BYU should thank the Utes....

.....for creating a bigger, more news worthy embarrassment of Oregon so Cougs get off the radar. Unbelievable.

Anyone want to accept that Holmoe scheduled BYU into oblivion? Just simply too hard of a first month.

Or do you think that BYU coaches and players really believed the hype that they were an amazing program and didn't have to prepare for Mich? What's up with coaches interviews saying that we didn't prepare???

Mars wrote:


BYU reads its press clippings more than most teams out there. Success seems to always be quickly followed by a harsh reality check (Utah, TCU, Boise State, Florida State, etc.).

Glad I'm not the only one noticing this.



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

I think that is the coaches taking the blame so the players aren't singled out for poor performances. I do hope it is a reality check so they are ready for the upcoming 4 game home stand in October. They could be bowl eligible before October's over if they come out focused and play well. UConn, East Carolina, Cincinnati, and Wagner should not be favored out west.

Coaches properly try to focus blame on themselves rather than on the players. And I'm glad they do.



I don't Blame Holmoe, The scheduling is what it takes for BYU to be on the national radar, and isn't tremendously different than if in a p5 ... our cupcake just comes later in the season.



In reality, this team is about where most of us expected ... just with a very different cast than expected. We expected Hill, Williams, Tuiloma, etc and are here with a freshman just off his mission, and guys who may not have even been on the depth chart in August.



The :utard: will do what they do ... I don't care. The problem with being blue goggled :crazy: is I like to get overly optimistic and then get disappointed when they come back to earth.



Relax guys .. the team is good, not great (yet). But it will be a good year ... especially if the coaches (and team) are serious and learn from this weekend's butt-kicking.

I think Holmoe wants us to play with the big boys as much as anyone. The question is, does he have a program and coaching staff capable of it?



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

KingCoug wrote:
I think Holmoe wants us to play with the big boys as much as anyone. The question is, does he have a program and coaching staff capable of it?



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

The program is up to it, but not these coaches. Bronco is an excellent DC, but is bad at most head coaching measurables, and Anae is mediocre at being an offensive co-ordinator and recruiter, and has no ceiling above that.

I just wish Bronco could find a guy as innovative and sound on offense as he is on defense. Bronco is a great DC, a pretty good HC (he's underrated as a recruiter), but needs someone who can carry the water on the other side of the ball.



Anae has never run an offense he created. First time here he ran Mike Leach's offense. This time he's running Rich Rod's offense. He has never created a scheme, nor has he developed the ability to adjust his play calls. Just calls what worked for the others.



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

Certain teams thrive well under certain types of coaches (warning, backed up with only a few anectdotes):



For example, BYU thrives with a defensive head coach. LaVell was a defensive coach, as is Bronco. Crowton was not. At BYU, the defensive side of the ball needs more emphasis from the head coach. The key for BYU is getting a good defensive coach that can hire good offensive coordinators and round out the staff. I'll let others argue about whether Robert Anae is a good offensive coordinator or not.



Florida is a school that needs an offensive head coach. Spurrier, Meyer, and McElwain are all offensive head coaches, and there is no doubt Florida succeeded under the previous two and is on the rise again under the current coach. Zook and Muschamp were defensive coaches, and Florida failed miserably. In Florida, the offensive side of the ball needs more emphasis.



Alabama needs a defensive head coach. Alabama was miserable under Mike Shula and some others I can't remember. But under Bear Bryant, and Nick Saban, they are a much better team.



Teams just seem to have a competitive advantage on one side of the ball or the other based on the type of recruits they get and who they play. When Bronco decides to retire, BYU would do well to recruit another defensive head coach.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Certain teams thrive well under certain types of coaches (warning, backed up with only a few anectdotes):



For example, BYU thrives with a defensive head coach. LaVell was a defensive coach, as is Bronco. Crowton was not. At BYU, the defensive side of the ball needs more emphasis from the head coach. The key for BYU is getting a good defensive coach that can hire good offensive coordinators and round out the staff. I'll let others argue about whether Robert Anae is a good offensive coordinator or not.



Florida is a school that needs an offensive head coach. Spurrier, Meyer, and McElwain are all offensive head coaches, and there is no doubt Florida succeeded under the previous two and is on the rise again under the current coach. Zook and Muschamp were defensive coaches, and Florida failed miserably. In Florida, the offensive side of the ball needs more emphasis.



Alabama needs a defensive head coach. Alabama was miserable under Mike Shula and some others I can't remember. But under Bear Bryant, and Nick Saban, they are a much better team.



