byufan4ever wrote:
I think BYU needs to hire a coach that is not doing what nearly every other program is doing.
Watch BYU's offense, it's the same type of offense nearly every other team runs. But when you run up against better athletes we lose those battles. We need to be different. We can't just try to be better at being the same.
Whether that's a triple option or Run-and-shoot or double TE I-formation, BYU needs to be different.
Yeah this is pretty much the conclusion that I've come to.
I can see how that would be useful in an era of Independence where we're not playing the same teams year after year. But we do play a lot of the same teams, so I'm not sure how far the advantage of being different would take us. You can see that in Navy's experience. Outside of the first year Paul Johnson took over, he and his apprentice Ken Niumatolo won 100 games in 12 seasons from 2003 to 2014, an average of 8.3 and only had one down year--a five win season in 2011. But after Navy joined a conference they won 11, 9, 7 and 3 games over the last 4 seasons.
I'm just saying that being different loses its luster when you're playing the same teams over and over. I know that during Independence Navy had a steady slate of the same games, too, but only against three opponents (Notre Dame, Air Force and Army), and they lost year after year to the team the played on repeat with superior talent. I'm just saying, that it wouldn't take Utah long to catch on to what Coach Ken does, find a way to beat it with enough scheme and superior talent. I don't know that the triple option would be any more effective at beating Utah. Besides, Niumatololo was just called to be the Stake President of Annapolis. I highly doubt he'd be approved to come to BYU. There's no way Salt Lake is going to send the signal that BYU football is more important than a stake of Zion. That ship has sailed.
The thing is, BYU is innovative. It has lost to Utah in a different way every year for the last 9 years. Not having the ball for nearly the entire 3rd quarter? That was pretty innovative. Yes, we've thrown pick sixes before, but never twice in an otherwise competitive game. And that's the thing, except for a few bad plays by players (not coaches) resulting in 3 turnovers, BYU did well enough to win. The Offense gave up at least 17 points without the defense on the field (counting the fumble on the 25 as at least a field goal). Defense, too: A facemask penalty out of bounds when we stopped them on 3rd and 27. All of that is on the players, not the coaches.
The only thing I'd lay squarely on the coaches is better half time adjustments--but when has that ever not been the case for BYU? The second half adjustment by Utah in being able to grind out the run game to start the third quarter was a nice move by Utah, but BYU answered well enough after that first drive to start the half. Yes, BYU was gassed later on. But that comes down to depth. Utah has it, BYU doesn't.
Our two deep is competitive; after that, there's a drop off.
I'm not claiming any moral victories here. We lost. It was painful. The coaches shoulder part of the blame. But definitely not all of it. We put too much responsibility and accolades on Head Coaches and CEOs. Truly game changing leaders like Steve Jobs, Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are rare. Thinking we'll find the next one with an unproven guy is what lost us Bronco--a guy who grew into the role. I don't know that knee jerk reactions to fire the coaches will get us to a better place, and it could just as easily lead to a worse place.
In my view, we need to change the scheduling (no more than 4 P5s or rivals), which will yield wins, which will yield better recruits, which will yield more wins against the P5s and rivals. I'm less assertive on coaching.
