BYU's Secondary

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

First and foremost,,,,,very few programs, if any, actually teach tackling fundamentals because quite frankly most coaches figure at this level of play you should actually already know how to by now. There's only so much you can say by yelling "wrap up" until you realize that a kid just sucks or that he doesn't have the speed to be in the right spots at the right time.

Also, I can't fathom the Secondary being any worse than they were last year, especially nine new DB's in the fold. Of course you never know.

I pretty much agree with that Rocky. High School is the time to teach one how to tackle, and that is as a late-case scenario. Unless the kid is just faster than fast and hits like a mack truck, they will have had to know how to tackle and put their head on the right side, etc. It's not THAT hard, and that is one thing that coaches can usually evaluate on film whether or not a kid can tackle. If I could pick it up at age 10, there is absolutely no reason that talented 17 and 18 years olds can't be taught it either. And if a High School coach can't teach a player to tackle, they shouldn't be a coach, period.

However, this is where I do disagree. If a coach can see that his team is having problems tackling correctly, and it's not just one or two players, then he'd damn well better take the time to work on that, even if it's just 5-10 minutes a practice.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

First and foremost,,,,,very few programs, if any, actually teach tackling fundamentals because quite frankly most coaches figure at this level of play you should actually already know how to by now. There's only so much you can say by yelling "wrap up" until you realize that a kid just sucks or that he doesn't have the speed to be in the right spots at the right time.

Also, I can't fathom the Secondary being any worse than they were last year, especially nine new DB's in the fold. Of course you never know.

This is totally false. I know for a fact that college teams and even professional teams spend considerable time teaching basic fundamentals, i.e. tackling, blocking, back shuffling, carrying the ball without fumbling, etc.

Some coaches and teams even in the NFL and especially in college have reputations for having fundamentally sound teams because they emphasize it in practice. Watch any NFL summer camp interviews on ESPN and they talk about getting back to the very bottom level basics.

It's the same in every sport. Great basketball coaches spend a lot of time teaching basic stuff like blocking out, post passes, getting in triple threat position, dribbling, etc.

And yes I totally believe that our bad tackling is at least partially due to lack of coaching. Bronco teaches swarm to the ball but once they get there they don't wrap up and bring the guy down.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This is totally false. I know for a fact that college teams and even professional teams spend considerable time teaching basic fundamentals, i.e. tackling, blocking, back shuffling, carrying the ball without fumbling, etc.

If that's the case, I can't remember a drill in practice in my 3 years of attending every pracitce that BYU ran, both fall and spring, where they practiced tackling under Bronco.

I do remember the O-line doing a lot of blocking drills. I watched the DBs practice back pedaling, coming out of breaks, etc. I watched RB and receivers work on carrying the ball without fumbling (ESPECIALLY post UNLV in 2004). But I cannot for the life of me, remember a drill that focused on proper tackling technique. Pursuit and getting to the ball yes. But focusing on getting your head in front, exploding and rolling your hips through the ball carrier, no, I can't recall that.

[Archaea]

I agree with Jay.

Bronco focuses upon intensity and his teams routinely tackle poorly. Some kids in high school were so fast they didn't need good technique.

I disagree that technique is not important. If it were not, why does Tiger have a swing coach who constantly reevaluates his swing. Working hard will make you sloppy.

Teaching a kid to read and not to give tendencies needs to be taught and emphasized.

As a swimmer, we constantly had reevaluation of even the most basic of techniques.

As a runner, coaches evaluate our stride, our tempo, our relaxation, our posture to make tweaks.

As a cyclist, one reevaluates cadence, posture, power outage on a constant basis.

So it makes no sense that constant training of all technique isn't the core of even football coaching. Now I've only watched the lower levels, but it doesn't make sense that techniques shouldn't be part of every practice.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree with Jay.

Bronco focuses upon intensity and his teams routinely tackle poorly. Some kids in high school were so fast they didn't need good technique.

I disagree that technique is not important. If it were not, why does Tiger have a swing coach who constantly reevaluates his swing. Working hard will make you sloppy.

Teaching a kid to read and not to give tendencies needs to be taught and emphasized.

As a swimmer, we constantly had reevaluation of even the most basic of techniques.

As a runner, coaches evaluate our stride, our tempo, our relaxation, our posture to make tweaks.

As a cyclist, one reevaluates cadence, posture, power outage on a constant basis.

So it makes no sense that constant training of all technique isn't the core of even football coaching. Now I've only watched the lower levels, but it doesn't make sense that techniques shouldn't be part of every practice.

