BYU's Secondary

[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.

[jay santos]

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.

Brian Mitchell was promoted out of his job. In that case, you have to assume that a coaching change at the position level is not going to matter much.

We need talent. We've got some guys coming in but it will be at least a year probably. At this point we have to have faith in "it has to get better because it can't get worse".

[TheSizzle36]

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.

There are a lot of questions. The DBs should be better with an extra year of experience.

Often times coaches can teach techniques differently that click with some players and don't with others. So adding Mitchell's teachings to Hill's might improve the DBs.

Staying healthy could also be a big factor.

Changes in scheme could also make a difference. Our corners aren't good enough to play only man coverage throughout most of the game, but the safeties aren't exactly the type best suited to play strictly cover 2.

The biggest factor, IMO, is going to be having a front 7 that can stop the run without a lot of help from the secondary. Otherwise, play action will absolutely KILL us. The LBs should be solid as long as they can get some help from the DLine to let them play.

One of the biggest problems with the 3-3-5 that we've ran the last two seasons was our inability to put consistent pressure on the QB. The whole purpose of the 3-3-5 is to get pressure so your DBs don't have to cover for long periods of time. Games where that was exposed big time was Boise St. in 2003 and Notre Dame in 2005. So if the switch to the 3-4 can help put more pressure on the QB, then I do think that our DBs can be much improved.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the subject. IMO, it'll be as much how Bronco uses the talent (using that term lightly) on the defense as much as the 'talent'.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

There are a lot of questions. The DBs should be better with an extra year of experience.

Often times coaches can teach techniques differently that click with some players and don't with others. So adding Mitchell's teachings to Hill's might improve the DBs.

Staying healthy could also be a big factor.

Changes in scheme could also make a difference. Our corners aren't good enough to play only man coverage throughout most of the game, but the safeties aren't exactly the type best suited to play strictly cover 2.

The biggest factor, IMO, is going to be having a front 7 that can stop the run without a lot of help from the secondary. Otherwise, play action will absolutely KILL us. The LBs should be solid as long as they can get some help from the DLine to let them play.

One of the biggest problems with the 3-3-5 that we've ran the last two seasons was our inability to put consistent pressure on the QB. The whole purpose of the 3-3-5 is to get pressure so your DBs don't have to cover for long periods of time. Games where that was exposed big time was Boise St. in 2003 and Notre Dame in 2005. So if the switch to the 3-4 can help put more pressure on the QB, then I do think that our DBs can be much improved.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the subject. IMO, it'll be as much how Bronco uses the talent (using that term lightly) on the defense as much as the 'talent'.

That's a good point. I think there is something to a new coach bringing in something different adding to the previous coach's players.

Example: Bronco came in and did a fantastic job with Schmidt's players in 2003. Schmidt taught them how to tackle and play fundamentally sound in their positions. Bronco gave them intensity. Combine the two and the 2003 D tore up. The farther we get away from Schmidt, the worse the D gets.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's a good point. I think there is something to a new coach bringing in something different adding to the previous coach's players.

Example: Bronco came in and did a fantastic job with Schmidt's players in 2003. Schmidt taught them how to tackle and play fundamentally sound in their positions. Bronco gave them intensity. Combine the two and the 2003 D tore up. The farther we get away from Schmidt, the worse the D gets.

To an extent that's true, although I wouldn't ever say that Schmidt's D's were known for solid tackling, that problem has been one that has plauged BYU for a long time. But yes, often times when a team has been taught with a solid base of fundamentals a new coach can come in and bring new life/energy to the program and push it over the top.

I think with this years secondary, however, it will likely be other things that push them over the top, ie scheme changes, being healthy and just another year of experience more than a new coaches attitude. I was a big fan of Mitchell in watching his relationship with the players and his attitude.

[livecoug]

honest question.. do we really really believe that bronco is skipping over fundamentals like tackling? I know we sucked last year, but is it because tackling is not taught?

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by livecoug

honest question.. do we really really believe that bronco is skipping over fundamentals like tackling? I know we sucked last year, but is it because tackling is not taught?

I am of the opinion that if a player is worthy of a D1 scholarship they should have most of the basics down by the time they set foot on a college campus.

BYU may be a little different (pure speculation here) because a lot of players leave for 2 years to go on a mission, some of those fundamentals may have been forgotten. They shouldn't be, because tackling is so basic.

However, they don't spend much time working on fundamentals (ie tackling) in practice. There isn't much time to do it. The things that Bronco focuses on is effort (they do a LOT of pursuit drills which focus a lot on effort and being in the right place).

I tend to think that most players should have that down and don't put a lot of fault at the coaches for that... although with the poor tackling that they've shown, maybe they should put a little bit of time into it.

[Archaea]

I just disagree.

Most high school kids do well simply because they are physically more gifted than the kids around them. The high school coaching is very disparate.

If I were to adopt a philosophy, I would first teach sound fundamentals, drilling it until the kid can do it in his sleep and then tactics.

The plays are no good, if he's out of position, tackles with his head on the wrong side of the ball.

[il Padrino Ute]

If a college kid can't tackle, he is lacking fundamentals. Any and all problems with fundamentals falls squarely on the coaches.

[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.