Difficulties getting into the Endzone: 2011 vs 2012

Boise State had to resort to trick plays to beat OK in that unforgettable BCS game.

BYU's offense will have to resort to some trick plays to beat Utah's defense.

Besides, of for no other reason than implementing a play book piece by piece to cut down on execution errors is not a bad thing. Seems like 90 if not most all coaches take this approach in the beginning of the season.

Don't forget Riley was minus his go to guy too. I wanted to see Apo and Mathew (since no Hoff) do the quick pass and run that has seemed successful in the past.



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

George and Pitta were so open on these plays that he could have thrown the ball to me. We have plenty of playmakers to get the ball to, including Apo, Friel, Hill, Alisa, etc. We need more motion, more play action, more jump balls, etc. What is it with BYU and running it up the gut in the red zone??!! You think Doman would realize by now that this got Anae fired and he may want to try something different (ala Hill in the first half).

SpiffCoug wrote:

Nobody is going to worry about that play. They will devote one quarter of a practice to cover the possible options. I don't mind them throwing it out there, although it didn't work. I love multiple option type plays. The thing is, they didn't throw that out there to make anyone worry. What do they have to worry about?



Think about it: Would you rather show that you can do a fake punt, (I know it wasn't a punt, stay with me here) or just *do* one (A la BSU) in game with the defense completely unprepared?

I don't know. Practice time is limited. Now we've forced opponents to spend time on a play they don't need to worry about. And maybe that time could have been spent preparing for a play we will run. It's sixes.

Again, I am using this as an example that BYU *DID NOT*, in fact, close their playbook. They simply just played conservatively. There is a difference. There was no reason to turn W's into an L, when you can kick field goals. Maybe we are arguing semantics, but I think it is different. BYU was *trying* to score TDs, but couldn't. Against a defense as bad as WSUs that is a bad, bad thing.



I think more than anything we let off the gas and didn't do anymore risky plays, ran out of gas, and also WSU adjusted in the second half. That we can't score in the red zone running non-risky plays against that bad of a defense does not bode well for us. I don't like the idea that we need to be overly risky (50/50 jump ball, Riley getting a helmet to helmet hit on a run) in order to score in the red zone. But that is what I saw. It worked against a bad defense, it won't in the future.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Nobody is going to worry about that play. They will devote one quarter of a practice to cover the possible options. I don't mind them throwing it out there, although it didn't work. I love multiple option type plays. The thing is, they didn't throw that out there to make anyone worry. What do they have to worry about?



Think about it: Would you rather show that you can do a fake punt, (I know it wasn't a punt, stay with me here) or just *do* one (A la BSU) in game with the defense completely unprepared?

I don't know. Practice time is limited. Now we've forced opponents to spend time on a play they don't need to worry about. And maybe that time could have been spent preparing for a play we will run. It's sixes.

Again, I am using this as an example that BYU *DID NOT*, in fact, close their playbook. They simply just played conservatively. There is a difference. There was no reason to turn W's into an L, when you can kick field goals. Maybe we are arguing semantics, but I think it is different. BYU was *trying* to score TDs, but couldn't. Against a defense as bad as WSUs that is a bad, bad thing.



I think more than anything we let off the gas and didn't do anymore risky plays, ran out of gas, and also WSU adjusted in the second half. That we can't score in the red zone running non-risky plays against that bad of a defense does not bode well for us. I don't like the idea that we need to be overly risky (50/50 jump ball, Riley getting a helmet to helmet hit on a run) in order to score in the red zone. But that is what I saw. It worked against a bad defense, it won't in the future.

I did not see a bad defense. I did not see a great defense. I saw a defense that was only occasionally good and usually mediocre. Simply mediocre.



Conversely

Utah has a very good, possibly great defense.

ND - see Utah.

GT - see Utah.

BSU - I did not watch their game and thus have no firm opinion - although result of game would indicate that they may be reasonably good - not great



Yes - all will be better than WaZoo. Simply Better.

Against good teams last season we had trouble getting it into the endzone.



I'm worried about our play calling when we get within 10 yards. With 20 to go we seem to do alright, but once it's 1st and goal we become completely inept and find ourselves kicking field goals. Against WSU and half the other teams on our schedule that will be fine. Against, Utah, BSU, ND and GT we'll need touchdowns as we can't rely on our defense holding these teams to zero TDs.

Cougarbib wrote:



I did not see a bad defense. I did not see a great defense. I saw a defense that was only occasionally good and usually mediocre. Simply mediocre.



Conversely

Utah has a very good, possibly great defense.

ND - see Utah.

GT - see Utah.

BSU - I did not watch their game and thus have no firm opinion - although result of game would indicate that they may be reasonably good - not great



Yes - all will be better than WaZoo. Simply Better.

