All the talk of firing Anae. ANY proof its being considered?

I've made it a point to steer clear of the Anae discussion, mostly because I know little enough about the X's and O's to defer to others' opinions, and don't want to shoot my mouth off BASED on others' opinions.



However, I AM very interested in all of this discussion about Anae being fired. The majority keeps clamoring for it, but I've yet to see any sources asserting that it's being considered. Are there any? I mean, I realize nobody in Bronco's inner circle is gonna come out on record as saying Anae's toast, but have you guys actually heard rumblings? Or is it just grumblings?



I'd like to know if there are some legs to this, and Bronco's ACTUALLY considering a change, or if Bronco's gonna ride the Anae train until Anae leaves on his own terms?

I think that all depends on whether or not they want to have winning seasons from here on out, people in the stands, and boosters donating more or less money...



BYU this season has the unique position of demonstrating if they actually care what their fans think. Step one was completed, with the Bronco takeover and firing of Hill. That got some more people into the stands.



One more season with an Anae led offense like this, and people will find somewhere else to freeze their butts off on a saturday.



And while we are talking about firings, Higgins needs to go, and be replaced by Chad Lewis or Ben Cahoon. Both are reportedly very interested. And if not them, I would also be okay with Eric drage, who is also reportedly interested. Anae is not the only fix here, just the biggest.

After watching Jake lead us down the field with precision passing, it was a shame we took the ball out of his hands on 3 straight plays, for -4 yards. The O-line did not get it done on those plays, either. But the play calling was lame. A roll our right with a run, throw option would have been great. Especially if Jake could have thrown it away easily. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive to win it. Bronco showed the D that in the last 6 games, but the O did not quite learn that lesson, or ignored it on the final drive series.

Lawboy wrote:
After watching Jake lead us down the field with precision passing, it was a shame we took the ball out of his hands on 3 straight plays, for -4 yards. The O-line did not get it done on those plays, either. But the play calling was lame. A roll our right with a run, throw option would have been great. Especially if Jake could have thrown it away easily. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive to win it. Bronco showed the D that in the last 6 games, but the O did not quite learn that lesson, or ignored it on the final drive series.

devil's advocate here. Don't you think Utah was half expecting something like a bootleg to the right, especially after what BYU ran on 4 and 1 earlier. Can you imagine the flak Anae would be taking after his freshman QB threw a pick while in field goal distance with less a minute in the game. I TOTALLY understand being upset about the last 3-4 plays, I was calling for more aggressive plays while watching the game.



BUT I can see what the coaches were thinking, Payne had been money, BYU had had a lot of fluke crap happen and the last thing the coaches wanted to see was another tipped pass for an int. Just get the ball where it needed to be to kick the FG and leave with the W. I find it more atrocious that the O-line broke down like they did on the FG.

declocoug wrote:

After watching Jake lead us down the field with precision passing, it was a shame we took the ball out of his hands on 3 straight plays, for -4 yards. The O-line did not get it done on those plays, either. But the play calling was lame. A roll our right with a run, throw option would have been great. Especially if Jake could have thrown it away easily. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive to win it. Bronco showed the D that in the last 6 games, but the O did not quite learn that lesson, or ignored it on the final drive series.

devil's advocate here. Don't you think Utah was half expecting something like a bootleg to the right, especially after what BYU ran on 4 and 1 earlier. Can you imagine the flak Anae would be taking after his freshman QB threw a pick while in field goal distance with less a minute in the game. I TOTALLY understand being upset about the last 3-4 plays, I was calling for more aggressive plays while watching the game.



BUT I can see what the coaches were thinking, Payne had been money, BYU had had a lot of fluke crap happen and the last thing the coaches wanted to see was another tipped pass for an int. Just get the ball where it needed to be to kick the FG and leave with the W. I find it more atrocious that the O-line broke down like they did on the FG.

Dear Advocate of the Devil,



Who cares if they were expecting it? Worse case scenario you throw the ball away. If the guy is covered, you throw it away. If the run isn't open, you throw it away. Worse case scenario, you lose no yardage, and stop the clock with more plays to run. And yes, Payne had been money on saturday, but why pass up a potential 30 yard FG for a 40 one. Especially when you have Payne kicking, and he has been much less than money throughout his entire career from 35 .



