Do you like Max?

[Flattop]

Basically, the french, or at least their performance in WWII, would be what I might qualify as being pussies.

Which was basically a consequence of the horrific losses they suffered during the First World War.

[Goatnapper'96]

So it's harder for BYU to implement adjustments than it is for a team like Florida.

Are you saying the act of seeing and mentally adjusting to what your opponent is doing is harder than actually implementing changes on the fly?

Yes to the Florida question. Their athletes are faster so they can get from point a to b faster than BYU's. BYU can mitigate that to some extent if their players are better prepared and can react quicker and not be thinking through their ques and progressions. When you change scheme or adjust the players have to think more because they haven't practiced their new reactions as much. As such they will be slower to get to point a. If team speed isn't your forte in the first place a coach must make a judgement call on the cost/benefit analysis. If he adjusts what his players are supposed to do he must recognize that their speed will be impacted because they are thinking instead of reacting. Some coaches might conclude that even though their players are being outschemed he is likely to create more stops by violently executing what he developed instead of changing scheme because his players lack to the athleticism to think and then react fast enough to stop the opponent.

[JohnnyLingo]

Some coaches might conclude that even though their players are being outschemed he is likely to create more stops by violently executing what he developed instead of changing scheme because his players lack to the athleticism to think and then react fast enough to stop the opponent.

Makes sense.

What about on offense? I'd argue that your philosophy for defense doesn't really apply to the other side of the ball.

[Goatnapper'96]

Which was basically a consequence of the horrific losses they suffered during the First World War.

Or a serious flaw in their DNA that is systematically choking out testosterone. At this point I am open to many explanations, but I refuse to discard genetic inferiority of their male species.

[Indy Coug]

Makes sense.

What about on offense? I'd argue that your philosophy for defense doesn't really apply to the other side of the ball.

That's why BYU was so successful from 1979 to 1991.

[Flattop]

Yes to the Florida question. Their athletes are faster so they can get from point a to b faster than BYU's. BYU can mitigate that to some extent if their players are better prepared and can react quicker and not be thinking through their ques and progressions. When you change scheme or adjust the players have to think more because they haven't practiced their new reactions as much. As such they will be slower to get to point a. If team speed isn't your forte in the first place a coach must make a judgement call on the cost/benefit analysis. If he adjusts what his players are supposed to do he must recognize that their speed will be impacted because they are thinking instead of reacting. Some coaches might conclude that even though their players are being outschemed he is likely to create more stops by violently executing what he developed instead of changing scheme because his players lack to the athleticism to think and then react fast enough to stop the opponent.

He can't make adjustments because he doesn't have the players to do it is different from he can't make adjustments because he is unable to see what adjustments to make.

I suppose a coach can be great if he doesn't have the players for making adjustments. But I don't think he can be great if he can't see what adjustments to make.

[Goatnapper'96]

Makes sense.

What about on offense? I'd argue that your philosophy for defense doesn't really apply to the other side of the ball.

I think since offenses know where they are going and are not as reactive in as many positions as defense, it is easier to adjust. Offenses, by design, are not nearly as reactive. So I agree. I think this also helps to explain why BYU can put out offenses as capable as teams with far superior athletes. Offense can be far more cerebral and focus and execution can compensate for a lack of athleticism.

[JohnnyLingo]

That's why BYU was so successful from 1979 to 1991.

Well, you're using one major change that was effective over a long time to make a point.

I'm talking smaller changes that maybe only affect a quarter or two.

I think since offenses know where they are going and are not as reactive in as many positions as defense, it is easier to adjust. Offenses, by design, are not nearly as reactive. So I agree. I think this also helps to explain why BYU can put out offenses as capable as teams with far superior athletes. Offense can be far more cerebral and focus and execution can compensate for a lack of athleticism.

So for BYU, it should be easier to adjust on the fly.

[Goatnapper'96]

He can't make adjustments because he doesn't have the players to do it is different from he can't make adjustments because he is unable to see what adjustments to make.

I suppose a coach can be great if he doesn't have the players for making adjustments. But I don't think he can be great if he can't see what adjustments to make.

I think with Mendenhall it is a mixture of both. Perhaps it is symbiotic in that he realizes what his historical recruiting base is and he has installed systems that maximize its strengths and seeks to mitigate its weaknesses. I don't know enough about him to evaluate how well he makes adjustments. At New Mexico his defense was based upon confusion, at BYU I think it is similarly based but requiring less athleticism and utilizing the front 7 as much as he can. I also think that he is a wise historian and chose defensive and offensive systems that while limited maximize BYU's effectiveness with what it is he can routinely have. There will be years when he will have better athletes and might be in a position to unleash them with adjustments, but I think his mentality is to have the program focus on its points of strength because those are consistent. Some might say that he is thus sacrificing the potentiality of a trully great run to achieve consistentcy. I think next year's defense might be interesting as the only players returning with any experience will be the defensive backfield. And I think that Bradley and Buckner will be a good CB tandem for the MWC next season. It will be interesting if he will put more of the defensive succes on their shoulders and go away from complex zone schemes for more man to man/blitzing schemes. While I think his front 7 will be innexperienced I also think that he will have far better athletes in his front 7 than most of his opponents.

So in the end I don't really know if there is enough evidence to conclude the guy is unable to adjust as much as he has decided that adjusting will, on more occasions than not, bring to pass less desireable results than going with what is his consistent strength.