Criticizm of the offense

All week long all we heard was that BYU can only win on the big play. BYU can't sustain drives. BYU only wins on Hail Mary passes. Well, BYU and Tanner Mangum proved tonight that they are not a 1 trick pony. We drove the field on a very good defense and scored TD's. Yes, we needed to convert 1 more TD instead of a FG and we win the game. We needed to stop the O one more time and we win the game. BYU didn't make the plays needed to win, but they showed major improvement. This team is going to be really good. They are going to be really good this year and even better next year. This is supposed to be a "rebuilding" year especially with the losses we have had of our best players on O. Next year is going to be the year to talk about undefeated and Playoff. We have the schedule and we have the players.

frdbtr wrote:
All week long all we heard was that BYU can only win on the big play. BYU can't sustain drives. BYU only wins on Hail Mary passes. Well, BYU and Tanner Mangum proved tonight that they are not a 1 trick pony. We drove the field on a very good defense and scored TD's. Yes, we needed to convert 1 more TD instead of a FG and we win the game. We needed to stop the O one more time and we win the game. BYU didn't make the plays needed to win, but they showed major improvement. This team is going to be really good. They are going to be really good this year and even better next year. This is supposed to be a "rebuilding" year especially with the losses we have had of our best players on O. Next year is going to be the year to talk about undefeated and Playoff. We have the schedule and we have the players.

The question is, do we have the coaches?



In other words, with everything falling into place, giving us the best opportunity to go undefeated, can Bronco and Anae not screw it up?



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

The offense, despite receiving essentially 5 turnovers from our defense (3 INTS, 1 turnover on downs, and 1 onside kick recovery), failed to meet their benchmark of 24 or more points in a game. They abandoned the run and made poor decisions that resulted in 3rd and very very longs and at that point ceded the momentum the UCLA and gave them life. Why do you give up on the running game when you are up ten points on the road?



Yeah, our defense couldn't stop the run, but they met their benchmark in allowing 24 or fewer points. I think both sides of the ball were frustrating in the second half, and I think everyone bears the onus on this loss, kick coverage units as well.



There's a lot of blame to go around

The only way Bronco can screw it up is by handing off the D to someone else. He is a master. Sure things could be learned from last night. Such as, it's better to give up five penalty yards than to sacrifice the time outs which can cost the game. But UCLAs scheme wore BYU down. But BYU gets blown out with last year's D.

Anae? That's another story. I'm not sure you run on third down and eight before the last field goal. Is he becoming a little predictable, again? Who knows. Sure seemed a little safe. But our D has been stout in Q4 of first two games. So, it was conservative.

I do wish TMan would have thrown the ball up deep and let a tall WR try and bring it down. He totally forced that last pass into double coverage. But, otherwise, TMan is the man.

But criticiSm of the offense has to be somewhat limited. It almost seems the most glaring weakness was Richer Mathews. More is expected of Srs. Anae's adjustment of putting Lui in was a great adjustment. Mathews late whiffed on a block for the screen that could have gone for more yards. Oh well, takes a team.

We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

snoscythe wrote:
The offense, despite receiving essentially 5 turnovers from our defense (3 INTS, 1 turnover on downs, and 1 onside kick recovery), failed to meet their benchmark of 24 or more points in a game. They abandoned the run and made poor decisions that resulted in 3rd and very very longs and at that point ceded the momentum the UCLA and gave them life. Why do you give up on the running game when you are up ten points on the road?



Yeah, our defense couldn't stop the run, but they met their benchmark in allowing 24 or fewer points. I think both sides of the ball were frustrating in the second half, and I think everyone bears the onus on this loss, kick coverage units as well.



There's a lot of blame to go around

And when given a chance to get to that 24-point offensive output benchmark, Bronco and Anae decided to kick a FG. They should have taken a risk.

Schmoe wrote:
We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

Agreed!

SpiffCoug wrote:

The offense, despite receiving essentially 5 turnovers from our defense (3 INTS, 1 turnover on downs, and 1 onside kick recovery), failed to meet their benchmark of 24 or more points in a game. They abandoned the run and made poor decisions that resulted in 3rd and very very longs and at that point ceded the momentum the UCLA and gave them life. Why do you give up on the running game when you are up ten points on the road?



Yeah, our defense couldn't stop the run, but they met their benchmark in allowing 24 or fewer points. I think both sides of the ball were frustrating in the second half, and I think everyone bears the onus on this loss, kick coverage units as well.



There's a lot of blame to go around

And when given a chance to get to that 24-point offensive output benchmark, Bronco and Anae decided to kick a FG. They should have taken a risk.

Amen, Amen! Hit the benchmark you set for your players! Don't play to lose, step on the throat and attempt to end the game there and then. Control your own destiny...and show confidence in your players!