Just a terrible series of playcalling. Jake is the reason that we got to that point, so why not give him at least a handcuffed opportunity to make a play. Tell him, if it's not open don't throw it.



Bottom line, I would rather lose trying to win - than lose trying not to lose any day of the week.

As to the original question, I don't think we had much talk/proof of Hill being fired before he was let go.

declocoug wrote:

After watching Jake lead us down the field with precision passing, it was a shame we took the ball out of his hands on 3 straight plays, for -4 yards. The O-line did not get it done on those plays, either. But the play calling was lame. A roll our right with a run, throw option would have been great. Especially if Jake could have thrown it away easily. Sometimes you need to be more aggressive to win it. Bronco showed the D that in the last 6 games, but the O did not quite learn that lesson, or ignored it on the final drive series.

devil's advocate here. Don't you think Utah was half expecting something like a bootleg to the right, especially after what BYU ran on 4 and 1 earlier. Can you imagine the flak Anae would be taking after his freshman QB threw a pick while in field goal distance with less a minute in the game. I TOTALLY understand being upset about the last 3-4 plays, I was calling for more aggressive plays while watching the game.



BUT I can see what the coaches were thinking, Payne had been money, BYU had had a lot of fluke crap happen and the last thing the coaches wanted to see was another tipped pass for an int. Just get the ball where it needed to be to kick the FG and leave with the W. I find it more atrocious that the O-line broke down like they did on the FG.

If I recall correctly, we lined up in the "I" formation, where we run it 99 percent of the time. The moment we lined up Utah knew we were running it.

Here's my problem with the I-formation argument at the end of the game. Did utah know we would be running? Didn't we line up in the "I" on 4th down earlier? And that call (the 4th down) is taking heat because we should have run. HA. Here's another classic example of Anae getting blasted no matter what he does, even though (and I hate to say this, but) utah should just be getting credit for making the plays. The people that want Anae fired are so intent on that, that they aren't able to step back and see that it wasn't the worst play calling in the world.



But I'll admit, it wasn't the best either.

declocoug wrote:
Here's my problem with the I-formation argument at the end of the game. Did utah know we would be running? Didn't we line up in the "I" on 4th down earlier? And that call (the 4th down) is taking heat because we should have run. HA. Here's another classic example of Anae getting blasted no matter what he does, even though (and I hate to say this, but) utah should just be getting credit for making the plays. The people that want Anae fired are so intent on that, that they aren't able to step back and see that it wasn't the worst play calling in the world.



But I'll admit, it wasn't the best either.

One of those I-formations at the end would have been a great time to run the play action again. Utah wouldn't have been expecting it. Especially on 2nd down after running it up straight up the middle. The Utes at that point were probably thinking we were just lining up the FG. Would have been a great time for play action. Maybe Hoffman would have caught it that time.

I don't have time to do this today, but I think I need to chime in here for the health of the great contributors on this board. You guys are great but I think the sentiment in this thread is off track.



In my opinion, there is ample proof it is NOT being considered.



Exhibit A: Anae did a fine job this year. Whatever problems we had on offense, play calling was the least of them. Witness the win over SDSU.

Exhibit B: Anae did a perfect job on the final series.



Bronco either wants to believe this, knows this, or both.



You don't like those calls at the end of the game? Really? You want your freshman QB, no matter how good a freshman he is, rolling the dice trying to avoid an interception or a tipped ball? You want the likes of Ashworth or our Tight Ends, all with suspect performances this year trying to catch one of Jake's bullets in the final seconds? Or how about you put it in your surest hands, Kariya the fullback to move the ball into the middle of the field so you can put the game on the foot of your senior kicker (that's right, the guy who is close to being a record-setting, all-time leading scorer for the school), who will have a better than 70% chance of locking in a win. Oh and by the way, if you get additional yards on the plays, that's a bonus.



