Winning despite Anae's coaching

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

cougarapologist wrote:
Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

On at least your first point, you are wrong. From Mitch Juergens:



"I honestly didn't think that the ball was coming to me, we had a receiver on a 10-yard route to secure the first down," Juergens said. "But when he stepped up in the pocket that route was covered so he looked and saw me open and threw it up."



http://www.ksl.com/?sid=36541583&nid=498&title=mendenhall-endorses-mitchell-juergens-dating-life&s_cid=queue-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm no expert, but I kind of like that Anae did not give up on the run game. Many a coach seeing what happened for 2+ Quarters would've folded and just gone pass. I think that would have made it much harder for the team to turn things around. Anae kept at it and in the end it worked out pretty well methinks.

I think what we saw was an offensive coordinator who had a freshman quarterback going against a pretty good defense. I wondered why there were few crossing routes being used but that is more dangerous than throws to the outside in less coverage. I bet we see the playbook open up in the coming weeks as Tanner gains confidence and Anae gains confidence in Tanner.

1. False. Houk was at the sticks and double covered. Juergen's original route was a 15 yard crossing pattern that he broke towards the end zone on the scramble drill (as instructed).



2. Not really. The QB has a lot to do with how the throws are distributed. Any running play that isn't a direct down hill run is not working right now, and I'd like to maybe see them replaced by screens, but it's a way to keep the defense from being able to just sprint up field as fast as they can.



3. Sometimes the coaches on the other side do their jobs too and start taking away effective things.



I'm not the biggest Anae fan, but I think your analysis is pretty far off. The offensive scheme is pretty sound. The QB hasn't caught up to the nuances of it yet. New QBs have a tendency to do one of two things when things are going too fast. They either check down immediately to the short receiver in the pattern, or they chuck it long. We've got a QB that likes the deep ball.



Is Anae too conservative at times? Sure. But punting and living to fight another day isn't the worst strategy for part of a game.

I felt it was good OC play calling. You have a freshman QB who has thrown 2 picks, you need to run the ball and establish the run against a very good defense. It worked. BSU wore out. Those defenders don't wear out if they're not defending against the run throughout the entire game.

It was hard to watch in the second and third quarters, and some of those nagging complaints about Anae's play-calling and inability to adjust at half started echoing through my head like the Ghost of Christmas Past. I was becoming dissalutioned.



But clearly the plan, in its entirety, worked......well.



So I have spent a couple days giddy with the win and wondering if Anae's scheme is finally balanced, and matches the talent BYU has on both sides of the scrimmage line.

cougarapologist wrote:
Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

I don't agree with you. Anae is a good offensive coordinator and we won largely because of him.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

But clearly the plan, in its entirety, worked......well.

And in all honesty, this is the only way to look at any game plan - in its entirety.



If you pick and choose what to count and discount you don't get an accurate picture of what actually happened.

cougarapologist wrote:
Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

No, you are quite correct as for some reason Anae still runs the dive up the middle on first downs and virtually every first down. As well as on 3 and 1 plays either at the goal line or trying to get a first down and as his only play. Had BYU not been bailed out by BSU and the refs BYU would not have scored a TD at the end of the game where BYU had a 1st and 1 or 2 at the goal line and what was the play Anae called every time except for the play in which they scored on when they finally got there?? You guess it a dive up the middle at least 4 times and all were stuffed and had it not been for penalties and the surprise QB sneak BYU wouldn't have scored. The fact is every drive Boise St. stopped BYU on BYU's first down play was a dive up the middle and BYU running game didn't do any thing until they ran running plays to the edge. Anae also reverted to form after the first INT as the next 2 drives were conservative and the first 2 drives after the second INT BYU offense went even more conservative.



Anae needs to have more roll out plays for Mangum as it seems to be his best play as all 3 of his big passes in the BSU game came as was rolling out and the 2 in the Nebraska game were the same way. Granted on most of them he was forced out of the pocket. But it seems to me a designed roll out now and again would be a good call.

jonnylingo wrote:

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

I don't agree with you. Anae is a good offensive coordinator and we won largely because of him.

