USU Bounty on BYU

http://www.heraldextra.com/sports/college/byu/football/byu-football-cougars-unleashing-player-play-designing-creativity-after-te/article_684dc0dd-ccbe-55bf-9f51-167d9f222b02.html



Apparently USU coach Matt Wells gets a $5K bounty or bonus for beating BYU...

Up the bonus: When Mendenhall was told that Utah State head coach Matt Wells gets a $5,000 bonus for beating BYU, he appeared surprised.



"Is that all?" Mendenhall said. "He needs to get that raised. I need to help him negotiate that. Five thousand dollars ... If he were a bounty hunter, I wouldn't even go after that target. I'd be waiting to go after someone bigger than that."



Mendenhall said he doesn't have a bonus like that in his contract and also that he sees the bonus just reflecting the importance of doing well close to home.

Maybe if Bronco did have a clause like that he'd see the importance of beating Utah and we'd have a better record against them...

If someone coaches in any way different because of a one game bonus, he's the wrong guy for the job.

Really? I've heard so much from Cougar fans on here and elsewhere that they wish so much that Bronco wouldn't treat the Utah game like "just another game."

I don't want Bronco to treat Utah like something other than just another game. What I would like to see is game planning specifically to take advantage of weaknesses and matchups, cover our own weaknesses and matchups, take away their strengths, magnify our strengths, etc. I'm sure to some degree they are already doing it, but I would like to see more of it. Ideally, you make it so film on you even from the previous game is garbage, because you're going to do different things, or the same things from different looks. That's different than "We just need to execute, regardless of who our opponent is," which is what we typically hear. It's also different than just singling out the Utah game. We've seen what happens with Utah - they get up for big games and overachieve, and then they take a loss to Colorado or get shut out by UNLV. That's not what I want for our team.



I've seen some flashes of team-specific game plans this season, with some unbalanced fronts on offense to create some running room and some weird alignments on defense when Tuiloma was out, but I'd like to see more.

redneckjedi wrote:
I don't want Bronco to treat Utah like something other than just another game. What I would like to see is game planning specifically to take advantage of weaknesses and matchups, cover our own weaknesses and matchups, take away their strengths, magnify our strengths, etc. I'm sure to some degree they are already doing it, but I would like to see more of it. Ideally, you make it so film on you even from the previous game is garbage, because you're going to do different things, or the same things from different looks. That's different than "We just need to execute, regardless of who our opponent is," which is what we typically hear. It's also different than just singling out the Utah game. We've seen what happens with Utah - they get up for big games and overachieve, and then they take a loss to Colorado or get shut out by UNLV. That's not what I want for our team.



I've seen some flashes of team-specific game plans this season, with some unbalanced fronts on offense to create some running room and some weird alignments on defense when Tuiloma was out, but I'd like to see more.

Good post. I like.



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

redneckjedi wrote:
I don't want Bronco to treat Utah like something other than just another game. What I would like to see is game planning specifically to take advantage of weaknesses and matchups, cover our own weaknesses and matchups, take away their strengths, magnify our strengths, etc. I'm sure to some degree they are already doing it, but I would like to see more of it. Ideally, you make it so film on you even from the previous game is garbage, because you're going to do different things, or the same things from different looks. That's different than "We just need to execute, regardless of who our opponent is," which is what we typically hear. It's also different than just singling out the Utah game. We've seen what happens with Utah - they get up for big games and overachieve, and then they take a loss to Colorado or get shut out by UNLV. That's not what I want for our team.



I've seen some flashes of team-specific game plans this season, with some unbalanced fronts on offense to create some running room and some weird alignments on defense when Tuiloma was out, but I'd like to see more.

I don't disagree, but I think the game preparation Bronco discusses in his public comments and his actual game-by-game preparation may be two different things.

I suspect they are two different things, I just don't have any insight into the actual game prep to know. I can use some trends to help, like how our offensive output got worse every year against TCU from 2005-2010, and sometimes there are some isolated head scratchers, like why we were unable to get any rushing yards against SJSU, who is terrible against the run (yeah, I know, no O-line, but we knew that going in and we still attempted 25 run plays before abandoning the run only in the second half...).

I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

Thats exactly what Crowton did. The problem is the offense isn't prepared to run them at a high level because they've only practiced them a few times.



Which is why without a ton of senior leadership on a team Crowton's teams absolutely suck.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

You mean like having a DT convert to TE and throw a TD? :crazy:

mtnradio wrote:

I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

You mean like having a DT convert to TE and throw a TD? :crazy:

Yes. But also like the delayed hand-off (the old draw trap) that we've run to some success the last few games. I don't recall that play from earlier in the season.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

You mean like having a DT convert to TE and throw a TD? :crazy:

Yes. But also like the delayed hand-off (the old draw trap) that we've run to some success the last few games. I don't recall that play from earlier in the season.

And, I agree, generally, the playbook should expand as you go through the season. It doesn't mean that each week a new play has to be added for that game ... but add new wrinkles by expanding the playbook and potentially adding wrinkles to existing plays, all of which makes the team more versatile and harder to defend.

redneckjedi wrote:
I don't want Bronco to treat Utah like something other than just another game. What I would like to see is game planning specifically to take advantage of weaknesses and matchups, cover our own weaknesses and matchups, take away their strengths, magnify our strengths, etc. I'm sure to some degree they are already doing it, but I would like to see more of it. Ideally, you make it so film on you even from the previous game is garbage, because you're going to do different things, or the same things from different looks. That's different than "We just need to execute, regardless of who our opponent is," which is what we typically hear. It's also different than just singling out the Utah game. We've seen what happens with Utah - they get up for big games and overachieve, and then they take a loss to Colorado or get shut out by UNLV. That's not what I want for our team.



I've seen some flashes of team-specific game plans this season, with some unbalanced fronts on offense to create some running room and some weird alignments on defense when Tuiloma was out, but I'd like to see more.

I would like to see done for every game period and not just flashes of it

mtnradio wrote:

mtnradio wrote:

I think each week plays should be run that opponents haven't seen on film so they could not be prepared for.

You mean like having a DT convert to TE and throw a TD? :crazy:

Yes. But also like the delayed hand-off (the old draw trap) that we've run to some success the last few games. I don't recall that play from earlier in the season.

And, I agree, generally, the playbook should expand as you go through the season. It doesn't mean that each week a new play has to be added for that game ... but add new wrinkles by expanding the playbook and potentially adding wrinkles to existing plays, all of which makes the team more versatile and harder to defend.

.



That has been BYU major problem is that Anae sticks with the same 9-10 plays and only adda a play or 2 if he feels needs which isn't very often.

Same problem Chow had late in his BYU tenure (although early on he seemed to be better ...)

Someone just missed out on a couple Gs. Would have made some good casino money.

BroncoBot wrote:
Someone just missed out on a couple Gs. Would have made some good casino money.

Looks like Christmas is going to be a little lighter this year at one coach's house.



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

This is one of the negative side effects of not treating in-state games like any other game (and don't get me wrong, there are negative side-effects for both sides). But you come out with a lot of emotion, but you have a very bad moment and that emotional swing is huge and it's very hard to over come. Obviously the Aggies couldn't handle the devastating Keeton fumble scoop and score and BYU handled the early Aggie emotional well.