You will rarely hear me say this

scott715 wrote:
Question, when was the last time we had a big come back? Lavel use to do it all the time. We get down and it seems we panic, game over.

Lavelle had some gun slinger QB's that were never out of games. BYU has not had that type of QB in many years. Max hall was great but was not good at playing from behind, he quit thinking clearly, tried to do too much and made things worse by throwing interceptions.

I don't think BYU will ever be a big come back team. Our offense is the passing version of "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" and our bend-don't-break defense is one that when it breaks in-game adjustments don't seem to fix it and that seems built to let the opponent milk clock by daring them to drive the field on short gains. That combination might be good for winning close games, but it's terrible for coming back from 2+ touchdowns back.

snoscythe wrote:
I don't think BYU will ever be a big come back team. Our offense is the passing version of "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" and our bend-don't-break defense is one that when it breaks in-game adjustments don't seem to fix it and that seems built to let the opponent milk clock by daring them to drive the field on short gains. That combination might be good for winning close games, but it's terrible for coming back from 2+ touchdowns back.

!00% spot on.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
We win games we should, and we don't win games we shouldn't.



It's as easy as that, and you can read into that all you need to.

On one level, this kind of goes without saying...this is kind of along the lines of the most superfluous sentence in all sports cliches: "it is what it is."



On another level, there is something to be said for evaluating the word should. Who should win?



Typically, the team with better players and better coaching will win most games. But as TCUs field goal kicker lost the game against Utah in 2008, that is not always the case.



However, if we were to ask who would win if both teams played to the fullest of their potential, then that is a different question.



Did BYU play to its fullest potential? Obviously not. Why? Many of us think coaching and personnel decisions.



So to put it back into the logic of this post...we think there are some things BYU can do to put itself in a position to win more games it should and avoid not winning games it shouldn't. It is what it is and it is not what it is not.

snoscythe wrote:
I don't think BYU will ever be a big come back team. Our offense is the passing version of "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" and our bend-don't-break defense is one that when it breaks in-game adjustments don't seem to fix it and that seems built to let the opponent milk clock by daring them to drive the field on short gains. That combination might be good for winning close games, but it's terrible for coming back from 2+ touchdowns back.

I think the offense is capable of achieving two score comeback victories. When I think of the big losses, most of them were either that the offense was imploding (Air Force 2010, Utah 2008, TCU 2008) or the defense was unable to stop the bleeding (TCU 2008, TCU 2009, FSU 2009, Air Force 2010).



So to return to the them of this thread...when the offense has imploded, to me anyway, it seems pretty straightforward as to why. Riley Nelson makes the offense predictable because he has yet to make the defense consistently pay for over committing to the run.



In the Utah and TCU losses, it seemed obvious to me that we should have forced the defense out of their pass coverage packages by running the football down their throats.



However, I am probably oversimplifying in each case.

Ladies



I did not get to see the game, but I have yet to find any expert after now having time to analyze film state that receivers were open but Nelson was not seeing them because he was too quick to tuck and run.



I did read the post where Chambers was supposedly wide open- once.



I am sure the coaches know whether this was the case or not. And they will address problems the best they can with the personnel they have.



Bluntly stated, we r not that good right now. Deal with it. We will improve. AFA is a good team. UW beat themselves.



We have work to do. The coaches are faced with tough decisions this week and not just QB and safety and LB. Tight ends have shown little and WR has not shown much more. JJ and our punter are streaky.



Little stability to build on. Hopefully Reynolds is healthy and the OL will show up Saturday. I don't know how good or bad our defense is. UW made them look good by self destructing. I don't want to believe the D is as bad as AFA made them look.



Saturday we will have a better read on how good aFA is and how good or bad we r.



I do not Luke rotating QBs at times when one hascestablished momentum. It is risky. Maybe we gave no choice yet. Hopefully coaches are focused on how to beat FSU. If coaches give up in winning games the players will give up. Nit to look ahead, but Nevada looks decent. USU is improved. This is a tough opening stretch. Cups and cakes come later.



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

I think last year's TCU game is a prime example of the issue.



BYU did just about everything it planned to do it that game and addressed the problems of the 2008 game. BYU stopped the run. BYU ran the ball.



Before the game, if you had told me that TCU would end up running for less than 130 yards and punt 6 times and that Unga would run for 123 yds, I would have predicted a BYU win or a very close game.



And yet the game was never in doubt.



I do miss the BYU gunslingers that could keep BYU in games and win them. Houston's QB looks like an old BYU-style QB. And while the BYU coaches made bad mistakes in those days (keeping Sean Covey starting in 88 and having Detmer come in later and try to clean up the mess is a good example of that), at least I thought the BYU could make it back.



I guess 8-4 is a lot better than 5-7 and we should be happy. I would very much like to see 12-0 again. Under Bronco we have consistently had some brain fart losses (06, 07, 08, 09, and now 10). Of all the losses during those years, I only put the 2009 loss to TCU as one where BYU really had no chance to win.

88Coug wrote:
I think last year's TCU game is a prime example of the issue.



BYU did just about everything it planned to do it that game and addressed the problems of the 2008 game. BYU stopped the run. BYU ran the ball.