Yes, you make a very solid point Archea. I would say that tackling technique needs to be, maybe not overly practiced, but touched up on. My opinion is, however, that by the time a D1 Athlete hits college there is absolutely no reason that a coach should need to spend much time teaching a player how to tackle. They should already know this skills, reguardless of how physically talented they are. You can be fast and superiorly gifted physically and still not succeed even at a high school level. I was one who was not the biggest, fastest or strongest player even at the high school level on my team, but I certainly more than made up for it by using good technique and my head to get in position. High School kids should have a strong enough base if they are considered good enough atheltes for a D1 scholarship that technique doesn't need to be full on taught, but maybe brushed up on.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by The Borg

How will Jaime Hill influence affect the Coug secondary? Will they improve under his guidance?...or, will it be just the same old same old.

I hope the 10 yards off the ball thing will change for the DBs. It seems like BYU's DBs always play 10 yards off and their opponents feed them a steady diet of quick outs. Were they been playing 10 yards off because they stink or were they playing that way because that is how the defense is designed or is it just how Mitchell coached it?

I'll admit that I'm a big fan of Cougar football but I'm not a student of the game -- my knowledge of football is fairly rudimentary (Example: At my high school, anyone that wanted to could be on the team -- I went a whole year as a wide receiver, rode the pine of course, without ever knowing what a "fly" pattern or a "flag" pattern was). I don't know why the 10 yards off thing bothers me but for some reason it does. For those of you that are students of the game, does the 10 yards off thing bother you?

Did BYU play 10 yards off back in the Omarr Morgan/Tim McTyre days? How about Jernaro Gilford - was he a 10 yards back guy?

If the 10 yards back is due to personnel and not due to scheme, is there any hope that the current crop of DBs can play closer to the line?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I hope the 10 yards off the ball thing will change for the DBs. It seems like BYU's DBs always play 10 yards off and their opponents feed them a steady diet of quick outs. Were they been playing 10 yards off because they stink or were they playing that way because that is how the defense is designed or is it just how Mitchell coached it?

. . .

Did BYU play 10 yards off back in the Omarr Morgan/Tim McTyre days? How about Jernaro Gilford - was he a 10 yards back guy?

If the 10 yards back is due to personnel and not due to scheme, is there any hope that the current crop of DBs can play closer to the line?

I think I remember Bronco (or someone on the team) saying the 10 yards thing was more a function of the ability of the CB's than anything. I'd have to agree.

I don't believe Morgan, McTyer, or Gilford did a lot of that, but I haven't examined the tapes.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by jay santos

This is totally false. I know for a fact that college teams and even professional teams spend considerable time teaching basic fundamentals, i.e. tackling, blocking, back shuffling, carrying the ball without fumbling, etc.

Some coaches and teams even in the NFL and especially in college have reputations for having fundamentally sound teams because they emphasize it in practice. Watch any NFL summer camp interviews on ESPN and they talk about getting back to the very bottom level basics.

It's the same in every sport. Great basketball coaches spend a lot of time teaching basic stuff like blocking out, post passes, getting in triple threat position, dribbling, etc.

And yes I totally believe that our bad tackling is at least partially due to lack of coaching. Bronco teaches swarm to the ball but once they get there they don't wrap up and bring the guy down.

Actually it's not false.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think I remember Bronco (or someone on the team) saying the 10 yards thing was more a function of the ability of the CB's than anything. I'd have to agree.

I don't believe Morgan, McTyer, or Gilford did a lot of that, but I haven't examined the tapes.

The 10 yard back thing is a little of both actually. Part of it is the scheme in trying to disguise coverage; part of it is also the ability of the corners.

When Schmidt was around BYU played (IIRC) a lot of Cover 21, which is two guys over the top and man underneath. This is particularly great if you can get pressure with the front 4 and maybe a blitzing backer, and have a two safeties with decent speed and corners who can stick on their guys. This allows for a lot of press coverage, and allows corners to gamble a little bit more as they 'should' have safety help over the top.

The 3-3-5 under Bronco (and I assume the 3-4 as well) is more based on pressure. The idea is that if you can get pressure on the QB quick, the routes won't have time to develop, he'll rush a throw and your guys only have to cover for 2 seconds instead of 5 or 6. Now, it's a LOT easier to cover a guy for 2 seconds on a single move than it is for 5 or 6. With the 3-3-5 playing guys 10 yards off the ball hypothetically it allows you to better disguise your coverage, so before the snap the QB has less chance to read what is happening and before the ball is snapped, the DBs should move into position whether they're blitzing, pressing, dropping into zone, etc.

A typical (ie non-press or safety help over the top) cushion is anywhere from 5-7 yards. With Bronco's scheme, guys typically were a little further back. Again, it is part scheme, part ability (IMO).

It will be interesting to see how they play this fall. If Bronco does run the 3-4 like he did the 3-3-5 hopefully they'll be a ble to do a better job of getting pressure on the QB than they have the last two years. Shutting down the blitz is the key to beating a Bronco Mendenhall Defense... that and misdirection. Those two things are what REALLY kill our D.