BJ on 1280 this morning

[Hot Lunch]

So I had a guy at work tell me that BJ had some interesting things to say about BYU's D last year. I listened to he and Hans a little this morning but was at work when he talked about the part I am referring to. I checked PrimaryBoard and it looks like someone reported the same thing.

Well I am glad BJ said what he said. Everyone who watched more than 1 half of a BYU football game last year knew what there D was going to do on every play.

Will Brother Mendanhall or Sister Jaime Hill be affected by it? I doubt it. The more it is talked about the better though.

[I.J. Reilly]

What, exactly, did he say about the D?

[DU Ute]

30 for 36 with no INTs says it all.

[Hot Lunch]

What, exactly, did he say about the D?

Nothing really bad. Just that he knew what they were doing every down and that they need to mix it up and not drop into coverage every play.

PrimaryBoard is all worked up about it I guess.

[JohnnyLingo]

Nothing really bad. Just that he knew what they were doing every down and that they need to mix it up and not drop into coverage every play.

PrimaryBoard is all worked up about it I guess.

Are they? From what I've read the vast majority of posters there agree with BJ.

[Hot Lunch]

Are they? From what I've read the vast majority of posters there agree with BJ.

Maybe they aren't. I just read a few posts about it and laughed. The majority of the few I read had something to do with "why do we care what BJ thinks".

[Indy Coug]

I find it hilarious that a coach that for 3 seasons blitzed on nearly every down is accused of being pathologically unwilling to blitz now. He switched from a hyper-aggressive 3-3-5 to a more passive 3-4-4 to the adulation of many (including back to back top 25 defensive seasons in 2006 and 2007) and then gets crucified for it in 2008.

What seems to be impossible for BYU fans to compute is the realization that our defensive personnel were so bad in 2008 that blitzing just wasn't a legitimate option. In 2005 with one of our historically worst defenses, Bronco stopped blitzing in the middle of the season because our defense consistently failed to generate pressure and consistently broke down in the secondary.

My point is twofold:

1. Bronco has shown ample willingness in the past to change when it made sense to change

2. Bronco knows the risk/benefits of both a passive and an aggressive defensive scheme

[Hot Lunch]

I find it hilarious that a coach that for 3 seasons blitzed on nearly every down is accused of being pathologically unwilling to blitz now. He switched from a hyper-aggressive 3-3-5 to a more passive 3-4-4 to the adulation of many (including back to back top 25 defensive seasons in 2006 and 2007) and then gets crucified for it in 2008.

What seems to be impossible for BYU fans to compute is the realization that our defensive personnel were so bad in 2008 that blitzing just wasn't a legitimate option. In 2005 with one of our historically worst defenses, Bronco stopped blitzing in the middle of the season because our defense consistently failed to generate pressure and consistently broke down in the secondary.

My point is twofold:

1. Bronco has shown ample willingness in the past to change when it made sense to change

2. Bronco knows the risk/benefits of both a passive and an aggressive defensive scheme

He is unwilling to blitz now. He hasn't really done it for 3 years now. In 06 and 07 he had the personal to do so yet didn't. Yes last years personnel on D was not good. Some of that falls on the coaches and who was in the game. But to do the same vanilla Defense on 95% of the plays is pathetic.

Having your linebackers continue to cover faster wideouts game in and game out shows me that someone last year was not willing to change what they were doing.

[JohnnyLingo]

I find it hilarious that a coach that for 3 seasons blitzed on nearly every down is accused of being pathologically unwilling to blitz now. He switched from a hyper-aggressive 3-3-5 to a more passive 3-4-4 to the adulation of many (including back to back top 25 defensive seasons in 2006 and 2007) and then gets crucified for it in 2008.

What seems to be impossible for BYU fans to compute is the realization that our defensive personnel were so bad in 2008 that blitzing just wasn't a legitimate option. In 2005 with one of our historically worst defenses, Bronco stopped blitzing in the middle of the season because our defense consistently failed to generate pressure and consistently broke down in the secondary.

My point is twofold:

1. Bronco has shown ample willingness in the past to change when it made sense to change

2. Bronco knows the risk/benefits of both a passive and an aggressive defensive scheme

You make good points, but I think what frustrates fans is that Bronco's complete lack of mixing it up and even trying to blitz makes it seem like he's given up. "Oh well, my players on defense suck, so let's keep it vanilla" hurts when the other team is marching up and down the field at will. Don't know how attempting a few blitzes would have resulted in any worse an outcome than Utah scoring 60+ with no changes.

Just my two cents.

[Sizzle]

My point is threefold:

3. Bronco is infallible

Corrected.

[TripletDaddy]

I was thinking this thread was going to be about something else.

[Indy Coug]

The following logic is unassailable

A doesn't work

B wasn't tried, or at least not tried very much

Therefore, B is a better option than A

[Hot Lunch]

I was thinking this thread was going to be about something else.

We can easily make it that way. I said what I wanted to say on the topic. I am open to talking about other things now.

[SCcoug]

The following logic is unassailable

A doesn't work

Therefore let's keep doing A, maybe it will work now.

[JohnnyLingo]

The following logic is unassailable

A doesn't work

Therefore let's keep doing A, maybe it will work now.

Well, if I understand Indy correctly, it's more like

A doesn't work

But nothing we try will work, so what the hell.