You didn't see a bad defense?



You didn't see BYU WR's just walking into the endzone wide open on easy corner routes? You didn't see them missing EASY interceptions?

You didn't see them giving up a 7 yard per carry average to the outside?

You didn't see their DBs giving our WRs somewhere around a 16 yard cushion?

You didn't see one or two of our WRs open every single play, all game, on basic routes?

Did you see press coverage one time that game?

How about the linebacker's not knowing their zone, and receivers getting double covered leaving others wide open?



They were a bad defense and if the offense doesn't pick up the slack by scoring 30+ points a game, I don't think they win more than 2 or 3 games this year. Which is pretty much the same thing they have done each year. WSU didn't need Mike Leach as a coach. They scored fine last year. They need a defensive genius like Mendenhall as coach.



This was not a bowl team that we played. The offense was mediocre against our incredible defense. The defense was bad against our average offense.

I think it's still too early to know if Wash St. defense is so bad. They did have all pac12 corner playing, but what does that mean? They need 2 or 3 more games to see if they are terrible, bad, or just got beat by a better team.

hawkwing wrote:
I think it's still too early to know if Wash St. defense is so bad. They did have all pac12 corner playing, but what does that mean? They need 2 or 3 more games to see if they are terrible, bad, or just got beat by a better team.

Let's hope it is the latter! ;)

I agree that the play calling seems atrocious once we get inside the red zone or to scoring time (Anae vs Utah). Doman seems to be stuck in the Anae era once he gets here, and has been even more inefficient than Anae so far.



That was nothing more than an average to below average defense at best, and we couldn't score touchdowns 4 straight trips to the red zone. That is a huge cause for concern. Hopefully he learns that you have to force the defense to cover the flats, the corners and the back of the end zone if you are going to try plays up the gut with less than 10 yards to go. Three straight plays up the gut from the 10 should be cause for a firing unless you have a huge offensive line and have been dominating the line of scrimmage all game (which we haven't done for years).

BlueIsBetter wrote:

I think it's still too early to know if Wash St. defense is so bad. They did have all pac12 corner playing, but what does that mean? They need 2 or 3 more games to see if they are terrible, bad, or just got beat by a better team.

Let's hope it is the latter! ;)

You and me both!

If you think Doman did not close hte playbook, you are a fool. HE ran the same plays in the scoring zone in half two, nothing new. Same QB draws, same running plays, even the same passing routes. Go watch. We gave little away on film in half two that had not been seen in half 1.



Part of it was playc calling--by design--part of it was hte fact that RN did not see some open receivers in half 2.



Regardless, we hung 30 in the home opener. Should have been more, but still got 30. With improvements coming. I think we will be much more sharp come game 3.

Lawboy wrote:
If you think Doman did not close hte playbook, you are a fool. HE ran the same plays in the scoring zone in half two, nothing new. Same QB draws, same running plays, even the same passing routes. Go watch. We gave little away on film in half two that had not been seen in half 1.



Part of it was playc calling--by design--part of it was hte fact that RN did not see some open receivers in half 2.



Regardless, we hung 30 in the home opener. Should have been more, but still got 30. With improvements coming. I think we will be much more sharp come game 3.

+1 we were up big, the defense was dominating and we have a patsy on saturday. Doman was calling the same plays that in the 1st half got touchdowns but in the second half the WSU defense had them read. BYU has been more secretive this year than ever before with mendenhall as coach. You will see much more of the playbook in the utah game unless by some miracle we get up big early and the defense is dominating their offense.

For over 35 years BYU has had many slow starts offensively. I wouldn't call 24 first quarter points a slow start. Lawboy has this one right.



We all wanted to pile on the points while Doman & Bronco have other plans for the season as a whole.

It seems like this is year 3 of keeping the play book closed at the beginning of the year. In principle, it makes sense. But in practice, we have not been able to effectively open up the play book the last few years. Sure, hide some trick gadget plays that are easily discernible by the formation; but lets hang 50, instead of 30 on WSU and be ranked 24 or 25 today and 21 or 23 next week.



Instead of having a few trick plays, or plays with very unique looks, why not have 4 or 5 plays coming from the same look/formation which makes it impossible for a defense to prepare for just off of one play? Why not be so explosive and unpredictable that we don't have to "close" the playbook. Lets show teams are playbook, and then add a few variations to those plays during the week to make our offense impossible to prepare for?



Imagine having 5 primary formations for the red zone, with 4 primary plays for each of those formations?! No way a defense could be completely ready for that, even if they have seen every one of those formations run once or twice per game.

jacksonman wrote:
It seems like this is year 3 of keeping the play book closed at the beginning of the year. In principle, it makes sense. But in practice, we have not been able to effectively open up the play book the last few years. Sure, hide some trick gadget plays that are easily discernible by the formation; but lets hang 50, instead of 30 on WSU and be ranked 24 or 25 today and 21 or 23 next week.