No Anae is only an average OC and BYU won despite the highly predictable play calling from Anae. Everyone in the stadium knew that BYU would the ball up the middle on first down which is why Boise St. was able to shut down the offense as effectively as they did until BYU had to open up the offense more because they had to score or lose.

He's an average OC? BYU has scored 30 or more points in 14 of the last 15 games including the last six. Oh and in that six game stretch, BYU has started three different quarterbacks and is averaging 44 points.



He's an average OC? BYU has averaged 474 yards over the last 28 games. They have gained more than 500 yards in six of the last 15 games.



He's an average OC? Since coming back to BYU - 28 games ago - the Cougars have run for 200 or more yards in 12 of those games. They have rushed for 150 or more yards in 21 of them (including every game in 2014). They have only failed to rush for 100 yards just three times in the last three seasons.



He's an average OC? BYU has 10 games of 300 or more yards passing. They have thrown for 300 or more yards in nine of the last 10 outings.



I think any team in the nation would an average OC as prolific as Robert Anae.



If you feel like retorting with, "Yeah but all those numbers were against awful teams," let me spare you the effort. You'll be proved wrong there too. As I'll come back with the numbers about how much better BYU has been against those teams than any other team they played against that season.

TheDean wrote:

Does anyone else agree with me that the Cougars have won these two games by overcoming the inadequacies of Robert Anae's game-planning and play calling?

Examples:

1. On the 4th and 7 play at the end of the Boise St. game, Mangum had no choice but to throw for the end zone on a low probability option because he had no receivers running a route designed to get a first down!!

2. Anae's default play-calling pattern is clear: 1st down - low percentage deep ball, 2nd down - draw or trap running play (usually for little or no gain), force long 3rd down. This puts his freshman QB in bad down-and-distance scenarios far too often.

3. In the first half against Neb., Anae was calling plays against his type: short passes, high percentage throws for Taysom; and it was working wonderfully! But late in the game he reverted to the pattern listed above.



This pattern consistently puts too much pressure on his line and QB to make crazy, difficult, low percentage plays. That they have succeeded is only a testament to the athleticism and effort of the players in overcoming the shortcomings of their coach. Its getting worse, not better.'



Am I wrong?

No, you are quite correct as for some reason Anae still runs the dive up the middle on first downs and virtually every first down. As well as on 3 and 1 plays either at the goal line or trying to get a first down and as his only play. Had BYU not been bailed out by BSU and the refs BYU would not have scored a TD at the end of the game where BYU had a 1st and 1 or 2 at the goal line and what was the play Anae called every time except for the play in which they scored on when they finally got there?? You guess it a dive up the middle at least 4 times and all were stuffed and had it not been for penalties and the surprise QB sneak BYU wouldn't have scored. The fact is every drive Boise St. stopped BYU on BYU's first down play was a dive up the middle and BYU running game didn't do any thing until they ran running plays to the edge. Anae also reverted to form after the first INT as the next 2 drives were conservative and the first 2 drives after the second INT BYU offense went even more conservative.



Anae needs to have more roll out plays for Mangum as it seems to be his best play as all 3 of his big passes in the BSU game came as was rolling out and the 2 in the Nebraska game were the same way. Granted on most of them he was forced out of the pocket. But it seems to me a designed roll out now and again would be a good call.

Your analysis of the play calling is so wrong, I am wondering if you watched the game at all.



1st, BYU was throwing quick outs on 1st down A LOT! In fact I thought that was their predictability. 1st down quick out for 5 yards, 2nd down dive into the middle of the line for short gain or loss, 3rd down, dive into the line for short game or loss.



2nd, Your analysis of the play calling on the goal line is not even close to what actually happened. How do you get a PI call when all you do is run into the middle of the line and get stuffed until you do a "trick" play by calling a QB sneak? BYU tried 2 QB sneaks and didn't make it on one, they called a quick pass to Mitch Matthews which drew a Pass interference call. Anyway, giving the ball to Algie Brown on the 1inch line is a pretty good call IMO unless of course your Oline doesn't block anyone. Seriously, watch the game before you come here and gripe about play calling that never happened.