You can second guess lots of play calling decisions on any given series in the game, and i think there might be debatable points. But on the mean I don't see the play calling as having been a realistically negative factor in this game. In the final series, however, play calling is what assured that we would have the VERY BEST ODDS OF WINNING THAT GAME!. The calls were perfect, the final position was maybe five yards further back than you would have liked it to be, but in reality, the snap was good, the hold was good and the kick's trajectory was fine. That Utah got up and made the block was possibly more the fault of the line than anything else. Why isn't anyone calling for Weber's head or whoever is in charge of special teams?



I find the notion that Anae's play calling was the reason we lost the game to be nothing short of ridiculous. Even going for it on fourth. You can say what if we kicked the field goal, but how do you know THAT kick wouldn't have been blocked as well. How do you know it wouldn't have been shanked. Speaking of shanks, how do you know Utah doesn't hit both if its field goal attempts, and we don't even have a chance at the end of the game? Our defense was playing well, and if we had made a touchdown at that point, we might have put the game away for good.



It was a good call.



I think we all need to take a BIG cue from Jake Heaps who once again showed himself media-savvy beyond his own years. I was quite impressed with the way he complimented the Utah fan base and the team and made comments that merely cemented the experience into what it was--yet another high-drama chapter in one of the closest, most exciting rivalry games in the nation.



Firing Anae indeed. This is Bronco we're talking about. This is the same guy who was willing to keep Shiloh around a lot longer than he should have. Willing to give Kyle Van Noy a HUGE second chance. Kept Jaime Hill around so long he had to accept Chambers as a casualty from the experience as well. This is Mr. Loyalty we're talking about.



To sum up:



1. Anae's calling is not horrific.

2. Bronco is fiercely loyal.

3. Such a firing simply isn't going to happen,



so....



4. Do like Jake, accept it and accentuate the positive. You look more classy and you stand a better chance of enjoying yourself.

The game came down to a freshman tight end missing a block on a defender who wound up blocking our field goal. OTher than that it was a game for the ages.



Defender blocked = kick good = game won for BYU.



We wanted to run the clock down so :utard: wouldn't have a chance on some Cal vs Stanford like play.

Of all the play calling errors, I probably have the least problem with the 4th and inches pass play. Fact is, they lined up in the I formation, Utah sold out to stop the run (hitting Kariya in the backfield on the fake), and left Hoffman to make a play. Gutsy play-call that should have been converted. Didn't hurt that two plays later Hunter makes the interception that leads to the Heaps to Jacobson TD.



Also, I don't really care if they went for 2 or not after the td. Based on risk reward, didn't really matter. If it's converted, it's a tie game going to overtime. If not, then the field goal is still blocked. Two point conversions are only about 60% successful, and I think I'm being generous there.



I didn't like the last 3 running plays up the middle; however, I understood those. Set up the field goal, run time, I understand it completely. Don't like the result, but it wasn't terrible.



The one that really bothers me is the 4th and 2 in the first half while being up 6-0. Kick the field goal there, and the entire game changes. The risk in this case does not merit the reward. This is the blundered call. Just not getting talked about because it didn't lead to any Utah points.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Jake is the reason that we got to that point, so why not give him at least a handcuffed opportunity to make a play. Tell him, if it's not open don't throw it.



Bottom line, I would rather lose trying to win - than lose trying not to lose any day of the week.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this subject. And for those talking about "risking" and interception---the #'s aren't in your favor. Jake throws an interception 1 out of what, every 30 passes? I'll take the chance of a TD over the 1 in 30 risk of an INT which would be lessened significantly by telling him to throw it away if a great opportunity isn't there. 'Nuff said

Yzzazz wrote:
I don't have time to do this today, but I think I need to chime in here for the health of the great contributors on this board. You guys are great but I think the sentiment in this thread is off track.



In my opinion, there is ample proof it is NOT being considered.



Exhibit A: Anae did a fine job this year. Whatever problems we had on offense, play calling was the least of them. Witness the win over SDSU.

Exhibit B: Anae did a perfect job on the final series.



Bronco either wants to believe this, knows this, or both.



You don't like those calls at the end of the game? Really? You want your freshman QB, no matter how good a freshman he is, rolling the dice trying to avoid an interception or a tipped ball? You want the likes of Ashworth or our Tight Ends, all with suspect performances this year trying to catch one of Jake's bullets in the final seconds? Or how about you put it in your surest hands, Kariya the fullback to move the ball into the middle of the field so you can put the game on the foot of your senior kicker (that's right, the guy who is close to being a record-setting, all-time leading scorer for the school), who will have a better than 70% chance of locking in a win. Oh and by the way, if you get additional yards on the plays, that's a bonus.



