Defense Question - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Clark Addison · 10-14-2008, 02:14 PM

A commenter on Gooch's blog alluded to something that I have been somewhat worried about for the last few weeks. Bronco often talks about how our defense is not high-risk/high-reward. It is designed to use field position to out-execute the opposing offense over the long term. The theory of the D seems to be, "if we have 75 yards to work with, you will make a mistake sometime before you hit the endzone". So far, this has worked very well.

My concern is this. I can see how this would work very well with most offenses. The Wyomings and UCLAs and New Mexicos of the world are likely to make a lot of mistakes on offense. When you get a very good offense, though, how will it work then? I don't know if you can count on a Texas or Missouri, or, for that matter, a Tulsa, to make those offensive mistakes. So when we play a good offense, will our D suddenly be wildly exposed? Fortunately, we may not play a real good offense until the bowl game.

A further note that may be of interest only to baseball fans. I started thinking about this because I remembered an essay from the 1984 (I think) Baseball Abstract (yes, I am proud to say that I was into the Baseball Abstract as a teenager in 1984). I haven't read it in years, but my recollection is that Bill James is talking about the failure of the White Sox in the post-season. The White Sox were a team that was very aggressive on the basepaths, and forced the opposing defense to make plays, which they often didn't. While that strategy was well and good, they found themselves in the playoffs against the Orioles, who were outstanding on D. Suddenly the Sox found themselves being caught stealing and being thrown out trying to go from first to third on a single to Left. The strategies that worked against teams that would beat themselves would not work against quality teams.

MikeWaters · 10-14-2008, 02:17 PM

Didn't OSU just stymie Chase Daniels with a bend-but-don't-break D? They gave up a lot of 3 yard passes and took away the big plays down the field. Chase completed almost every pass (except the INTs), but lost the game.

Surfah · 10-14-2008, 02:29 PM

I am okay with this philosophy to a degree. If we're playing a team with a potent offense then I am okay. However, I don't think we have played one yet and don't feel it is has been necessary. My biggest concern though with this philosophy is that it can keep our biggest weapon off the field like we saw in the UNM game.

TheSizzle36 · 10-14-2008, 03:53 PM

Watch what Boston College did to our offense in LES our first game under Bronco in 2005 and remember how frustrating it can be for an offense who gets 3-yard passes all game long, but eventually makes a mistake and can't sustain a long drive. I am almost convinced that the Boston College game in '05 is what swayed Bronco to this type of philosophy. Who cares how many yards you give up if the other team can't score. It also hopefully results in better field position and scoring opportunities for your offense.

Yes, it is a bit more conservative. But let's be honest, it is difficult to argue with the results. And frankly, against Tulsa, it wasn't the sustained drives that killed us that game, it was players being out of position and giving up big plays. Tulsa went 3-13 on 3rd downs that game, and BYU had the edge in time of possession by over 10 minutes, but Tulsa was able to get big plays and had quick scoring drives, the exact opposite of what our defense is designed to do.

Against top teams like Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, etc., I still think that our defensive scheme is the correct way to play it. By doing so you shorten the game and give them less opportunities to score. When you are playing a better team, your best chance to win is usually to shorten the game (see New Mexico against BYU last weekend).

Surfah · 10-14-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

Watch what Boston College did to our offense in LES our first game under Bronco in 2005 and remember how frustrating it can be for an offense who gets 3-yard passes all game long, but eventually makes a mistake and can't sustain a long drive. I am almost convinced that the Boston College game in '05 is what swayed Bronco to this type of philosophy. Who cares how many yards you give up if the other team can't score. It also hopefully results in better field position and scoring opportunities for your offense.

Yes, it is a bit more conservative. But let's be honest, it is difficult to argue with the results. And frankly, against Tulsa, it wasn't the sustained drives that killed us that game, it was players being out of position and giving up big plays. Tulsa went 3-13 on 3rd downs that game, and BYU had the edge in time of possession by over 10 minutes, but Tulsa was able to get big plays and had quick scoring drives, the exact opposite of what our defense is designed to do.

