Wash. State game. Riley looked and played like a legit quarterback. It was far and away Riley's best full game that I can remember. (Otherwise, the USU comeback wins that slot!)
S
snoscytheSpiff--what do you expect out of a guy playing 3/4 of the game with a concussion? Have you already forgotten that aspect of Lark's performance against SDSU?
Kind of harsh to say a guy sucks because he had a middlin' game against a good defense while playing concussed.
Kind of harsh to say a guy sucks because he had a middlin' game against a good defense while playing concussed.
Advertisement
S
SpiffCougI didn't say he sucked. I said he stunk against SDSU and he did. His play wasn't "middlin'" it was poor. His PER was 94.04. He threw 2 INTs. If his concussion was that severe then he shouldn't have been playing. He chose to continue to play so he gets judged on his performance.
S
snoscytheSpiffCoug wrote:
I didn't say he sucked. I said he stunk against SDSU and he did. His play wasn't "middlin'" it was poor. His PER was 94.04. He threw 2 INTs. If his concussion was that severe then he shouldn't have been playing. He chose to continue to play so he gets judged on his performance.
Spiff, of all people I can't believe YOU are saying Munns should have played instead of a concussed Lark, because that was the only option left on the bench with Nelson and Hill unavailable. I'd take what we got out of Lark against SDSU any day of the week in lieu of giving Munns the reins.
S
stgeorgefanI find myself being upset at Anae for designing an offense and asking the players to learn it as is. I'd like an offense based on the type of players we have. Wolfy mentions that we don't have the team speed to run GFGH as it is. I'd agree that TH's passing woes make the current form of GFGH a bust.
Of course there is two sides here. You could argue that GFGH in its current form is all about utilizing Byu's offensive strengths, A running QB, good RB's and some good receivers.
You wouldn't want to be running an offense that didn't let TH run. You certainly would want to have TH passing first.
My solution would be to tweak the GFGH for the personal we have. Line up fast(not allowing Defensive subs) but then let TH read the defense if he needs too. Going fast just to go fast is making the offense sloppy and tired. I'd also add a simpler passing game. More short easy throws. More passes to the RB's and TE's and Slot guys.
I'm dying to see some trickery in the offense as well. A reverse with JD, flea flicker to a wr then back to TH for a run?
Of course there is two sides here. You could argue that GFGH in its current form is all about utilizing Byu's offensive strengths, A running QB, good RB's and some good receivers.
You wouldn't want to be running an offense that didn't let TH run. You certainly would want to have TH passing first.
My solution would be to tweak the GFGH for the personal we have. Line up fast(not allowing Defensive subs) but then let TH read the defense if he needs too. Going fast just to go fast is making the offense sloppy and tired. I'd also add a simpler passing game. More short easy throws. More passes to the RB's and TE's and Slot guys.
I'm dying to see some trickery in the offense as well. A reverse with JD, flea flicker to a wr then back to TH for a run?
S
SpiffCougsnoscythe wrote:I didn't say he sucked. I said he stunk against SDSU and he did. His play wasn't "middlin'" it was poor. His PER was 94.04. He threw 2 INTs. If his concussion was that severe then he shouldn't have been playing. He chose to continue to play so he gets judged on his performance.
Spiff, of all people I can't believe YOU are saying Munns should have played instead of a concussed Lark, because that was the only option left on the bench with Nelson and Hill unavailable. I'd take what we got out of Lark against SDSU any day of the week in lieu of giving Munns the reins.
Wasn't calling for Munns either. By that point, BYU was stuck. Stick w/ a poor playing, concussed Lark. Or a broken Riley. Munns wasn't ready either. BYU had no good QB options at that point of the season.
BYU lucked into a win with the way the QB played that day. I don't think Munns could have won that game either. Although, maybe the best game plan was hope for a turnover and hand the ball off. Munns certainly could have done that.
E
EM_PumaIt's called IDGARAHJW
Speaking plainly it is: I Don't Give A Rat's A$% How--Just Win
Speaking plainly it is: I Don't Give A Rat's A$% How--Just Win
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.