Teams just seem to have a competitive advantage on one side of the ball or the other based on the type of recruits they get and who they play. When Bronco decides to retire, BYU would do well to recruit another defensive head coach.

You present an interesting correlation.BUt you are confusing with causation, almost non-sequiter. A great HC gets what he needs on the opposite side of his abilities.

Anae is startingto show again why he is not the guy. His staunch, almost defiant, stubborn, personality precedes his predictability. He did not scheme for tall, strong, athletic DBs-- i just dont get what his deal is. Was it arrogance? Why would he say after the worst performance in 40 years, thatBYU has to 'go back to thedrawing board?" Really?? Try more than 10 plays for crying out loud. Did Anae not realize that his biggest offensive weapon was the element of surprise? Its almost like he climbed inside TMans head and said, "now we have taken lots of risks, and its paid off, but lets shut that down and focus on not turningthe ball over, so dont go down field. dont take risks and dont force anything--like you did when you lost the game for us at UCLA." I mean seriously. Does he thing he has a true frewshman back there? HOw about a few slants for crying out loud.

All we heard out of practice was how "physical" they were practicing during the week? Really?? Why did our WRs look so weak? if theDBs are going to grab and harrass, then punch them in the mouth back!!! What tape was Anae watching? Horrible. Absolutely and intolerably horrible. 105 yards people. I know our guys were tired. I know i should be over the loss by now.

But seriously, folks, if you think this will be an easy win for BYU this week against a decent defense, dont count on Anae "going back to the drawing board" and coming up with anything worth a snot. His bag of tricks is comprised of putting in a super small but big hearted RB who doesnt really belong in D1 ball. I love Carter, but... Heres one, how about a TE slant. Hey Anae--since all you can do is copy offenses, wy dont you watch how Mich destroyed us with big, slow TEs right up the middle!! Ok, im done. sorry.

Not to be argumentative, but I think there is more than correlation at work. It is just a theory at this point, and I recognize that even if you are a coach from the right side of the ball, you can still be a failure. Fore example, Charlie Weiss, Ty Willingham, Knute Rockne, and Ara Parseghian were all offensive coaches but Weiss and Willingham were failures. But Bryan Kelly is also an offensive coach, and seeing more success. So, you have to be the right kind of coach for the area that will provide your team a competitive advantage, but you still have to be a good coach. The failures seem to happen more often where the head coach's experience is on the wrong side of the ball from where it can get its biggest competitive advantage.



For Florida, it has tons of speed on both sides of the ball. Its biggest competitive advantage, in a league that focuses on defense, is to focus on the offensive side of the ball and take advantage of that speed. Hence, Spurrier and Meyer succeeded, and I predict Jim McElwain will as well. Alabama, in the same league, has never had the speed Florida has on offense. Its biggest competitive advantage is to have an overpowering defense. Hence, Bryant, Stallings, and Saban--successful defensive coaches. Mike Shula, an offensive coach, not so much.



Another example is USC. The PAC 12 is a high scoring offensive league. Because USC has talent on both sides of the ball, USC's biggest competitive advantage is a great defense stopping those high scoring offenses. Pete Carroll at USC--defensive coach. Lane Kiffen and Steve Sarkisian--offensive coaches. My prediction, Sark won't get it done because he isn't always going to be able to outscore other teams. Also, I think Utah will be successful in the long run with a defensive head coach, if they can get a half-way decent offense, because its competitive advantage is defense in a league where offense rules. :sick: They can't outscore other high-scoring offenses, so their biggest competitive advantage will be defense...and they have had very good defenses.



Think back to New Mexico under Rocky Long. It wasn't ever going to have a high-powered offense, but under Rocky Long and Bronco, they did pretty well with a good defense.



In sum, it comes down to looking at who you play and what you have. When I coached my son's basketball team a couple of years ago, I noticed during the player evaluations and before the draft that no one could make a basket outside of a few feet. So I drafted my team based on defense and rebounding, and focused mostly on defense and rebounding. When others did lay-up drills to warm up, we did rebounding and defense drills to warm up. We took second place in the league, even though I had never coached before, simply because I found out the competitive advantage necessary to win in that league and focused on that.



So, I don't think it is correlation without causation. I think teams naturally have a competitive advantage. Where they get their best talent, compared with what is needed to win in a league determines it. And when a head coach can emphasize that advantage, the team finds success.

Not to be argumentative back....lets say a friendly discussion......but it seems you are retrofitting your data to fit your theory--which of course most scientists do anyways. But to say your model is a solid fit is a bit like Anae thinking his approach works for whatever team he plays.

