Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A thought on Bronco's defensive philosophy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A thought on Bronco's defensive philosophy

    So Bronco is on record as saying that on defense, BYU's goal is to force opposing offenses to complete long, many-play drives; the idea being that college offenses can't go that long without making a mistake.

    Common knowledge, right?

    What I find odd is that BYU's offense is predicated on short-yardage plays. A few yards here, a few yards there, a first down. The big play for a TD is a rarity.

    So doesn't the philosophy apply to the Cougars, as well? Isn't it unreasonable to expect things to go perfectly for 10 plays in a row? Players will fumble the ball, receivers will run the wrong way, the quarterback will make a bad decision. The longer you are on the field, the greater the possibility this happens.

    The Colts/Dolphins game tonight is a perfect example. The Dolphins offense was churning out yards, running the clock, and getting the ball down the field, but in smaller chunks. Eventually, something went wrong and they couldn't convert a third down.

    Meanwhile, the Colts got downfield in big chunks. They had the ball under 15 minutes and scored 27 points during that time. Peyton was taking shots down the field and connecting.

    This comes back to my concerns about Max Hall a bit. I believe he is unable to consistently hit the long pattern. As such, the offensive playbook is cut back quite a bit, and we have to run this "small chunks of field at a time" offense.

    Against bad defenses, it looks great. Against defenses like UCLA 2007, TCU and Arizona and Utah 2008 and Florida State 2009, it doesn't work so well.

    This is my take as someone who has never coached a game in his life.

  • #2
    39 views and no responses? Not even a "ur dum" or two?

    Comment


    • #3
      There are so many mischaracterizations and erroneous facts in your post as to scare anyone from undertaking a comprehensive response. I think your last sentence was completely superfluous.
      Everything in life is an approximation.

      http://twitter.com/CougarStats

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
        39 views and no responses? Not even a "ur dum" or two?
        You tricked us into reading another "Max Hall can't throw deep" post by changing the title. I think people might be sick of it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Indy Coug View Post
          There are so many mischaracterizations and erroneous facts in your post as to scare anyone from undertaking a comprehensive response. I think your last sentence was completely superfluous.
          Just checking. I suppose it is a lot of work to go through and correct every single wrong point I made. Thanks for the response.

          You tricked us into reading another "Max Hall can't throw deep" post by changing the title. I think people might be sick of it.
          Well, to be fair, it's actually a "Max Hall can't consistently throw deep" idea, but good point.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think I warned you this would happen. On the other hand I have to congratulate you on getting the amount of responses you do to your posts.

            I imagine Hallelujah is writhing in pain wondering how you do it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by byu71 View Post
              I think I warned you this would happen. On the other hand I have to congratulate you on getting the amount of responses you do to your posts.

              I imagine Hallelujah is writhing in pain wondering how you do it.
              Thanks, friend.

              Comment

              Working...
              X