Bronco is a defensive minded coach and for most of the game we held their offense in check. I'm sure Bronco figured, we kick the field goal, my defense stops them, and we win. Unfortunately, the defense didn't do it's job on the last drive. I agree that going for the 1st down instead of diving into the line would be a better play when a guy like Mangum was picking up first downs with the pass all game long. What if we threw a pass, and Mangum got intercepted, then the criticism would have been "Dr Bob!! why not just run the ball and kick the field goal!!" When plays don't work, everyone second guesses with hindsight. I figured with the 6 point lead, our defense would hold. I, like Bronco, was wrong in that assumption and we lost.

snoscythe wrote:
They abandoned the run and made poor decisions that resulted in 3rd and very very longs and at that point ceded the momentum the UCLA and gave them life. Why do you give up on the running game when you are up ten points on the road?

We didn't abandon the run.



The offense never had the ball with a 10 point lead. When we went up 20-10 on UCLA, the Bruins scored a TD on the next drive.



But when we got the ball back we ran the ball 5 times on that drive and converted on every third down except for the last one (which was a running play). It resulted in a FG.



UCLA then scored a TD again.



Then we ran our 2 minute offense trying to get into field goal range where our RBs only ran the ball twice.



Sacks and penalties were the killer on offense, but the run pass balance throughout the game was just fine.

Schmoe wrote:
We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

We went toe to toe? Whoopdee doo. We had the game won and gave it away.



And, for the record, my philosophy has always been that both responsibility for losses and praise for victories begins and ends with the coaches.



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

snoscythe wrote:
The offense, despite receiving essentially 5 turnovers from our defense (3 INTS, 1 turnover on downs, and 1 onside kick recovery), failed to meet their benchmark of 24 or more points in a game.

UCLA didn't have a turnover on downs. The one INT where we got good field position out of it we scored 3 points. The other 2 INTs were in the Blue Zone. One of those Blue Zone interceptions was with :30 seconds left in the first half.



The bottom line, the offense gave the Defense a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter. And the Defense curled up on the fetal position and allowed 9 rushes for 115 yards and 2 touchdowns in the next two drives.



It was totally a team loss, but only twice did our defense and special teams put our offense in a good position to score.

KingCoug wrote:

We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

We went toe to toe? Whoopdee doo. We had the game won and gave it away.



And, for the record, my philosophy has always been that both responsibility for losses and praise for victories begins and ends with the coaches.



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

Would you like me to phrase it differently: we were in a position to win because of the coaches. Without the coaches, we don't sniff the 14-point spread. Give credit where credit is due. (Sorry, I know, they owe you a win in this game because you care more about it than they do and it affects you much more than it does them).



Also, if coaches deserve praise in wins, why haven't you been giving it to them after the previous two games. Your philosophy seems to be "keep mum if we win, harangue coaches when we lose."

This is why we lost the game.


646044700764340224

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

We went toe to toe? Whoopdee doo. We had the game won and gave it away.



And, for the record, my philosophy has always been that both responsibility for losses and praise for victories begins and ends with the coaches.



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

Would you like me to phrase it differently: we were in a position to win because of the coaches. Without the coaches, we don't sniff the 14-point spread. Give credit where credit is due. (Sorry, I know, they owe you a win in this game because you care more about it than they do and it affects you much more than it does them).



Also, if coaches deserve praise in wins, why haven't you been giving it to them after the previous two games. Your philosophy seems to be "keep mum if we win, harangue coaches when we lose."

I see your point but wins more or less speak for themselves. When we win, I credit the coaches before the players.

frdbtr wrote:
This is why we lost the game.


646044700764340224

Crap like that (that can and should be avoided) is what makes the loss hard to swallow.



While I do recognize the improvement in lack of turnovers and penalties, we've struggled at times (and apparently lost this game) because of the lack of fundamentals with simple tackling.



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



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

KingCoug wrote:

KingCoug wrote:

We went toe-to-toe with this team because of coaching. I love how some people see the plays that go well as a result purely of players playing well and with the mindset "if the @!$# coaches would just get out of the way and let the players play, we'd win every game!"



The things that worked are on the coaches and players, and the things that didn't work are on the coaches and the players. That's how a team works. Not to say that there's no coaching decisions to be criticized, but there are also many that should be praised (sustained drives against a really good defense like UCLA are rare).

We went toe to toe? Whoopdee doo. We had the game won and gave it away.



And, for the record, my philosophy has always been that both responsibility for losses and praise for victories begins and ends with the coaches.



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

Would you like me to phrase it differently: we were in a position to win because of the coaches. Without the coaches, we don't sniff the 14-point spread. Give credit where credit is due. (Sorry, I know, they owe you a win in this game because you care more about it than they do and it affects you much more than it does them).