Against top teams like Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, etc., I still think that our defensive scheme is the correct way to play it. By doing so you shorten the game and give them less opportunities to score. When you are playing a better team, your best chance to win is usually to shorten the game (see New Mexico against BYU last weekend).

I agree. However, I don't think our defense needs to do this every game. I feel like we give some offenses too much respect which is why I said I am okay with this philosophy when our opponent has a potent offense. I don't know that there is one in the MWC.

The flip side is when we do go this route and play possession ball, we limit our opportunities and possible damage any sort of rhythm and consistency we have on offense. I am afraid at times that this creates a stagnant offense and with limited possessions you're forced into conservative play calling.

Cool avatar.

RockyBalboa · 10-14-2008, 05:21 PM

Part of the reason for that defensive scheme is also one of the age old debates/problems with BYU.

They don't always get great athletes back there.

This type of scheme helps to mask that.

jay santos · 10-14-2008, 05:35 PM

Anybody remember when I blasting Bronco's defenses circa 2004, 2005, saying he was too risky for not enough reward and with our demographics we needed a more Whittinghamesque defense? I accept your apology in advance, Indy.

TheSizzle36 · 10-14-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfah

I agree. However, I don't think our defense needs to do this every game. I feel like we give some offenses too much respect which is why I said I am okay with this philosophy when our opponent has a potent offense. I don't know that there is one in the MWC.

Love Bronco for what he is, hate Bronco for what he is. Bronco believes on consistency and execution. He would rather the team know their assignments, and execute them to near perfection than to try and out scheme coaches on a weekly basis by throwing out a new defensive strategy. Do I think at times Bronco would like to be more aggressive? Yes. But I think it goes against his core philosophy with a heavy emphasis on execution. And I do think it is hard to argue with his results. When was the last time BYU lost a game where they were dominated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfah

The flip side is when we do go this route and play possession ball, we limit our opportunities and possible damage any sort of rhythm and consistency we have on offense. I am afraid at times that this creates a stagnant offense and with limited possessions you're forced into conservative play calling.

I agree to a point. When the defense works and you can force turnovers or create shorter fields for your offense (see UCLA and Wyoming) it is hard to argue with the results. Even against New Mexico, we still covered the spread and while the game was close, I never really felt like it was in question.

Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoy a slow-down, smash mouth football game from time to time. I like that BYU can play physical and win.

Spaz · 10-14-2008, 06:13 PM

Short answer: Yes, it's very effective.

Long answer: It's even more effective against bad offenses than good ones, where the "mistake:good play" ratio is higher. One stat should answer this question: BYU has yet to give up a TD in conference play.

RockyBalboa · 10-14-2008, 06:45 PM

On occasion Bronco does get more aggressive defensively.

The Utah game last year was a perfect example. We blitzed the crap out of Brian Johnson that game and it proved very effective. BJ had a terrible game against BYU because We mixed up our coverages more than we usually do and it was the most aggressive I'd seen our defense play in a very long time. He genuinely seemed confused most of the game where to go with the ball.

10-14-2008, 02:14 PM	#1
Clark Addison Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 638	Defense Question A commenter on Gooch's blog alluded to something that I have been somewhat worried about for the last few weeks. Bronco often talks about how our defense is not high-risk/high-reward. It is designed to use field position to out-execute the opposing offense over the long term. The theory of the D seems to be, "if we have 75 yards to work with, you will make a mistake sometime before you hit the endzone". So far, this has worked very well. My concern is this. I can see how this would work very well with most offenses. The Wyomings and UCLAs and New Mexicos of the world are likely to make a lot of mistakes on offense. When you get a very good offense, though, how will it work then? I don't know if you can count on a Texas or Missouri, or, for that matter, a Tulsa, to make those offensive mistakes. So when we play a good offense, will our D suddenly be wildly exposed? Fortunately, we may not play a real good offense until the bowl game. A further note that may be of interest only to baseball fans. I started thinking about this because I remembered an essay from the 1984 (I think) Baseball Abstract (yes, I am proud to say that I was into the Baseball Abstract as a teenager in 1984). I haven't read it in years, but my recollection is that Bill James is talking about the failure of the White Sox in the post-season. The White Sox were a team that was very aggressive on the basepaths, and forced the opposing defense to make plays, which they often didn't. While that strategy was well and good, they found themselves in the playoffs against the Orioles, who were outstanding on D. Suddenly the Sox found themselves being caught stealing and being thrown out trying to go from first to third on a single to Left. The strategies that worked against teams that would beat themselves would not work against quality teams.

