Mendenhall versus Hill

[Goatnapper'96]

Above and beyond Hill's interpersonal issues and the impediment to success that they became over time, I think Mendenhall and Hill have a very different perspective on the purpose of a defense.

I recall reading an article by Markell Stafierri where he said that at one of the first practices Hill approached Markell and gave him some advice for how to better play the passing lanes as an ILB. Staffierri replied that the opponent had such and such formation and that his first responsibility was stopping the run, and while Hill didn't argue he just advised him what would be better in stopping the pass.

I think part of Hill's issues this year, and the reason why the defense was such a sieve against the run, was that he was more focussed on defending the pass. There could be good reasons to explain why his base instinct caused him to lean in this direction- obviously he was a db coach, but I think Mendenhall, being mentored by Rocky Long, is a disciple of stopping the run first. The difference in rush defense since Mendenhall took over is noticeable and while I think a big part is the improved effort, it is also schematic and focus IMO.

So this begs the question, in college football what will make for a more successful defense? Clearly, the optimal defense is being able to lock down elgible receivers in one on one coverage and stack the box, but BYU is not able to do that as it rarely has those type of athletes. So BYU plays a zone defensive scheme where they keep everything ahead of them and the first read for the front 7 is always stopping the run. I think Mendenhall has done some dorky statistics and concluded that teams who can stop the run usually win. Given the limitations of BYU's defensive players' athleticism this exposes BYU to the pass. However, to be beaten by the pass forces the opponents to execute. I think it is easier and less complex to execute a running play than a passing play. So Mendenhall takes this approach and seeks to first stop the run and force teams to beat him through the air and then hope that his zone schemes can create enough confusion in the opponents passing game that his defense is successful more frequently than not.

Taking this into account he is usually beaten by experienced quarterbacks familiar with his defensive schemes. Even good quarterbacks who have never seen his schemes struggle the first time they face it. Look at Sam Bradford, the OSU qb last year or at the Tulsa qb when he was a junior. I can't recall if Andy Dalton was named the starter when BYU played TCU in 2007, if he wasn't he is the only one who really shredded BYU the first time he played against it. However, look what the Tulsa QB did the second go around.

Remember this when predicting the CSU-BYU game this year.

[KillerDog]

Above and beyond Hill's interpersonal issues and the impediment to success that they became over time, I think Mendenhall and Hill have a very different perspective on the purpose of a defense.

I recall reading an article by Markell Stafierri where he said that at one of the first practices Hill approached Markell and gave him some advice for how to better play the passing lanes as an ILB. Staffierri replied that the opponent had such and such formation and that his first responsibility was stopping the run, and while Hill didn't argue he just advised him what would be better in stopping the pass.

I think part of Hill's issues this year, and the reason why the defense was such a sieve against the run, was that he was more focussed on defending the pass. There could be good reasons to explain why his base instinct caused him to lean in this direction- obviously he was a db coach, but I think Mendenhall, being mentored by Rocky Long, is a disciple of stopping the run first. The difference in rush defense since Mendenhall took over is noticeable and while I think a big part is the improved effort, it is also schematic and focus IMO.

So this begs the question, in college football what will make for a more successful defense? Clearly, the optimal defense is being able to lock down elgible receivers in one on one coverage and stack the box, but BYU is not able to do that as it rarely has those type of athletes. So BYU plays a zone defensive scheme where they keep everything ahead of them and the first read for the front 7 is always stopping the run. I think Mendenhall has done some dorky statistics and concluded that teams who can stop the run usually win. Given the limitations of BYU's defensive players' athleticism this exposes BYU to the pass. However, to be beaten by the pass forces the opponents to execute. I think it is easier and less complex to execute a running play than a passing play. So Mendenhall takes this approach and seeks to first stop the run and force teams to beat him through the air and then hope that his zone schemes can create enough confusion in the opponents passing game that his defense is successful more frequently than not.

Taking this into account he is usually beaten by experienced quarterbacks familiar with his defensive schemes. Even good quarterbacks who have never seen his schemes struggle the first time they face it. Look at Sam Bradford, the OSU qb last year or at the Tulsa qb when he was a junior. I can't recall if Andy Dalton was named the starter when BYU played TCU in 2007, if he wasn't he is the only one who really shredded BYU the first time he played against it. However, look what the Tulsa QB did the second go around.

Remember this when predicting the CSU-BYU game this year.

I agree.

[jay santos]

Above and beyond Hill's interpersonal issues and the impediment to success that they became over time, I think Mendenhall and Hill have a very different perspective on the purpose of a defense.

I recall reading an article by Markell Stafierri where he said that at one of the first practices Hill approached Markell and gave him some advice for how to better play the passing lanes as an ILB. Staffierri replied that the opponent had such and such formation and that his first responsibility was stopping the run, and while Hill didn't argue he just advised him what would be better in stopping the pass.

I think part of Hill's issues this year, and the reason why the defense was such a sieve against the run, was that he was more focussed on defending the pass. There could be good reasons to explain why his base instinct caused him to lean in this direction- obviously he was a db coach, but I think Mendenhall, being mentored by Rocky Long, is a disciple of stopping the run first. The difference in rush defense since Mendenhall took over is noticeable and while I think a big part is the improved effort, it is also schematic and focus IMO.