Also, if coaches deserve praise in wins, why haven't you been giving it to them after the previous two games. Your philosophy seems to be "keep mum if we win, harangue coaches when we lose."

I see your point but wins more or less speak for themselves. When we win, I credit the coaches before the players.

frdbtr wrote:
This is why we lost the game.


646044700764340224

Crap like that (that can and should be avoided) is what makes the loss hard to swallow.



While I do recognize the improvement in lack of turnovers and penalties, we've struggled at times (and apparently lost this game) because of the lack of fundamentals with simple tackling.



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



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

Is it a lack of taught fundamentals or a lack of execution of taught fundamentals? I see one being more on coaches and one being more on players. IMO I think it is more the latter than the former. Go Cougars!

KingCoug wrote:
I see your point but wins more or less speak for themselves. When we win, I credit the coaches before the players.

But then you said this in the "Winning despite Anae's coaching" thread.

KingCoug wrote:
Hard to talk up Anae now :sick:

So I'm guess the sick face is actually a compliment and saying it's hard to talk Anae up is actually giving him credit?



To be fair, you did also say this.

KingCoug wrote:
It's easy to defend Anae as long as we are winning. But even the biggest Anae defender has to admit he does a lot of play calling that is just baffling.

Which I guess you are counting as a defense of Anae? And also giving him credit here?



But I'm not sure how categorize this. Constructive criticism

KingCoug wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is his decisions to run the ball or pass the ball and when. For example, with Unga we were running the ball down Utah's throat in the 2008 game. Yet, for some reason, Anae decided to all but abandon the run in favor of passing. And, well, that led to 5 interceptions. In this last game against Boise State, we kept trying to run the ball and went nowhere for the entire first half and part of the 3rd quarter. In fact, we had negative yards at half time if I remember right. I'm not saying we shouldn't have been combining the run and pass but it seems Anae's playbook is rather vanilla when it comes to the run. I swear 80% of his plays are right up the middle. And he'll keep doing it until hell freezes over, even if it's not working. I think the better coaches we play against, especially those familiar with BYU like Whittingham and Patterson, find Anae predictable and are able to shut him down fairly easily.

But since we won the Boise game, and you say you credit coaches when they win, I'm guessing this constitutes as praise from you?



http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&p=214660&hilit=Despite#p214660" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&hilit=Despite&start=20#p214393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&hilit=Despite&start=30#p214404" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Criticizm of the offenze"?



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

SpiffCoug wrote:

I see your point but wins more or less speak for themselves. When we win, I credit the coaches before the players.

But then you said this in the "Winning despite Anae's coaching" thread.

KingCoug wrote:
Hard to talk up Anae now :sick:

So I'm guess the sick face is actually a compliment and saying it's hard to talk Anae up is actually giving him credit?



To be fair, you did also say this.

KingCoug wrote:
It's easy to defend Anae as long as we are winning. But even the biggest Anae defender has to admit he does a lot of play calling that is just baffling.

Which I guess you are counting as a defense of Anae? And also giving him credit here?



But I'm not sure how categorize this. Constructive criticism

KingCoug wrote:
One thing that comes to mind is his decisions to run the ball or pass the ball and when. For example, with Unga we were running the ball down Utah's throat in the 2008 game. Yet, for some reason, Anae decided to all but abandon the run in favor of passing. And, well, that led to 5 interceptions. In this last game against Boise State, we kept trying to run the ball and went nowhere for the entire first half and part of the 3rd quarter. In fact, we had negative yards at half time if I remember right. I'm not saying we shouldn't have been combining the run and pass but it seems Anae's playbook is rather vanilla when it comes to the run. I swear 80% of his plays are right up the middle. And he'll keep doing it until hell freezes over, even if it's not working. I think the better coaches we play against, especially those familiar with BYU like Whittingham and Patterson, find Anae predictable and are able to shut him down fairly easily.

But since we won the Boise game, and you say you credit coaches when they win, I'm guessing this constitutes as praise from you?



http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&p=214660&hilit=Despite#p214660" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&hilit=Despite&start=20#p214393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18756&hilit=Despite&start=30#p214404" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I think something is worthy of complimenting the coaches on, I will. Like I said, a general rule is that credit for wins and blame for losses begin and end with the coaches.



That said, I am of the opinion we won the Boise State game in spite of Anae's play calling. We finally did get the run game going half way through the 3rd quarter but were going nowhere before that.



I also have to take Bronco to task with the D. While there is nobody I'd rather have running it more than him, lack of fundamentals (tackling anyone?) has been alarming. And the complete breakdown of the D in the 4th quarter is probably what cost us the game. Well, that and us leaving points on the board and settling for field goals.



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



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

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. You DON'T compliment the coaches. You only criticize them.