You can second guess lots of play calling decisions on any given series in the game, and i think there might be debatable points. But on the mean I don't see the play calling as having been a realistically negative factor in this game. In the final series, however, play calling is what assured that we would have the VERY BEST ODDS OF WINNING THAT GAME!. The calls were perfect, the final position was maybe five yards further back than you would have liked it to be, but in reality, the snap was good, the hold was good and the kick's trajectory was fine. That Utah got up and made the block was possibly more the fault of the line than anything else. Why isn't anyone calling for Weber's head or whoever is in charge of special teams?



I find the notion that Anae's play calling was the reason we lost the game to be nothing short of ridiculous. Even going for it on fourth. You can say what if we kicked the field goal, but how do you know THAT kick wouldn't have been blocked as well. How do you know it wouldn't have been shanked. Speaking of shanks, how do you know Utah doesn't hit both if its field goal attempts, and we don't even have a chance at the end of the game? Our defense was playing well, and if we had made a touchdown at that point, we might have put the game away for good.



It was a good call.



I think we all need to take a BIG cue from Jake Heaps who once again showed himself media-savvy beyond his own years. I was quite impressed with the way he complimented the Utah fan base and the team and made comments that merely cemented the experience into what it was--yet another high-drama chapter in one of the closest, most exciting rivalry games in the nation.



Firing Anae indeed. This is Bronco we're talking about. This is the same guy who was willing to keep Shiloh around a lot longer than he should have. Willing to give Kyle Van Noy a HUGE second chance. Kept Jaime Hill around so long he had to accept Chambers as a casualty from the experience as well. This is Mr. Loyalty we're talking about.



To sum up:



1. Anae's calling is not horrific.

2. Bronco is fiercely loyal.

3. Such a firing simply isn't going to happen,



so....



4. Do like Jake, accept it and accentuate the positive. You look more classy and you stand a better chance of enjoying yourself.

Great post - play calling did not cost us the game. The Nevada game was the only one I can honestly and with-out bias say that the play calling was terrible.

MJCOUGAR wrote:

I don't have time to do this today, but I think I need to chime in here for the health of the great contributors on this board. You guys are great but I think the sentiment in this thread is off track.



In my opinion, there is ample proof it is NOT being considered.



Exhibit A: Anae did a fine job this year. Whatever problems we had on offense, play calling was the least of them. Witness the win over SDSU.

Exhibit B: Anae did a perfect job on the final series.



Bronco either wants to believe this, knows this, or both.



You don't like those calls at the end of the game? Really? You want your freshman QB, no matter how good a freshman he is, rolling the dice trying to avoid an interception or a tipped ball? You want the likes of Ashworth or our Tight Ends, all with suspect performances this year trying to catch one of Jake's bullets in the final seconds? Or how about you put it in your surest hands, Kariya the fullback to move the ball into the middle of the field so you can put the game on the foot of your senior kicker (that's right, the guy who is close to being a record-setting, all-time leading scorer for the school), who will have a better than 70% chance of locking in a win. Oh and by the way, if you get additional yards on the plays, that's a bonus.



You can second guess lots of play calling decisions on any given series in the game, and i think there might be debatable points. But on the mean I don't see the play calling as having been a realistically negative factor in this game. In the final series, however, play calling is what assured that we would have the VERY BEST ODDS OF WINNING THAT GAME!. The calls were perfect, the final position was maybe five yards further back than you would have liked it to be, but in reality, the snap was good, the hold was good and the kick's trajectory was fine. That Utah got up and made the block was possibly more the fault of the line than anything else. Why isn't anyone calling for Weber's head or whoever is in charge of special teams?



I find the notion that Anae's play calling was the reason we lost the game to be nothing short of ridiculous. Even going for it on fourth. You can say what if we kicked the field goal, but how do you know THAT kick wouldn't have been blocked as well. How do you know it wouldn't have been shanked. Speaking of shanks, how do you know Utah doesn't hit both if its field goal attempts, and we don't even have a chance at the end of the game? Our defense was playing well, and if we had made a touchdown at that point, we might have put the game away for good.



