Cougs cover the spread!

It was UGLY! But Hill threw better than ever and the receivers showed up, and defense played well. Ammon Olsen even got on the field.



What do you guys say were the best and worst of the night?

Worst were turnovers. Best was that the passing game shows up, and Hill was 14-19, though without any TD's. His interception is on Lasike, though. Ball bounced right off him.



I do wish that Olsen could get an opportunity to throw the ball a bit. I'd like to see his accuracy.

Hill was 141.2 QB Rating. Would have been higher if they gave Thompson the TD and remove the INT.

19 passing attempts out of 74 plays... you have a QB who needs to seriously polish his throwing game against an inferior opponent that was never going to be a threat to win the game and what does Bronco and Anae do? Run, run and run... amazing. Get ready for another Utah type game next week in Logan.

Wolfman wrote:
19 passing attempts out of 74 plays... you have a QB who needs to seriously polish his throwing game against an inferior opponent that was never going to be a threat to win the game and what does Bronco and Anae do? Run, run and run... amazing. Get ready for another Utah type game next week in Logan.

Hate to say I agree, but I wouldn't put money on the game next week. Our Oline was getting blown up regularly.

Wolfman wrote:
19 passing attempts out of 74 plays... you have a QB who needs to seriously polish his throwing game against an inferior opponent that was never going to be a threat to win the game and what does Bronco and Anae do? Run, run and run... amazing. Get ready for another Utah type game next week in Logan.

That 74 play # is exaggerated. Byu didn't need to pass at all in the 4th quarter. Ammon ran a handful of plays in the 4th that were gimmie runs.



Byu did pass more on 1 & 2nd down and that helped keep the 3rd and longs away. TH is a run first QB, throwing 19 times in a blow out seems right on to me.

BYU followed the game plan as laid out by the football experts on the CougarCorner podcast. This was exactly what they should have done in order to lead to more success in the future.

stgeorgefan wrote:

19 passing attempts out of 74 plays... you have a QB who needs to seriously polish his throwing game against an inferior opponent that was never going to be a threat to win the game and what does Bronco and Anae do? Run, run and run... amazing. Get ready for another Utah type game next week in Logan.

That 74 play # is exaggerated. Byu didn't need to pass at all in the 4th quarter. Ammon ran a handful of plays in the 4th that were gimmie runs.



Byu did pass more on 1 & 2nd down and that helped keep the 3rd and longs away. TH is a run first QB, throwing 19 times in a blow out seems right on to me.

Further, BYU ran 50 plays in the 2nd and 3rd quarters - that's a 100-play pace. They only ran 14 plays in the 4th - which makes sense as they're up 27 points most of the quarter and there's no need to play with urgency. And in the 1st quarter, MT had over 11 minutes of time of possession due to BYU's short field on their first drive and the muffed punt and turnovers b BYU.



So 74 plays was still within the GFGH model.

Ungoy wrote:
Worst were turnovers. Best was that the passing game shows up, and Hill was 14-19, though without any TD's. His interception is on Lasike, though. Ball bounced right off him.



I do wish that Olsen could get an opportunity to throw the ball a bit. I'd like to see his accuracy.

I agree. This seems to sum it up. In the newspaper, someone commented that Olsen came in midway through the fourth when it was a four-possession game.



Put AO in earlier-maybe midway/late in the third, possible earlier in the fourth. Give hi enough time early enough that he throws 3-6 passes. They're not crucial for the win, but they would let him get his jitters out before his passes really matter.

When your starting QB has been struggling to regain his accuracy, I think it would be the epitomy of stupid to sit him just to give the backup some real-time snaps when those same snaps could be used, as they were Friday night, to continue the development of the #1 QB.



With how Hill has been struggling, he needed every snap he could get to continue his improvement, and I think it's complete ass-hattery how many people think we should have cut Hill short to "see what Olsen can do"--simply to further a QB controversy that should not even be close to controversial at this point.

snoscythe wrote:
When your starting QB has been struggling to regain his accuracy, I think it would be the epitomy of stupid to sit him just to give the backup some real-time snaps when those same snaps could be used, as they were Friday night, to continue the development of the #1 QB.



With how Hill has been struggling, he needed every snap he could get to continue his improvement, and I think it's complete ass-hattery how many people think we should have cut Hill short to "see what Olsen can do"--simply to further a QB controversy that should not even be close to controversial at this point.

Sno ... as usual, you have some keen insight.



But, unlike usual, I have to disagree ... Hill got hurt last year because he wasn't taken out when he should have been. Assuming Hill gets hurt, don't we want a qb with gametime experience other than garbage plays? It isn't to fuel a qb debate (Bronco isn't taking part in that) ... it is to build players for the good of the team. AO should have had some more meaningful reps, and a series or two less for Hill hurts less than the good for AO ... but then Bronco and Anae agree with you and not me ...

mtnradio wrote:
Hill got hurt last year because he wasn't taken out when he should have been. Assuming Hill gets hurt, don't we want a qb with gametime experience other than garbage plays? It isn't to fuel a qb debate (Bronco isn't taking part in that) ... it is to build players for the good of the team. AO should have had some more meaningful reps, and a series or two less for Hill hurts less than the good for AO ... but then Bronco and Anae agree with you and not me ...

