Washington = Michigan replay?

Anyone else struck by the similarities of this game and the Michigan game a few years ago? I think it's worth looking at: it's early in the season, BYU appears to have a reasonably good team, the defense seemed stellar at times, the offense could use some work but hey they're good enough, surely the team will at least show well, but in the end its a disaster. One that is hard to explain.



I thought Michigan must have stolen BYU's playbook because they had countered BYU's schemes so well. Washington played out almost exactly the same. I was impressed that the Huskies were so effective at everything they were doing. They looked SO much better in that BYU game than they ever looked in any game before that.



Not even the Las Vegas line predicted that BYU players would perform so poorly in Seattle. Most people, even fans, thought BYU would win, but no one predicted the UW would nearly shut BYU out.



Why did BYU make Washington look so good? I think it might have come down to something very simple. Corbin and Tanner. So it doesn't take much to stifle Tanner. Just apply pressure. Now why our offensive line couldn't give a Wisconsin-game performance, I don't have an answer, but clearly they didn't and the run game was nothing which meant they could pressure easily and Tanner was neutralized. Same outcome at Michigan.



But then why didn't the defense hold firm? What was with that? I got to thinking about the fact that TakiTaki looked like a beast and was all over Wisconsin's tailback in large part because Corbin Kafusi was constantly disrupting and it made Sione's job easier. Could it be that all Washington had to do was shut down Corbin and the rest was simple?



Shut down Corbin and the defense is subpar, shut down Tanner (good or bad QB, as a QB he is still the linchpin of the jet-sweep offense) and the offense is non-existent. Was it that simple? Is that what Michigan did too with Bronson?



I could grouse about how much holding Washington was doing, but they got nailed for it a couple times and BYU was unable to capitalize on it anyway, so in the end, the BYU defense just didn't have what it took to stay with them.



So disappointing to think they simply got lucky against Wisconsin, but how else do you interpret it?

The defense being vanilla did not help, but man, I swear that Washington was also holding Corbin on almost every single down. Maybe I'm just a biased blue goggled fan, but I was getting really upset about that part. Corbin was definitely "contained" for most of the game.

And same as Wisconsin last year.

Washington shut off the Jet sweep because they were getting early penetration on it and so the runner can't get a good run at the edge, just like CAL did. BYU's offensive line was horrible in the CAL and Washington games, they were also not very good against McNeese but we were able to completely out talent the FCS team. As far as the defense. We have seen this defense every year that Tuiaki has been the Dcoordinator but Washington completely exposed it unlike most of the other teams we have played this year(CAL also exposed our defense in the second half of that game). There is just no way that not getting pressure on an opposing QB is going to work. Just no way. The defense is going to have to change or this coaching staff isn't going to last long here. The beginning of the end may come on Friday because Utah state has the offense to expose this defense again and IMO we don't have the offense to keep up with them.

Yzzazz wrote:



Why did BYU make Washington look so good? I think it might have come down to something very simple. Corbin and Tanner. So it doesn't take much to stifle Tanner. Just apply pressure. Now why our offensive line couldn't give a Wisconsin-game performance, I don't have an answer, but clearly they didn't and the run game was nothing which meant they could pressure easily and Tanner was neutralized. Same outcome at Michigan.

I see the comparison you're trying to make, but I think it breaks down with reference to Tanner. Mangum was way better against Washington where he was 18 for 21 (85.7% !!), no picks, for 160 yards 7.6 YPA and 2 sacks for a 149.71 efficiency rating. Against Michigan he was 12/28 (42.85% !!) for 55 yards with 0 INTs, 3 sacks and 2.2 YPA for a 59.36 Efficiency rating.



Tanner did pretty much what the game plan asked him to do. His receivers couldn't reliably get open (or catch) down field, so he couldn't get go vertical. But it's pretty clear that Tanner didn't lose this game. The passing game was contained, but I don't see evidence that Tanner was rattled.



Our O-line was just inferior and couldn't open holes against anyone but the benchwarmers. Katoa's fumble hurt, but the run game just couldn't get anything going. Washington bet that their secondary could contain our receivers and they were absolutely right. That let them stack the box and shut down the run.



The receivers, O-line, and entire defense was out-classed. A good part of that was injuries to several of our play makers. I won't call him a bright spot, but Mangum was the one spot that wasn't ugly.

Having been present at both the Washington and Michigan games, my impression was that both opposing coaching staffs saw the same thing on film. That their players were literally faster at every single position on the field. That includes the line of scrimmage. When BYU was on offense, they could commit 8 to the box on most plays, knowing that the outside receivers did not have the speed to get any separation, and that they could get pressure at any time due to faster line and linebacker play. So they played base defense and added blitz packages with no fear of being beaten deep.



When BYU was on defense, we have no player other than Kafusi who had the speed to get clear of blockers. So they double-team or chip on him, and just let everyone else handle their man one-on-one. The backs would wait and wait for holes to develop, and then hit them. But the blocking was so good the hole was forming at 5 yards upfield already. so even if we stopped the backs at the point of contact with the o-line, they are gaining 6-8 yards on the play.



In short, neither Washington nor Michigan did anything complicated scheme-wise, they just let their superior athletes play straight up, which we simply could not match for any significant amount of time.

cougarapologist wrote:

...



In short, neither Washington nor Michigan did anything complicated scheme-wise, they just let their superior athletes play straight up, which we simply could not match for any significant amount of time.

That's a reasonable analysis, but why didn't the Wisconsin game go that way?

Yzzazz -- I've missed your in-depth posts.



Glad you're back in the fold.

Add USU to this list.