cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > SPORTS! > Football

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-04-2016, 05:35 PM   #11
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Unimpressive performance by the offensive team.

Hill looks slower. Ty's game calling is conservative and so far unimaginative, and the players aren't make plays.

It shouldn't surprise with so many rookies on the coaching staff, but all were convinced that Ty would step in and be magical.
Per Taysom, Ty didn't show the entire playbook.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2016, 09:14 PM   #12
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I felt it was a poor performance by the offense, esp. given their advantage in the trenches.

We have to give Hill a little bit of a break, after all, it's been a long time since he last played.

There will certainly be no dark-horse Heisman talk coming out of this game for him.

He did seem a little more accurate than his underclassmen days, where any kind of short throw was an adventure in terms of accuracy.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2016, 11:29 PM   #13
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I think the good parts...

1) relatively mistake free
2) guys seemed ready to play, and play hard
3) generally good special teams (esp. punting and that game winning FG)
4) the sense that the coaches are not over their heads

I think there were two images that really caught my eyes....one was a crowd shot of some totally pumped older poly guys in the front row, BYU fans.

And the other was Coach Sitake with all these really pumped up poly coaches, trainers, grad assistants (not sure what their roles are), celebrating with him.

If it's slightly moving to me, I can only imagine how moving it is to poly families that are watching at home.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2016, 09:15 PM   #14
BlueK
Senior Member
 
BlueK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
BlueK is on a distinguished road
Default

I think what we actually saw Saturday was that Sitake's approach to a game is more holistic than Bronco's: "I do my thing on defense and the OC does his thing on offense." I don't think we've seen anything like this in the near past. Some of Lavell's teams did it to some extent. It's similar to what Utah does however. The offense and defense went hand in hand together to beat Arizona and keep them from playing to their strengths. The close score notwithstanding, I was happy with that.

You can point out a few miscues on offense that kept us from scoring more points, but the overall scheme was successful. They gained yards, chewed up clock and kept our defense and Arizona's offense off the field. Arizona's offense is basically another GFGH scheme. The point of it is to wear the defense down by running a lot of plays. Arizona scored a lot of points last year in almost every game against a P12 schedule. So I don't think you can brush away the significance of taking them completely out of their style and forcing them to play away from what they are comfortable with, and holding them to very little yardage and only 16 points. We did exactly to Arizona what would have beaten a BYU team under Bronco and Anae, IMO. We'll see what happens, but I the approach of this staff is better suited to beating Utah than we have been in the past.

Detmer's offense in this game was designed to grind it out. But we did actually try to go deep at least 3 or 4 times. It's just that Hill and the receiver didn't connect on those. Had they done so I think BYU scores a lot more points. The longer pass plays I think is something they can still improve on, and I think they will. But Arizona's defense was trying to take that away and was playing zone to leave the shorter stuff open, which I think the offense did a reasonably good job against. Also, at the end of the game when it was necessary to move the ball down the field quickly we did.
__________________
I am a libertarian

Last edited by BlueK; 09-06-2016 at 09:31 PM.
BlueK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 04:09 AM   #15
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
I think what we actually saw Saturday was that Sitake's approach to a game is more holistic than Bronco's: "I do my thing on defense and the OC does his thing on offense." I don't think we've seen anything like this in the near past. Some of Lavell's teams did it to some extent. It's similar to what Utah does however. The offense and defense went hand in hand together to beat Arizona and keep them from playing to their strengths. The close score notwithstanding, I was happy with that.

You can point out a few miscues on offense that kept us from scoring more points, but the overall scheme was successful. They gained yards, chewed up clock and kept our defense and Arizona's offense off the field. Arizona's offense is basically another GFGH scheme. The point of it is to wear the defense down by running a lot of plays. Arizona scored a lot of points last year in almost every game against a P12 schedule. So I don't think you can brush away the significance of taking them completely out of their style and forcing them to play away from what they are comfortable with, and holding them to very little yardage and only 16 points. We did exactly to Arizona what would have beaten a BYU team under Bronco and Anae, IMO. We'll see what happens, but I the approach of this staff is better suited to beating Utah than we have been in the past.

Detmer's offense in this game was designed to grind it out. But we did actually try to go deep at least 3 or 4 times. It's just that Hill and the receiver didn't connect on those. Had they done so I think BYU scores a lot more points. The longer pass plays I think is something they can still improve on, and I think they will. But Arizona's defense was trying to take that away and was playing zone to leave the shorter stuff open, which I think the offense did a reasonably good job against. Also, at the end of the game when it was necessary to move the ball down the field quickly we did.

I was very disappointed with the play of the receivers. An oft repeated refrain at BYU, "we have the best receiving corps ever." Well that usually means they are crappy. No separation, no going up for passes and no break away speed. Johan Trinneman is small.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.