It was a good call.



I think we all need to take a BIG cue from Jake Heaps who once again showed himself media-savvy beyond his own years. I was quite impressed with the way he complimented the Utah fan base and the team and made comments that merely cemented the experience into what it was--yet another high-drama chapter in one of the closest, most exciting rivalry games in the nation.



Firing Anae indeed. This is Bronco we're talking about. This is the same guy who was willing to keep Shiloh around a lot longer than he should have. Willing to give Kyle Van Noy a HUGE second chance. Kept Jaime Hill around so long he had to accept Chambers as a casualty from the experience as well. This is Mr. Loyalty we're talking about.



To sum up:



1. Anae's calling is not horrific.

2. Bronco is fiercely loyal.

3. Such a firing simply isn't going to happen,



so....



4. Do like Jake, accept it and accentuate the positive. You look more classy and you stand a better chance of enjoying yourself.

Great post - play calling did not cost us the game. The Nevada game was the only one I can honestly and with-out bias say that the play calling was terrible.

Not a great post. No. Nevada was not the only poorly called game. Utah State was worse. Add to it the fact that play calling improved only after 2 things happened: Bronco made Anae include coach Doman and Reynolds to be invovled in game planning with strict instructions that Anae stick to the game plan because he would tend to not do that, and 2) we strted playing the worst teams in the league.



Look, we got better as the year went on, without question. But the play calling has been simply ok, and not good enough against top level defenses for 6 years now. The indictment is the record in those types of games, and how few points we put on the board in the bigger games. Not good enough.

12 yards in a half. And 17 points in 12 quarters. And gift wrapping a pick right before the half, when you had previously decided to sit on the ball.



But yeah, you're right, the Nevada game was the only one that was suspect - :roll:









Air Force was expertly called too. Benching the actual qb throwing talent in favor of Riley "One read and Run" Nelson. That was a pretty good move, too. In fact, it was so good he "wouldn't change a thing" if he could go back and do it again. How did that work out for us that second half? It's all a little fuzzy.



There are so many instances more. So, so many...

BlueIsBetter wrote:
12 yards in a half. And 17 points in 12 quarters. And gift wrapping a pick right before the half, when you had previously decided to sit on the ball.



But yeah, you're right, the Nevada game was the only one that was suspect - :roll:









Air Force was expertly called too. Benching the actual qb throwing talent in favor of Riley "One read and Run" Nelson. That was a pretty good move, too. In fact, it was so good he "wouldn't change a thing" if he could go back and do it again. How did that work out for us that second half? It's all a little fuzzy.



There are so many instances more. So, so many...

Let me explain my point: play calling did not cost us the Utah game. That game was well-called IMO, not perfect but well done. I mentioned the Nevada game because the play calling was bad in that game and I think, called differently, we win that game - I did not mention the USU game because to me play calling (though not good) did not cost us that game - it was terrible terrible defense, we were playing from behind, our plays were limited. That was a bad game anyway you look at it. As for the other losses we had, play calling did not cost us the game, a very bad decision to go with 2 qbs cost us that game (and three others) much more than the play calling did. I'm not saying that Anae had a good year, far from it, I'm talking about play calling pure and simple. Should Anae get canned, I don't know. If he does will i be happy? I won't opin until I see whoever we hire do a better job. So many are crying for a new OC but who out there (that wants the job and could get it) could we get? I'm just a litle tired of the Anae comments, there was a place for them prior to our win streak, there is no place for them after the Utah game.

Lawboy wrote:

Yzzazz wrote:
I don't have time to do this today, but I think I need to chime in here for the health of the great contributors on this board. You guys are great but I think the sentiment in this thread is off track.



In my opinion, there is ample proof it is NOT being considered.



Exhibit A: Anae did a fine job this year. Whatever problems we had on offense, play calling was the least of them. Witness the win over SDSU.

Exhibit B: Anae did a perfect job on the final series.



Bronco either wants to believe this, knows this, or both.



