Coach Hill is gone....

BlueIsBetter wrote:
No, the D hasn't been good enough in 4 games to keep last years offense in the games, let alone a new offense. When every opponent you play scores their opening drive against you, and teams score, in the first half more than they punt, you aren't doing your job.



Especially when you take into acct all the allegations of players not getting along with Hill and not wanting to play for him.



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

Exactly. Our defense has been slow and ineffective for years... luckily for them they had an offense that could put up 30+ points in their sleep.



The offense was expected to and is understandably struggling and rebuilding this year. The defense was supposed to improve... heck, it's been supposed to have been improving for awhile... but it hasn't.



Don't get me wrong, Anae has got to go, too, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the defense hasn't been a huge issue for BYU in recent years.

the d has had serious problems, made worse by injury. The offense has had serious problems x2.

Our Defense has not been good for a couple of years now. Our offense the last few years has made up for the lack of D the last few years. Under our current Offense coaches our O has been one of the best in the country. Sure we have had great talent but we should be able to get that good talent.

hawkwing wrote:
the d has had serious problems, made worse by injury. The offense has had serious problems x2.

The offense was not supposed to improve this season, the defense was.



It's a young, inexperienced offense that has lost every single one of its major playmakers...why is it so hard for some people to comprehend this? It has got to be plain old stubbornness, there is no way anyone can be that dense.

Guys, this was a good move. Hill's defense was not getting it done. They gave up 24 pts to Utah state in the first half, they gave up 24 pts to Nevada at home in the first half, AF and FSU weren't good either. BYU's defense was playing out of position and missing tackles to the point it was sickening. I don't know how much Bronco can clean up the bad play in a week but Hill was not getting it done. This defenses responsibility this year was to keep the games close while our young offense grew up and it has been a failure thus far this year.

frdbtr wrote:
Guys, this was a good move. Hill's defense was not getting it done. They gave up 24 pts to Utah state in the first half, they gave up 24 pts to Nevada at home in the first half, AF and FSU weren't good either. BYU's defense was playing out of position and missing tackles to the point it was sickening. I don't know how much Bronco can clean up the bad play in a week but Hill was not getting it done. This defenses responsibility this year was to keep the games close while our young offense grew up and it has been a failure thus far this year.

Totally agree with this move... I was getting so sick of watching a team methodically move down the field and score everytime... Somebody with more stats then me should look up how many times we have made the other team punt... It's probably not a very pretty stat. Every single down the other team seemed to be guaranteed at least 4 yards. Even on 4th down teams often would go for it (nevada) cause they knew we couldnt stop them...



I swear we were only playing with 9 guys for the last 4 games on defense or maybe that's just that we suck defending the option... It wasn't fun to watch, but ya'll knew that already.



If Bronco can get the guys on D playing like the special teams, we should at least force a few more punts each games... Sheesh.

Defense wins championships. Bronco knows this. Teams have been running all over us this season and no adjustments have been made. UW was just stupid to try and put the ball in the air. Had they left it on the ground we'd be 0 - 4 right now.



I think BlueIsBetter hit the nail on the head. If Bronco had an O background he probably would have fired Anae, though Anae can be given a bit of slack since he's dealing with so many freshman. The defense was supposed to carry the team, or at least keep us in there. There's no fight in our guys. They aren't bringing it, and we all know Bronco is a big hit kind of guy. Plus, given Bronco's affinity for "unity," I'm not surprised by the firing if the players don't like playing for Hill. It makes a world difference.



What this also does is send a clear message to Anae that he better step it up. We all speculated whether Bronco could/would pull the trigger on one of his coaches and now we, as well as Anae, know he can and will. If I were Anae, I'd kick it up a notch and in the mean time update my resume.



If I recall correctly, weren't there rumblings a season or so ago of Hill being a bit discontent and wanting more?

What a surprise. Many of us liked Hill working with our defense. All I can figure is there is more to it than just 4 very poor outings in a row, which would be bad enough had BYU's defense been mediocre last season, which it wasn't.



Based on the defense's performance the past 4 games, Bronco had to do something. There really is enough talent on board that giving up 24 points in a half to UNR and then USU in back to back games is quite unacceptable. Bronco has coached the defense to be a top 10 scoring defense in the past, there is no reason he can't right the situation.



Good luck to Coach Hill. In spite of how this season has turned out so far, I appreciate what he's done for BYU while here.

This move by Bronco is a good move. Coach Hill is a good man - time to move on. Time for new blood, a new look, a new set of eye's & a new voice motivating the guys. It's team athletics. This is common.



What we don't know is - what conversations took place behind closed doors between Bronco & his Coordinators. There may have been trouble in paradaise for a while. I suspect it to be so. Coach Hill will land on his feet. BYU will struggle through this season. I suspect Anae is on a short leash & Bronco is seriously considering replacing him after the season ends. The ship needs to be righterd. We have talented players. The right Coaching mix must be found. It will work out. It will take time.