Before the game, if you had told me that TCU would end up running for less than 130 yards and punt 6 times and that Unga would run for 123 yds, I would have predicted a BYU win or a very close game.



And yet the game was never in doubt.



I do miss the BYU gunslingers that could keep BYU in games and win them. Houston's QB looks like an old BYU-style QB. And while the BYU coaches made bad mistakes in those days (keeping Sean Covey starting in 88 and having Detmer come in later and try to clean up the mess is a good example of that), at least I thought the BYU could make it back.



I guess 8-4 is a lot better than 5-7 and we should be happy. I would very much like to see 12-0 again. Under Bronco we have consistently had some brain fart losses (06, 07, 08, 09, and now 10). Of all the losses during those years, I only put the 2009 loss to TCU as one where BYU really had no chance to win.

TCU wasn't a brain fart loss. They were just the hands down better team, and have been for years, and are this year.



FSU was the brain fart loss last year. We got our butts handed to us at home, and were never in that game.

"TCU wasn't a brain fart loss. They were just the hands down better team, and have been for years"



Yep, TWO WHOLE years, wow...

Schmoe wrote:
"TCU wasn't a brain fart loss. They were just the hands down better team, and have been for years"



Yep, TWO WHOLE years, wow...

I guess I was including this year, and the next one, and probably the one after that...



My bad!

So you don't understand the phrase "have been" as compared to the word "are" or the phrase "will be"? Ok, that's all I need to know.

Schmoe wrote:
So you don't understand the phrase "have been" as compared to the word "are" or the phrase "will be"? Ok, that's all I need to know.

Yep, got me there... You are the champion. El capitan. The winner. The best person ever. Head poster in this thread. All around Chief good person. Greatest person in the universe. Most awesome person ever...



What else am I leaving out? There's gotta be more...



:)



(By the way, last time I checked one year = "year" ; but when you add one or more to that, you get "years" , so me saying they have been for years isn't incorrect, is it? Especially when you consider that our alltime record vs them in the MTN west conference is 2 wins and 3 losses. And the wins were pretty close. And the losses the last two years, not so much.)

I don't care what you call Schmoe, but in the future, I'd like to be addressed as "Grand Master Champion Poster of the Cougar Corner Universe."

kitic77 wrote:
I don't care what you call Schmoe, but in the future, I'd like to be addressed as "Grand Master Champion Poster of the Cougar Corner Universe."

I like it. Can I just shorten it to GMCPCCU? That's a lot to type. Or does it lose it's effect?



I can add your number to it, so it is GMCPCCU77. Kind of like CP3, but longer...



:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

So you don't understand the phrase "have been" as compared to the word "are" or the phrase "will be"? Ok, that's all I need to know.

Yep, got me there... You are the champion. El capitan. The winner. The best person ever. Head poster in this thread. All around Chief good person. Greatest person in the universe. Most awesome person ever...



What else am I leaving out? There's gotta be more...



:)



(By the way, last time I checked one year = "year" ; but when you add one or more to that, you get "years" , so me saying they have been for years isn't incorrect, is it? Especially when you consider that our alltime record vs them in the MTN west conference is 2 wins and 3 losses. And the wins were pretty close. And the losses the last two years, not so much.)

As long as you recognize who I am now, that's all my ego wanted :lol:

Cougarbib2 wrote:
Ladies... I did not get to see the game... Bluntly stated, we r not that good right now. Deal with it... UW beat themselves. We have work to do...



I do not Luke rotating QBs at times when one hascestablished momentum. It is risky. Maybe we gave no choice yet... Nit to look ahead, but Nevada looks decent. USU is improved. This is a tough opening stretch. Cups and cakes come later.

What are you talking about? :skeptic:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
So you don't understand the phrase "have been" as compared to the word "are" or the phrase "will be"? Ok, that's all I need to know.

Yep, got me there... You are the champion. El capitan. The winner. The best person ever. Head poster in this thread. All around Chief good person. Greatest person in the universe. Most awesome person ever...



What else am I leaving out? There's gotta be more...



:)



(By the way, last time I checked one year = "year" ; but when you add one or more to that, you get "years" , so me saying they have been for years isn't incorrect, is it? Especially when you consider that our alltime record vs them in the MTN west conference is 2 wins and 3 losses. And the wins were pretty close. And the losses the last two years, not so much.)

As long as you recognize who I am now, that's all my ego wanted :lol:

:lol: :D :lol:

Mars wrote:

Ladies... I did not get to see the game... Bluntly stated, we r not that good right now. Deal with it... UW beat themselves. We have work to do...



I do not Luke rotating QBs at times when one hascestablished momentum. It is risky. Maybe we gave no choice yet... Nit to look ahead, but Nevada looks decent. USU is improved. This is a tough opening stretch. Cups and cakes come later.

What are you talking about? :skeptic:

Come on Mars...don't you Luke to rotate quarterbacks?



I personally feel that we Nit to look ahead.



:)

Did our recent successes over AFA (last 5 years) lull the coaches into a false sense of security?

vancouvercougar wrote:
Did our recent successes over AFA (last 5 years) lull the coaches into a false sense of security?

Probably to a certain degree. Hence, Bronco turning over game planning to Hill.