Instead of having a few trick plays, or plays with very unique looks, why not have 4 or 5 plays coming from the same look/formation which makes it impossible for a defense to prepare for just off of one play? Why not be so explosive and unpredictable that we don't have to "close" the playbook. Lets show teams are playbook, and then add a few variations to those plays during the week to make our offense impossible to prepare for?



Imagine having 5 primary formations for the red zone, with 4 primary plays for each of those formations?! No way a defense could be completely ready for that, even if they have seen every one of those formations run once or twice per game.

Much easier said than done. doman learned that last year.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

I did not see a bad defense. I did not see a great defense. I saw a defense that was only occasionally good and usually mediocre. Simply mediocre.



Conversely

Utah has a very good, possibly great defense.

ND - see Utah.

GT - see Utah.

BSU - I did not watch their game and thus have no firm opinion - although result of game would indicate that they may be reasonably good - not great



Yes - all will be better than WaZoo. Simply Better.

You didn't see a bad defense?



You didn't see BYU WR's just walking into the endzone wide open on easy corner routes? You didn't see them missing EASY interceptions?

You didn't see them giving up a 7 yard per carry average to the outside?

You didn't see their DBs giving our WRs somewhere around a 16 yard cushion?

You didn't see one or two of our WRs open every single play, all game, on basic routes?

Did you see press coverage one time that game?

How about the linebacker's not knowing their zone, and receivers getting double covered leaving others wide open?



They were a bad defense and if the offense doesn't pick up the slack by scoring 30+ points a game, I don't think they win more than 2 or 3 games this year. Which is pretty much the same thing they have done each year. WSU didn't need Mike Leach as a coach. They scored fine last year. They need a defensive genius like Mendenhall as coach.



This was not a bowl team that we played. The offense was mediocre against our incredible defense. The defense was bad against our average offense.

Mediocre teams do not play in Bowl games very often. Take a statistics class - Blue. Take a good look at a Normal Distribution or any model you feel better fits the 120 or so football tems in our division.



Look where most teams fit. In the middle. Mediocre. Average.



There are 0-5 incredible teams. There are 0-5 Simply Terrible teams. 20-25 good teams. 20-25 weak teams. That leaves about 60 mediocre teams. Count on it - Wazoo will turn out to be one of those 60.

jacksonman wrote:
It seems like this is year 3 of keeping the play book closed at the beginning of the year. In principle, it makes sense. But in practice, we have not been able to effectively open up the play book the last few years. Sure, hide some trick gadget plays that are easily discernible by the formation; but lets hang 50, instead of 30 on WSU and be ranked 24 or 25 today and 21 or 23 next week.



Instead of having a few trick plays, or plays with very unique looks, why not have 4 or 5 plays coming from the same look/formation which makes it impossible for a defense to prepare for just off of one play? Why not be so explosive and unpredictable that we don't have to "close" the playbook. Lets show teams are playbook, and then add a few variations to those plays during the week to make our offense impossible to prepare for?



Imagine having 5 primary formations for the red zone, with 4 primary plays for each of those formations?! No way a defense could be completely ready for that, even if they have seen every one of those formations run once or twice per game.

Patience is a virtue. If we win all of our games this year, we will be national champions with this schedule. It will not matter whether we beat Wazoo by 24 or 44. Utah beat us by 44 last year and we ended up ranked ahead of them - even with three losses. That is just how it works - a beauty contest. Just do not lose and all will be well.



We can lose 3 this season and make top 25 in both polls with this schedule. The margin in game one will not matter.



It seems ironic that we have two offensive players making national noise in that game - and some are so disappointed.



Save your disappointment for the first loss. That will matter.

jacksonman wrote:
I agree that the play calling seems atrocious once we get inside the red zone or to scoring time (Anae vs Utah). Doman seems to be stuck in the Anae era once he gets here, and has been even more inefficient than Anae so far.



That was nothing more than an average to below average defense at best, and we couldn't score touchdowns 4 straight trips to the red zone. That is a huge cause for concern. Hopefully he learns that you have to force the defense to cover the flats, the corners and the back of the end zone if you are going to try plays up the gut with less than 10 yards to go. Three straight plays up the gut from the 10 should be cause for a firing unless you have a huge offensive line and have been dominating the line of scrimmage all game (which we haven't done for years).

Make a list right here of all the coaches you know that got fired for only winning by 24 points instead of 34 or 44 when the spread was more like 14. List them all - right here. Sheesh.

Chip Kelly. That's why he scored late against Notre Dame. He was trying to win by 40, not just 33.



;)