CougarCorner

ABYUFAN wrote:

jacksonman wrote:I am not a fan of Anae, but this question is hard for me to answer. This was probably Anae's best called game, although his stubbornness to stick to a game plan and inability to adjust or be creative was highly evident.

I would have to rewatch to really vote accurately on this one.

But one thing we need to remember is that we had 115 offensive plays. So claiming 47 points is slightly misleading. Two hurry-up offenses are going to score more as the defenses get tired and confused and lose focus.

Anae did call more pass plays on first down, but failed to call any screens during the crazy onslaught of blitzes. The TE position still seems non-existant. But overall, it was a huge improvement in play calling but could have been so much better if he made adjustments such as screens, quick slants and TE seam routes during periods of heavy blitzing.

Grade - C.

WOW! That was a "C" Game? IS an "A" even possible? The mere fact that no one has ever run more plays than us shows that our plays were working. If we had a bunch of three and outs and they scored 30= points as they did, we'd have nowhere near the number of plays run. Again, the 7 points in the end zone was not coaching, nor was the interception returned for a touchdown. I'm not sure that this is an "A" (although it very well could be) but calling this a "C" means that an "A" can never never never ever be achieved...

my grade is incomplete... I want to see how Houston performs against another quality opponent.

We have far superior athletes, we were horrible in the third quarter when Houston made adjustments, didn't adjust well to the blitz, lacked creativity and was horrible at clock management. But I will admit Hill made a few bad reads on the interceptions that would have made the play calling look better had he made the right read and executed. But Hill also made him look good on some bad play calls. I'll upgrade Anae to C+. If Houston proves their defense is better against a quality opponent I will upgrade it as high as a B. I also want to see if he can duplicate something like this against BSU who has a head coach who knows how to plan and scheme.

jacksonman wrote:We have far superior athletes, we were horrible in the third quarter when Houston made adjustments, didn't adjust well to the blitz, lacked creativity and was horrible at clock management. But I will admit Hill made a few bad reads on the interceptions that would have made the play calling look better had he made the right read and executed. But Hill also made him look good on some bad play calls. I'll upgrade Anae to C+. If Houston proves their defense is better against a quality opponent I will upgrade it as high as a B. I also want to see if he can duplicate something like this against BSU who has a head coach who knows how to plan and scheme.

List those far superior athletes. Let me help you. Taysom Hill running. Far superior. Hoffman. Ok.

But keeping in mind that we are talking about the BYU Offense here and that experience matters

JW. Wait. We are talking about the time period after he was injured so bad that he eventually pulled himself out of the game. So scratch that.

Would it be too bold of me to assume that I will not find any of our injured and overmatched OL on your list? Can I assume that our dearth of Tight Ends and FB will keep them off the list?

Well that leaves us with Falslev. Superior athlete. Really. It leaves us with a very good Rugby player. And Hine and Brown who are just learning. And some decent but not great receivers who some fans think drop too many and are not very fast.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

We do have some superior players, and that's what helped us put up almost 700 yards of total offense, get 41 first downs, and score 47 points. Even with a bad quarter in the third, we ran their defense into the ground; we did what teams with superior athletes do to other teams. Our O dominated their D, which is what is supposed to do. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Schmoe wrote:We do have some superior players, and that's what helped us put up almost 700 yards of total offense, get 41 first downs, and score 47 points. Even with a bad quarter in the third, we ran their defense into the ground; we did what teams with superior athletes do to other teams. Our O dominated their D, which is what is supposed to do. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Correction. Our O dominated minus the bazillion penalties, pick six, 8 sacks, safety, and not stopping that one undersized but very quick middle LB and their blitzes.

Cougs_Rule wrote:

Schmoe wrote:We do have some superior players, and that's what helped us put up almost 700 yards of total offense, get 41 first downs, and score 47 points. Even with a bad quarter in the third, we ran their defense into the ground; we did what teams with superior athletes do to other teams. Our O dominated their D, which is what is supposed to do. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Correction. Our O dominatedminus even when including the bazillion (sometimes bogus) penalties, pick six, 8 sacks, safety, and not stopping that one undersized but very quick middle LB and their blitzes.

Fixed it for ya....

Is it fair to assume that had we played a time that ran a normal offense, we would have far less plays run, and likely would have scored somewhere in the ballpark of 25-30 points? I t think the 47 and 46 point total is misleading. Our O scored points in spite of some bad play calls and strategy and bad decisions by individuals on offense. We continued to go to slow developing plays instead of quick slants, screens, etc when it was obvious they were bringing the heat and our O-line was exhausted and becoming ineffective. 8 sacks, 3 interceptions, a safety and a whole lot of penalty yards on offense. These stats show that there is a lot of work to be done and that we are lucky the play calling didn't lose the game for us. We scored a good amount of points (albeit points/play is probably just average) but our O also gave up a lot of points on bad play calling resulting in turnovers, penalties and field position.

Problem wasn't Anae. Both those interceptions were on Hill, not Anae. The penalties were also on the players, not Anae.

Our most productive quarter was the 1st quarter when UH's defense was fresh. We had those guys on their heels and did whatever we wanted. Our offense was fresh and rolled.

Yes, UH made some adjustments, but I think we saw an ugly bi-product of GFGH; our own players got tired. When tired, you play sloppy and make mistakes. Wasn't any lack of coaching on Anae's part.

I get on Anae as much as the next guy, but with a young offense, particularly a newbie OL, I think it's smart to error on the side routine rather than trying to mix in new stuff. Stick to the game plan, especially since the primary reason you aren't executing on the game plan is your own fault.

Cougs_Rule wrote:

Schmoe wrote:We do have some superior players, and that's what helped us put up almost 700 yards of total offense, get 41 first downs, and score 47 points. Even with a bad quarter in the third, we ran their defense into the ground; we did what teams with superior athletes do to other teams. Our O dominated their D, which is what is supposed to do. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Correction. Our O dominated minus the bazillion penalties, pick six, 8 sacks, safety, and not stopping that one undersized but very quick middle LB and their blitzes.

You're right, why did Anae call that play where our players get penalties? Why did he call that play where Hill throws it directly to a linebacker, or that other play call to ignore the open guy in the endzone and throw a pick instead? Why oh why did Anae call that safety and tell Hill not to throw the ball away on those sacks? Anae is such an awful coordinator and got outcoached. And despite all of those things, we STILL PUT UP ALMOST 700 YARDS, 47 POINTS, 41 FIRST DOWNS.

Schmoe wrote:

Cougs_Rule wrote:

Schmoe wrote:We do have some superior players, and that's what helped us put up almost 700 yards of total offense, get 41 first downs, and score 47 points. Even with a bad quarter in the third, we ran their defense into the ground; we did what teams with superior athletes do to other teams. Our O dominated their D, which is what is supposed to do. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Correction. Our O dominated minus the bazillion penalties, pick six, 8 sacks, safety, and not stopping that one undersized but very quick middle LB and their blitzes.

You're right, why did Anae call that play where our players get penalties? Why did he call that play where Hill throws it directly to a linebacker, or that other play call to ignore the open guy in the endzone and throw a pick instead? Why oh why did Anae call that safety and tell Hill not to throw the ball away on those sacks? Anae is such an awful coordinator and got outcoached. And despite all of those things, we STILL PUT UP ALMOST 700 YARDS, 47 POINTS, 41 FIRST DOWNS.

I get what you're saying, but doesn't a coach bear some responsibility for educating and coaching his players against making such mistakes during the weeks/camps? I just think people are getting too polarized in assigning blame. Lion's share? Players. Smaller share? Coaching.