8)

I guess this means Bronco wasn't watching conference...or maybe it was between sessions.

frdbtr wrote:
Guys, this was a good move. Hill's defense was not getting it done. They gave up 24 pts to Utah state in the first half, they gave up 24 pts to Nevada at home in the first half, AF and FSU weren't good either. BYU's defense was playing out of position and missing tackles to the point it was sickening. I don't know how much Bronco can clean up the bad play in a week but Hill was not getting it done. This defenses responsibility this year was to keep the games close while our young offense grew up and it has been a failure thus far this year.

+1 It was a good move. A gutsy move in the middle of the season like this. To me - it sends a powerful message - Bronco means business - he is in control. It's time to straighten this team up.

Although I don't disagree that this was a good move so that Bronco could get more hands-on with the D, it is very difficult to hold teams to less than 24 points in the first half when your O can't hold the ball for more than six downs.

Gunk wrote:
I guess this means Bronco wasn't watching conference...or maybe it was between sessions.

One of the apostles probably recommended that members clean up their lives and repent... and it was then that Bronco realized he had to fire Hill and start improving what has been a pathetic defense for years.

While I may be wrong on this, I think most of us are basing our arguments on a false assumption. His dismissal may not have been directly related to the performance of the defense. Or rather, the performance of the defense may have only been a small part of it. My guess is that it was more significant. It may have been an attitude or interpersonal thing. Clearly there are player/coach issues between Hill and certain players. Perhaps there were even more serious coach/coach issues. Perhaps Hill was reacting to losing in a way that was inappropriate, like laying all the blame on the offense or something like that. I guess my point is, we don't really know the reason and we won't know until Bronco addresses things on Monday morning at his press conference. Even then, Bronco may not reveal anything and we may just have to put things together as we hear things through the grapevine. I guess we'll see.

mraven wrote:
While I may be wrong on this, I think most of us are basing our arguments on a false assumption. His dismissal may not have been directly related to the performance of the defense. Or rather, the performance of the defense may have only been a small part of it. My guess is that it was more significant. It may have been an attitude or interpersonal thing.

This could very likely be true - and to be honest, it angers me.



Why? Because if this IS the case, it just goes to show once again that football and our actual performance is of 4th or 5th priority to the program and coaches. Having an awful defense for years does nothing... but as soon as there are "other" issues, Hill is fired.



But who knows, maybe it was solely based off of performance. Midway through the season seems like an odd time, though.

mraven wrote:
While I may be wrong on this, I think most of us are basing our arguments on a false assumption. His dismissal may not have been directly related to the performance of the defense. Or rather, the performance of the defense may have only been a small part of it. My guess is that it was more significant. It may have been an attitude or interpersonal thing. Clearly there are player/coach issues between Hill and certain players. Perhaps there were even more serious coach/coach issues. Perhaps Hill was reacting to losing in a way that was inappropriate, like laying all the blame on the offense or something like that. I guess my point is, we don't really know the reason and we won't know until Bronco addresses things on Monday morning at his press conference. Even then, Bronco may not reveal anything and we may just have to put things together as we hear things through the grapevine. I guess we'll see.

From some of the players and family of players there may be more truth than you think to this.



As just another thought not related to this particular post but the thread in general...How many of us got "upset" at the 10-15 yard cushion the corners gave to receivers the last 3-4 years? Will this change with a regime change?

I wonder how much of a difference not having Barry Lamb as linebackers coach has made on this year.



At this point, anything to shake things up certainly can't make things much worse, but it could end up making things much better.

Italics wrote:

While I may be wrong on this, I think most of us are basing our arguments on a false assumption. His dismissal may not have been directly related to the performance of the defense. Or rather, the performance of the defense may have only been a small part of it. My guess is that it was more significant. It may have been an attitude or interpersonal thing.

This could very likely be true - and to be honest, it angers me.



Why? Because if this IS the case, it just goes to show once again that football and our actual performance is of 4th or 5th priority to the program and coaches. Having an awful defense for years does nothing... but as soon as there are "other" issues, Hill is fired.



But who knows, maybe it was solely based off of performance. Midway through the season seems like an odd time, though.

I see your point. Maybe the straw that broke the camels back was the significant drop in performance, especially since the defense was supposed to be better than the last two we had, which weren't particularly horrible defenses. Certainly better than what we're dealing with this season.

Just my speculation, but I think there is a lot more going on here than crappy defensive play....maybe the full story will come out at a later date.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Just my speculation, but I think there is a lot more going on here than crappy defensive play....maybe the full story will come out at a later date.

Dickson's got an interesting take on the situation, check out his article from the twitter feed. I think that Hill was let go, because Bronco can take care of the defense. If Bronco was an offensive guy, then Anae is gone and Bronco takes over. I think (hope) that Anae is gone at the end of the year.