You don't like those calls at the end of the game? Really? You want your freshman QB, no matter how good a freshman he is, rolling the dice trying to avoid an interception or a tipped ball? You want the likes of Ashworth or our Tight Ends, all with suspect performances this year trying to catch one of Jake's bullets in the final seconds? Or how about you put it in your surest hands, Kariya the fullback to move the ball into the middle of the field so you can put the game on the foot of your senior kicker (that's right, the guy who is close to being a record-setting, all-time leading scorer for the school), who will have a better than 70% chance of locking in a win. Oh and by the way, if you get additional yards on the plays, that's a bonus.



You can second guess lots of play calling decisions on any given series in the game, and i think there might be debatable points. But on the mean I don't see the play calling as having been a realistically negative factor in this game. In the final series, however, play calling is what assured that we would have the VERY BEST ODDS OF WINNING THAT GAME!. The calls were perfect, the final position was maybe five yards further back than you would have liked it to be, but in reality, the snap was good, the hold was good and the kick's trajectory was fine. That Utah got up and made the block was possibly more the fault of the line than anything else. Why isn't anyone calling for Weber's head or whoever is in charge of special teams?



I find the notion that Anae's play calling was the reason we lost the game to be nothing short of ridiculous. Even going for it on fourth. You can say what if we kicked the field goal, but how do you know THAT kick wouldn't have been blocked as well. How do you know it wouldn't have been shanked. Speaking of shanks, how do you know Utah doesn't hit both if its field goal attempts, and we don't even have a chance at the end of the game? Our defense was playing well, and if we had made a touchdown at that point, we might have put the game away for good.



It was a good call.



I think we all need to take a BIG cue from Jake Heaps who once again showed himself media-savvy beyond his own years. I was quite impressed with the way he complimented the Utah fan base and the team and made comments that merely cemented the experience into what it was--yet another high-drama chapter in one of the closest, most exciting rivalry games in the nation.



Firing Anae indeed. This is Bronco we're talking about. This is the same guy who was willing to keep Shiloh around a lot longer than he should have. Willing to give Kyle Van Noy a HUGE second chance. Kept Jaime Hill around so long he had to accept Chambers as a casualty from the experience as well. This is Mr. Loyalty we're talking about.



To sum up:



1. Anae's calling is not horrific.

2. Bronco is fiercely loyal.

3. Such a firing simply isn't going to happen,



so....



4. Do like Jake, accept it and accentuate the positive. You look more classy and you stand a better chance of enjoying yourself.

Great post - play calling did not cost us the game. The Nevada game was the only one I can honestly and with-out bias say that the play calling was terrible.

Not a great post. No. Nevada was not the only poorly called game. Utah State was worse. Add to it the fact that play calling improved only after 2 things happened: Bronco made Anae include coach Doman and Reynolds to be invovled in game planning with strict instructions that Anae stick to the game plan because he would tend to not do that, and 2) we strted playing the worst teams in the league.



Look, we got better as the year went on, without question. But the play calling has been simply ok, and not good enough against top level defenses for 6 years now. The indictment is the record in those types of games, and how few points we put on the board in the bigger games. Not good enough.

I've explained why I thought it was a great post above. IMO Nevada was a poorly called game and the biggest reason we lost. The other losses I believe had bigger problems than play calling. We did not lose to Utah because of bad play calling, the play calling was good. Bad luck, a confused running back and a poorly blocked field goal attempt are the things you can blame that loss on.

Riddle me this: when BYU got behind, did the play calling ever lead us back to great wins? Not this year. Not really the last 6 years. When we get down by 10 or more, we lose. Sorry, but that is not great play calling. Nottalking 2010 only. 2005-10. The body of work there leaves much to be desired. Especially with the talent we had. 2006 in particular. Should not have lost a game that year.

Lawboy wrote:
Riddle me this: when BYU got behind, did the play calling ever lead us back to great wins? Not this year. Not really the last 6 years. When we get down by 10 or more, we lose. Sorry, but that is not great play calling. Nottalking 2010 only. 2005-10. The body of work there leaves much to be desired. Especially with the talent we had. 2006 in particular. Should not have lost a game that year.

Ditto, and I would argue 2008 the same.