LaVel was still an offensive innovator, even though he was a D guy. Yes, he had smart very good coaches operationalizing his vision, but i wouldnt paint him as a defensive specialist/genious in the likes that Bronco is.

As for other coaches, i suspect Alabama would dispute that they dont have speed, in comparison to Florida. A study of team speed and or drafted number of athletes would debunk your theory.

Anyway, there does seem to be again, some correlation to your theory but I think a more direct comparison of a coaches own personal characteristics are more predctive of their success incomparison to there specialty mixed with their conference. Afterall, where would that leave theindependent Bronco? ;-)

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Not to be argumentative back....lets say a friendly discussion......but it seems you are retrofitting your data to fit your theory--which of course most scientists do anyways. But to say your model is a solid fit is a bit like Anae thinking his approach works for whatever team he plays.

Well, I am a lawyer after all. :lol:

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Not to be argumentative back....lets say a friendly discussion......but it seems you are retrofitting your data to fit your theory--which of course most scientists do anyways. But to say your model is a solid fit is a bit like Anae thinking his approach works for whatever team he plays.

Well, I am a lawyer after all. :lol:

Im messing with the wrong Marine. You win. :-)

Cougs_Rule wrote:

Anyway, there does seem to be again, some correlation to your theory but I think a more direct comparison of a coaches own personal characteristics are more predctive of their success incomparison to there specialty mixed with their conference. Afterall, where would that leave theindependent Bronco? ;-)

Actually, I think this explains BYU's struggles as an independent. Because the competition changes every year, our competitive advantage does not always match up well against other teams strengths. We saw that in the Michigan game. Their defense was every bit as talented as our offense was. And their focus on power football, in an era when everyone is trying to stop spread offenses is going to pay dividends. There is something to be said for knowing who your competition is going to be, and recruiting/coaching the talent to take advantage of the competition.



If BYU were in the Big XII, I think we would take some lumps at first, but over time, once we understood our competition, and assuming we understood what our competitive advantage would be, we could actually find more success.

Great discussion guys. So is the Big12 an offense league? Could our D handle them?

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Anyway, there does seem to be again, some correlation to your theory but I think a more direct comparison of a coaches own personal characteristics are more predctive of their success incomparison to there specialty mixed with their conference. Afterall, where would that leave theindependent Bronco? ;-)

Actually, I think this explains BYU's struggles as an independent. Because the competition changes every year, our competitive advantage does not always match up well against other teams strengths. We saw that in the Michigan game. Their defense was every bit as talented as our offense was. And their focus on power football, in an era when everyone is trying to stop spread offenses is going to pay dividends. There is something to be said for knowing who your competition is going to be, and recruiting/coaching the talent to take advantage of the competition.



If BYU were in the Big XII, I think we would take some lumps at first, but over time, once we understood our competition, and assuming we understood what our competitive advantage would be, we could actually find more success.

We have proven to be able to compete in the Big12 with the type of program we have now. I think that our biggest struggle is depth. Our 1's can compete with anyones 1's. The drop off is too significant after that. I think P5 programs all have 1's two and three deep. We don't. I think inclusion in a P5 will bring us two and three deep that are 1's.

scott715 wrote:
Great discussion guys. So is the Big12 an offense league? Could our D handle them?

I happen to think they are an offensive league at this point. There was a time, with the blackshirts of Nebraska, with Ferentz at Iowa, when Stoops first went to Oklahoma, with Texas A&M, and the former Texas teams when I would have said that the Big 12 was a defensive league that you could win with great offense. But with Iowa and Nebraska leaving to the Big 10, Texas A&M going to the SEC, and Oklahoma and Texas losing some luster on defense, I really only see TCU as a huge defensive hurdle to get by in the Big 12. Honestly, I am ignorant on Baylor's defense. BYU's competitive advantage in the Big 12 would have to be on the defensive side of the ball, because I don't see our offense keeping up with the offenses of Baylor, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, etc. without being able to slow down their offenses. Plus, we our recruiting advantage is for very good LBs, Defensive Lineman (as shown by those going to the NFL) and occassionally some great safeties.



I think our games versus Texas and Oklahoma show that great defense and good offense will lead to victory in the Big 12. TCU is the most scary, because they play great defense and have a very good offense. All in all, with the proper focus on building up our defensive depth, as Utah has done in the PAC, I think we could stack up pretty nicely against most opponents in the Big 12. TCU will be a tall order year in and year out (and Baylor may be, but, again, I don't know anything about their defense). That doesn't mean we will win all the games, but we will certainly be competitive in all of them. It still comes down to players making plays, and coaches putting them in position to make plays.