If Hill was an upperclassman and was seasoned in his own ability and the offense the team runs, say like Beck or Hall, I would agree. But Hill is not a seasoned guy who doesn't need extra game snaps to develop. He's a very green and raw sophomore who needs as many game snaps as he can to get a bit more seasoned and battle-ready.



In the optimum quarterback development programme, I would agree with you. However, BYU will not have an optimum quarterback development programme until 2015 at the soonest when Hill or Olsen is the seasoned vet and Mangum is back to develop in the backup role but heir apparent.



Unfortunately at this point, Anae, Beck, and Bronco are in a situation where they simply must put all their eggs in the Hill basket and hope to get one developed QB at the top of the depth chart this season, otherwise they'll end up with equally undeveloped QBs at both positions on the depth chart if they start worrying about #2 at this point.

So you agree Sno - it was wise of Doman to get Hill 1 more meaningful rep as a freshman vs USU to further the freshman's development rsther than take a knee or take him out in a game already won.



Hill should have been taken out for his own protection vs MTSU given that our 2 fastest RBs have already been concussed. If Hill got injured in the 4th quarter, there would have been a ton of 2nd guessing.



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

Similar to the PER discussion - don't put too much weight into any one single play.



It should also be noted that THill didn't have one rushing attempt in the 4th quarter. He only had six 2nd half rushing attempts (one of which was a sack). He had 10 passing attempts. Players not named THill ran the ball 22 times in the 2nd half.



They were already being careful with THill and limited his running.



For comparison. He had 10 rushing attempts vs Utah in the 2nd half. Five vs Texas and seven vs UVA. This was the first game he did not run the ball in the 4th quarter.

Cougarbib wrote:
So you agree Sno - it was wise of Doman to get Hill 1 more meaningful rep as a freshman vs USU to further the freshman's development rsther than take a knee or take him out in a game already won.



Hill should have been taken out for his own protection vs MTSU given that our 2 fastest RBs have already been concussed. If Hill got injured in the 4th quarter, there would have been a ton of 2nd guessing.

The game situation this year was a lot different than when he got injured this year.



The last play of the game last year wasn't--it was about having the quarterback and center who had practiced together the most that week and were warm making the exchange. The third string quarterback probably wouldn't fumble if he came in cold to take the final snap, but it's a lot more likely the third stringer fumbles than the guy who'd been playing all game.



It is just like in today's Ohio State / Wisconsin game today--OSU's starting quarterback came on to the field for the final play of the game just to take a knee. The OSU QB didn't need the experience--he's just the person least likely to screw up in that situation.

Yes. But Hill did not take a knee last year vs USU. He practiced his running game.





Should have taken a knee vs USU and should have been taken out Friday night.



Spin it any way you want. But stuff happens. How bout a bad snap on a play called to hamd it off to Algie Brown. Ever seen a bad snap at BYU recently. Bad snap. Hill dives on it with 4 or five others diving on him. Arm or shoulder injury.



Ask Steve Clement. Happened on about his first snap after replacing injured John Walsh or Ryan Hancock iirc.



Ever seen the running back collide with the QB on a broken play and cause a fumble and chaos as QB dives on it. Oh yeah. A week or two or three ago.



Ever seen a lineman backing up while your starting QB is getting that last meaningful snap to develip his passing confidence and put a 300 pound cleat on QBs foot as he is dropping back? Creatung chaos and a dog pile.



Stuff happens. I have seen all of the above and more.



Hill should have come out sooner.



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

Hill stayed in as long as he needed to. In this game, it was more important that he get plenty of reps running the offense in real time. Without those reps, we lose a lot more games. If he gets injured, stuff happens. Against Utah State, he did not need more reps. The game was over, he needed to take a knee. It was unfortunate that he did not. Had he taken a knee against Utah State, he might not have needed the reps on Friday. However, he needed those reps, he did not get injured and we have an opportunity to beat Utah State this week.

Last season against USU, the injury was the result of bone-headed miscommunication. If the right play gets communicated, understood, and run, Hill doesn't get injured.



I have no problem with Hill being in at that point in the USU game last season. The issue was the communication.

Sno is 100 percent correct.



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

jonnylingo wrote:
Sno is 100 percent correct.



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

Ironically, if you actually read my post, I totaslly agree that Hill should have still been in vs USU. That it because the game was still very much on the line, and a bobbled snap or other problem or even a miscommunication, could have cost us the game. For example, what if he fumbled on that run play after his knee got hit. But as I already said. Hill was supposed to be on the field. Right call. Should have taken a knee.



MTSU - different story. Game was out of hand. He should have been on the bench as he eventually was. Just a lot sooner.