Last of all, rolling the QB out takes half the field of play away from the QB to read. How is that going to spread the field? Anae's offense is a spread offense where he tries to spread out the defense and let his playmakers make plays. Yes, the roll outs worked for Tanner but that was because he had extended the play by getting out of the pocket and then it is a "scramble" drill and guys get lost by the defense and Tanner is awesome at finding them. That kind of street ball doesn't work under normal play calling.

Couple of observations:



1. BSU's strength on D was the outside DEs & OLB. They took away off-tackle runs and sweeps. Not a lot of options other than to pound it up the middle with our strong center and guard play.



2. BSU's DB's had very good speed but were caught off guard when BYU would send out a 5th receiver as a decoy - it allowed Juergens and Blackmon to get wide open behind the DBs as they bit on the short routes.



3. Mangum throws best when he gets out of the pocket and sees the field. He has great arm strength, can throw deep with accuracy, but seems to favor the right side.



4. He is still learning the offense and basics. With continued progression, the offensive playbook will open up and there will be more diversity in the passing game.



5. Hine is gaining confidence in hitting the holes and has a rare blend of speed and power which is difficult to defend once he gets past the DL. When paired with Ho'Ching at FB, he had some big gains. He will need a similar back-up (perhaps Francis Bernard) so he can stay fresh through substitution.



6. OL has depth and seem to get stronger as the game progresses. This explains why they are outscoring opponents 34-0 in the 4th Q.



7. Secondary, our safeties are very good/athletic and play the ball well. OLB bring good pressure on the QB, and the DL is stout against the run. If the O can quit putting the team in poor field position and not put the D in a difficult position with short field, they will beat UCLA.



8. UCLA has not faced a stern test yet and is about to find out what physical style of play is all about for 4 quarters of hard-nosed football. I think their freshmen QB is in for a long day with what he will face against Bronco's D.

I definitely noticed Tanner's preference for rolling right. Even when it appeared there was a clear lane left, he went right into traffic. End result was a sack (at least it looked clear on my screen :) )



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

Anae has done well. And he's made lots of adjustments for personnel. It's correct that much of the play calling on Saturday was to protect Mangum in more ways than one.



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

I think Anae is subpar in gameday playcalling and adjustments. That said, nearly all of the OP criticisms are off the mark. Think of it this way:



If not for the Miracle at Memorial, Anae would have been the scapegoat for a loss at Neb.

If not for Mangum-to-Jeurgens on two broken plays, Anae is the scapegoat for a home-opener loss to BSU.



Bronco has acknowledged that Mangum thrives when the called play breaks down and he gets to play "backyard football", as he's called it. We are fortunate to have a QB that is at his best when what the OC calls doesn't work.

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=36533518&nid=272&title=its-time-to-give-byus-robert-anae-his-due-credit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I have felt in the past that Anae was too predictable. This year he has called the right game plan on offense, and been a breath of fresh air.

I agree with Sno to an extent. I do think Anae 2.0 is better than 1.0 for the most part.



A lot of the 4th Q differential is due to 1) luck and 2) conditioning (thanks, Frank Wintrich)



But yeah, if not for a whole heap of luck, we lose both of those games. I hope the euphoria of that kind of a win isn't keeping the team from realizing how far they need to go.



Tanner's a good QB, but he's young. There were and will continue to be mistakes. It's not Anae's fault that he couldn't catch a couple of well-placed shotgun snaps. It's not Anae's fault that he couldn't connect with his receivers for a painful stretch during Q2.



Last, I think that the improved run game in the second half of Q3 to the end was due to 1) Anae/Atuaia trying different personnel combinations, 2) conditioning (again), and 3) respect for the deep ball. To that point BSU had been burned on enough deep balls that they had to play softer up front. Stretching the field vertically does wonders for the run game.



Mostly, I believe in Austin Collie: Magic Happens.

Jarhead wrote:
I definitely noticed Tanner's preference for rolling right. Even when it appeared there was a clear lane left, he went right into traffic. End result was a sack (at least it looked clear on my screen :) )



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

That's why I practice with my son rolling both right and left after his three step drop. You have to be comfortable going either direction. ;)