10-14-2008, 02:29 PM	#3
Surfah Master Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: F'burg, VA Posts: 3,211	I am okay with this philosophy to a degree. If we're playing a team with a potent offense then I am okay. However, I don't think we have played one yet and don't feel it is has been necessary. My biggest concern though with this philosophy is that it can keep our biggest weapon off the field like we saw in the UNM game. __________________ Ernie Johnson: "Auburn is a pretty good school. To graduate from there I suppose you really need to work hard and put forth maximum effort." Charles Barkley: "20 pts and 10 rebounds will get you through also!"

10-14-2008, 05:21 PM	#6
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	Part of the reason for that defensive scheme is also one of the age old debates/problems with BYU. They don't always get great athletes back there. This type of scheme helps to mask that. __________________ Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.

10-14-2008, 06:13 PM	#9
Spaz Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,371	Short answer: Yes, it's very effective. Long answer: It's even more effective against bad offenses than good ones, where the "mistake:good play" ratio is higher. One stat should answer this question: BYU has yet to give up a TD in conference play. __________________ "My days of not respecting you are certainly coming to a middle." -Malcolm Reynolds "It doesn't mean that if we lose a game or when we lose a game people won't then jump on and say the quest is over. Because they will. But they've missed the point." -Bronco Mendenhall on "The Quest"

10-14-2008, 06:45 PM	#10
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	On occasion Bronco does get more aggressive defensively. The Utah game last year was a perfect example. We blitzed the crap out of Brian Johnson that game and it proved very effective. BJ had a terrible game against BYU because We mixed up our coverages more than we usually do and it was the most aggressive I'd seen our defense play in a very long time. He genuinely seemed confused most of the game where to go with the ball. __________________ Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.

10-14-2008, 02:17 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Didn't OSU just stymie Chase Daniels with a bend-but-don't-break D? They gave up a lot of 3 yard passes and took away the big plays down the field. Chase completed almost every pass (except the INTs), but lost the game.

10-14-2008, 03:53 PM	#4
TheSizzle36 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,786	Watch what Boston College did to our offense in LES our first game under Bronco in 2005 and remember how frustrating it can be for an offense who gets 3-yard passes all game long, but eventually makes a mistake and can't sustain a long drive. I am almost convinced that the Boston College game in '05 is what swayed Bronco to this type of philosophy. Who cares how many yards you give up if the other team can't score. It also hopefully results in better field position and scoring opportunities for your offense. Yes, it is a bit more conservative. But let's be honest, it is difficult to argue with the results. And frankly, against Tulsa, it wasn't the sustained drives that killed us that game, it was players being out of position and giving up big plays. Tulsa went 3-13 on 3rd downs that game, and BYU had the edge in time of possession by over 10 minutes, but Tulsa was able to get big plays and had quick scoring drives, the exact opposite of what our defense is designed to do. Against top teams like Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, etc., I still think that our defensive scheme is the correct way to play it. By doing so you shorten the game and give them less opportunities to score. When you are playing a better team, your best chance to win is usually to shorten the game (see New Mexico against BYU last weekend).

10-14-2008, 05:35 PM	#7
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	Anybody remember when I blasting Bronco's defenses circa 2004, 2005, saying he was too risky for not enough reward and with our demographics we needed a more Whittinghamesque defense? I accept your apology in advance, Indy.