The PAC 12 is awful and so is every team in it: BYU @ WSU

[old_gregg]

When was the last time a BYU team had multiple DB's that could play man defense and come up with interceptions? If Tuiaki has had a hand in that, then I'll take it. We held a PAC-12 team to 19 points. I can live with that. Defense is not the problem. If Baylor Romney had played, we would have won by two touchdowns.

not the relevant question, but (a) byu has had db talent, and (b) its scheme doesn’t lend itself to anyone proving they’re talented

[Bo Diddley]

Nah others have said it but Baylor looked significantly better than he may be in his two starts due to the absolutely horrendous coverage he was facing. I was in the stadium for the USF game and couldn't believe how wide open our receivers were most of the game. Baylor is a good QB and we are fortunate to have him as our #2, but Hall has a much higher ceiling. I don't think either of the losses can be laid at his feet, particularly not the Boise one.

Our WR's were wide open, but most of his throws were on the money as well. I'm not sure what the takeaway from that is.

[old_gregg]

Disagree 2x.

he’s never had a defense that could change the momentum of a game. the scheme limits the number of possessions and time of possession and consistently gives the offense 80+ yard fields. it also gases a thin defense. ranked 70-115 in passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed, red zone defense, 3rd down conversion pct, etc. pili was a big loss (maybe don’t win the utah game without him), but the defense has been bad since.

[Pelado]

The Baylor loss doesn't faze me at all. The Boise loss will sting for a while. It sucked to watch us move the ball relatively easy for stretches only to stall in the red zone or turn the ball over. We lost 3 of our 4 fumbles on the season and had 4 of our 7 turnovers on the season in that one game. I mean credit to Boise for making plays but very few things needed to go differently for us to have won comfortably.

I still love this team and am having a blast watching this season. Even my most optimistic, blue-tinted goggles probably didn't predict 6-2 through 8 games. But with a good start comes elevated expectations and one of those very reasonable expectations was beating a not great Boise team (#91 in total offense / #87 in total defense) at home.

That Boise game did not go how I was expecting. I thought BYU had the advantage in the trenches and would run the ball with relative ease (as most have done against BSU this season) and bottle up their running game (as most have done against BSU this season). While BSU did not have a lot of rushing yards, their running game was more effective than I expected. BYU's running game, on the other hand, was much less effective than I expected (even when they weren't coughing up the ball).

Losing to BSU always sucks because most of my family are BSU fans.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Losing to BSU always sucks because most of my family are BSU fans.

Thoughts and prayers.

[old_gregg]

Losing to BSU always sucks because most of my family are BSU fans.

it must be nice to have such a close network of tradesmen to come unclog your toilet, deliver your amazon packages, cut your hair, etc.

[Pelado]

Thoughts and prayers.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

it must be nice to have such a close network of tradesmen to come unclog your toilet, deliver your amazon packages, cut your hair, etc.

It is nice, to be honest.

[All-American]

he’s never had a defense that could change the momentum of a game. the scheme limits the number of possessions and time of possession and consistently gives the offense 80+ yard fields. it also gases a thin defense. ranked 70-115 in passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed, red zone defense, 3rd down conversion pct, etc. pili was a big loss (maybe don’t win the utah game without him), but the defense has been bad since.

I don't agree that he's never had a defense that could change the momentum of the game (see, e.g., Houston last year, when the defense allowed all of six points in the second half). But even without contesting that premise, a lot of the reason we scheme the way we do is to provide cover in places where the defense is genuinely thin. We saw earlier this year what BYU does when it has the right guys in place. The real question is why we do not seem to have better guys to put in place.

I mean, really, our leading rusher and leading tackler in this game were both walk-ons. That says something nice about the walk-on development, I guess, but what does it say about the guys we asked to come play for us?

[old_gregg]

I don't agree that he's never had a defense that could change the momentum of the game (see, e.g., Houston last year, when the defense allowed all of six points in the second half). But even without contesting that premise, a lot of the reason we scheme the way we do is to provide cover in places where the defense is genuinely thin. We saw earlier this year what BYU does when it has the right guys in place. The real question is why we do not seem to have better guys to put in place.

if his signature contribution was giving up six points in the second half (after giving up 20 in the first) to a team that finished 3-5 and ranked 55th in total offense in the weirdest season in college football history, guess we just have different standards.

at what position group do you think we're thin? i dont think there's a position group on the field that benefits from the scheme (which is why the refusal to adjust is so frustrating). if we want to effectively spot the other team the ball at our 35 every drive, we might as well do that from the get go to keep people fresh and get the offense more possessions.

I mean, really, our leading rusher and leading tackler in this game were both walk-ons. That says something nice about the walk-on development, I guess, but what does it say about the guys we asked to come play for us?

it says that the defensive coordinator recruiting guys on the defensive side of the ball isn't doing a good enough job?

[All-American]

if his signature contribution was giving up six points in the second half (after giving up 20 in the first) to a team that finished 3-5 and ranked 55th in total offense in the weirdest season in college football history, guess we just have different standards.

at what position group do you think we're thin? i dont think there's a position group on the field that benefits from the scheme (which is why the refusal to adjust is so frustrating). if we want to effectively spot the other team the ball at our 35 every drive, we might as well do that from the get go to keep people fresh and get the offense more possessions.



it says that the defensive coordinator recruiting guys on the defensive side of the ball isn't doing a good enough job?

No, I think his signature contribution would be more like giving up less than twenty to either Utah or ASU this year. But that wasn’t where you put the goalpost.

As for which position group is thin, that would be linebacker. They were really struggling this last game. And the adjustments made last week to the scheme were pointedly an effort to shift weight from the linebackers to the secondary.

The last point, about recruiting, is a real point (but you never hear about it with everyone whining about the scheme). And hopefully it is where being in the big 12 will pay off dividends. It may be already.

[Moliere]

Stupid coaches. They should only call plays that work all the time.

What about the option play to the short side of the field? Come on, that one has NEVER worked!

[old_gregg]

No, I think his signature contribution would be more like giving up less than twenty to either Utah or ASU this year. But that wasn’t where you put the goalpost.

As for which position group is thin, that would be linebacker. They were really struggling this last game. And the adjustments made last week to the scheme were pointedly an effort to shift weight from the linebackers to the secondary.

The last point, about recruiting, is a real point (but you never hear about it with everyone whining about the scheme). And hopefully it is where being in the big 12 will pay off dividends. It may be already.

if you are thin at linebacker, it makes no sense to maximize the coverage responsibility of the linebackers.

[All-American]

if you are thin at linebacker, it makes no sense to maximize the coverage responsibility of the linebackers.

Agreed. That’s likely why they ran nickel for most of Saturday.

[Non Sequitur]

Jaren Hall is #11 in the country in QBR. Yeah, they should bench his ass.

I'm not calling for Hall to be benched, but he didn't kill it against WSU. Aside from Hall's running ability, Baylor does just about everything else better than Hall. He's more accurate, makes better decisions, is better at getting the ball out on time, throws a better long ball and is better on 3rd and long. That said, Hall's ability to run still probably gives him the overall edge Baylor as starter. In the game against WSU, though, I think Romney would have gotten us more than 21 points.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not calling for Hall to be benched, but he didn't kill it against WSU. Aside from Hall's running ability, Baylor does just about everything else better than Hall. He's more accurate, makes better decisions, is better at getting the ball out on time, throws a better long ball and is better on 3rd and long. That said, Hall's ability to run still probably gives him the overall edge Baylor as starter. In the game against WSU, though, I think Romney would have gotten us more than 21 points.

Good hell, he completed 75% of his passes with zero turnovers.