So this begs the question, in college football what will make for a more successful defense? Clearly, the optimal defense is being able to lock down elgible receivers in one on one coverage and stack the box, but BYU is not able to do that as it rarely has those type of athletes. So BYU plays a zone defensive scheme where they keep everything ahead of them and the first read for the front 7 is always stopping the run. I think Mendenhall has done some dorky statistics and concluded that teams who can stop the run usually win. Given the limitations of BYU's defensive players' athleticism this exposes BYU to the pass. However, to be beaten by the pass forces the opponents to execute. I think it is easier and less complex to execute a running play than a passing play. So Mendenhall takes this approach and seeks to first stop the run and force teams to beat him through the air and then hope that his zone schemes can create enough confusion in the opponents passing game that his defense is successful more frequently than not.

Taking this into account he is usually beaten by experienced quarterbacks familiar with his defensive schemes. Even good quarterbacks who have never seen his schemes struggle the first time they face it. Look at Sam Bradford, the OSU qb last year or at the Tulsa qb when he was a junior. I can't recall if Andy Dalton was named the starter when BYU played TCU in 2007, if he wasn't he is the only one who really shredded BYU the first time he played against it. However, look what the Tulsa QB did the second go around.

Remember this when predicting the CSU-BYU game this year.

What's with the CSU QB? Is he good or bad? I assume bad?

I agree with Bronco that the foundation of a defense is to stop the run. BYU has won a lot of games in the past shutting down the run and hoping the QB won't make accurate passes to open receivers.

[Sizzle]

I don't think this excellent post got enough traction.

I think watching football in general, the rule has always been stop the run first. I'm not sure who originally penned the quote that three things can happen when you pass, and two of them are bad (incomplete, interception) to which I think you could really add a fourth result overall, (and a third negative result) which is get sacked. The run game is maximized, imo, by strength and effort. If you've got guys who are bigger or stronger, or guys who flat out just want it more, you should be able to run all day long. Same thing goes when it comes to stopping the run. Schematics are important to make sure you have gap control covered (especially in the 3-4, you are leaving linebackers free to bring down the ball carrier for a short gain instead of safeties), but ultimately if you're an effort guy and you can flat out beat the guy lined up against you because you are quicker, stronger, or just want it more, you can have an impact on the run. I think this is essentially the summation of this:

The difference in rush defense since Mendenhall took over is noticeable and while I think a big part is the improved effort, it is also schematic and focus IMO.

As it relates to the pass, I think this is mostly dead on:

Clearly, the optimal defense is being able to lock down elgible receivers in one on one coverage and stack the box, but BYU is not able to do that as it rarely has those type of athletes. So BYU plays a zone defensive scheme where they keep everything ahead of them and the first read for the front 7 is always stopping the run. I think Mendenhall has done some dorky statistics and concluded that teams who can stop the run usually win. Given the limitations of BYU's defensive players' athleticism this exposes BYU to the pass. However, to be beaten by the pass forces the opponents to execute. I think it is easier and less complex to execute a running play than a passing play. So Mendenhall takes this approach and seeks to first stop the run and force teams to beat him through the air and then hope that his zone schemes can create enough confusion in the opponents passing game that his defense is successful more frequently than not.

I go all the way back to Bronco's first game as a head coach when Boston College came to town. We returned a lot of guys that year, a lot of talented guys, and that BC team was good, but not great. BYU offensively was unable to do ANYTHING that game because BC essentially shut down the run and made BYU complete check-down passes all game long. Passing takes a lot more timing and execution, and it is more difficult to pull off than beating a guy helmet to helmet and running the football. A really really good offense has the ability to do that. But an undisciplined one will make a bad read here or there, and eventually, two completions for 4 yards each and an incomplete pass (or a 4-yard completion, an incomplete pass and a rush for no yards, etc.) will catch up and stall a drive. It is why Bronco believes that if you can hold a team to 17-points a game, you have a really good chance at winning (BYU has won something like 30 straight games when giving up 17 points or less).

When you have a really good offense, you can beat that type of defense. BYU had that type of offense the last 4-years, and look at their record. 4-straight 10-win seasons. Most teams in the Mountain West don't have that type of offense that can be disciplined, can take what is given and execute. It comes with a lot of work, and a lot of practice. When you have an offense that is that good, you can afford your defense to play a little softer and work towards the 17 point barrier IMO.

When your offense is not as good, I think you have to hope for an improved defensive effort. I think you need to rely more on turnovers to give your offense the short field. Instead of forcing teams to pick you apart, the issue gets forced a little bit more, and you start to see things that are much more risk/reward like zone blitzes, corner blitzes, etc. I think that is why we've seen this with Bronco moreso this year than any other. Bronco knows that not only does the defense need to be tighter to the 17-point threshold than before, he also probably needs to force the turnover issue easier. Generally speaking, I think it is easier to force teams into making mistakes (drive stallers or turnovers) throwing the ball than it is running it. Shut down the run and make them pass, make them be predictable, and you have the ability to get kinky in the secondary and, against especially young QBs, really get in their head and force them to make bad decisions. Its why I think a lot of us hope that BYU runs the ball a little bit more this week and why we probably have a good shot against Wyoming, UNLV, CSU and New Mexico.