Defense against Tulsa - aberration? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

nikuman · 09-23-2007, 04:21 AM

We did to AFA exactly what I thought we would. Everybody touts Carney as some second coming of Doug Flutie, but I think it's all relative - we're talking about a school where it used to nigh unto a miracle if a guy could throw it downfield without tripping over his own feet. The best defense to the option is a bunch of good, fast linebackers, so I expected that we'd to a relatively good job on their running game, and I wasn't worried about them beating us deep consistently like Tulsa did.

That said, I'm still a bit concerned. There were a couple of plays, IIRC, on which our secondary could have been beaten deep if the ball was thrown better, one that should have gone for a touchdown but for the fact that their receiver looked like somebody had attached cinder blocks to his cleats, and about a hundred plays on which the secondary was biting on the play fake like Charlie Weiss on a box of donuts.

This last bit is what concerns me. Our defense against the run is very good, and our secondary has a big part in that, but I am thinking that our safeties especially are becoming a bit "run first" and are therefore prone to play fakes. One part of me is really scared to face teams with QBs who can exploit that (is there anybody left on the schedule outside of CSU's Hanie?); the other part wonders if this week's problems were the result of practices that focused on stopping the run (this is AFA, after all) and Tulsa was just a matter of not coming in prepared and a QB having a silly day.

I've always said that, no matter how good your defense, you're going to have at least one game in which the defense will get torched and you'll lose if your offense can't keep up. Utah was that game last year (and maybe BC). Is Tulsa that game this year, or should I buckle up?

TheSizzle36 · 09-23-2007, 04:29 AM

Tulsa's WRs = Very Fast
BYU's DBs = Not as fast

Tulsa came out with a scheme to beat BYU and took advantage of it. If you can't keep players in front of you, of course a team is going to go over the top time after time.

Yes, BYU's defense (secondary in particular) needs to improve keeping people in front of them. But part of the problem in Tulsa was the lack of BYU to put pressure on the QB early enough, and then shut down the run later. BYU essentially was in a position where they couldn't stop anything, so the stopped nothing.

I think Bronco remembered the importance of putting pressure on the QB. That was big today against Air Force. The only times the QB really had much time was on their play action passes. A lot of d-line stunts, and a few blitzes by backers helped put pressure on the QB and helped the DBs out.

So, to answer your question... was the Tulsa game a bit of an abberation defensively? I would say yes. I would also say that there were some issues schematically that have since been addressed to some degree, and while we may still have some troubles covering the deep ball, we'll do a better job earlier of putting pressure on the QB.

RockyBalboa · 09-23-2007, 06:01 AM

It's a good thing Carney isn't a good passing QB, cause there were still several AFA WR open today and were it not for the front 7 putting pressure on him he could've had some long plays.

Buchanon and Criddle stink. Buchanon is especially overated. It boggles my mind that Brandon Howard isn't starting.

From my seat in the stadium....there were a few plays where our DB's bit HARD....and we were just fortunate enough that Carney didn't make the plays.

nikuman · 09-23-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

Tulsa's WRs = Very Fast
BYU's DBs = Not as fast

Tulsa came out with a scheme to beat BYU and took advantage of it. If you can't keep players in front of you, of course a team is going to go over the top time after time.

Yes, BYU's defense (secondary in particular) needs to improve keeping people in front of them. But part of the problem in Tulsa was the lack of BYU to put pressure on the QB early enough, and then shut down the run later. BYU essentially was in a position where they couldn't stop anything, so the stopped nothing.

I think Bronco remembered the importance of putting pressure on the QB. That was big today against Air Force. The only times the QB really had much time was on their play action passes. A lot of d-line stunts, and a few blitzes by backers helped put pressure on the QB and helped the DBs out.

So, to answer your question... was the Tulsa game a bit of an abberation defensively? I would say yes. I would also say that there were some issues schematically that have since been addressed to some degree, and while we may still have some troubles covering the deep ball, we'll do a better job earlier of putting pressure on the QB.

I'm going to trust you on this one, partly because secondary coverages aren't my specialty (I was on offensive lineman back in the day) but mostly because that answer gives me warm fuzzies.

All-American · 09-23-2007, 07:09 AM

All of last week was an aberration. Unless, of course, you mean to tell me that the same team that beat the crap out of UCLA last week just got bitch-slapped by UNLV to the tune of 27-0.

TheSizzle36 · 09-23-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

It's a good thing Carney isn't a good passing QB, cause there were still several AFA WR open today and were it not for the front 7 putting pressure on him he could've had some long plays.

Buchanon and Criddle stink. Buchanon is especially overated. It boggles my mind that Brandon Howard isn't starting.

From my seat in the stadium....there were a few plays where our DB's bit HARD....and we were just fortunate enough that Carney didn't make the plays.

And I think part of the reason Carney wasn't able to make those plays was because of the pressure we put on him up front (thankfully), which is something that we did a poor job of last week.

I agree on Buchanon sucking. I was surprised that he started over Howard. Howard played well v. Tulsa, Buchanon didn't. Not that it matters... knowing Kayle's history, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets hurt in the next few weeks and is out for longer than anticipated.

cougjunkie · 09-23-2007, 03:19 PM

Biggest problem was what Jaime Hill said: "a few guys on our defense are not trusting their teammates"

He was talking specifically about Quinn Gooch and Corby Hodgkiss. Those guys sell out on every single run fake. When in reality they need to play the pass first with the weakness we have at corner. We have great LBs and a solid D-line, they dont need as much help stopping the run as our corners need in coverage.

nikuman · 09-23-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Biggest problem was what Jaime Hill said: "a few guys on our defense are not trusting their teammates"

He was talking specifically about Quinn Gooch and Corby Hodgkiss. Those guys sell out on every single run fake. When in reality they need to play the pass first with the weakness we have at corner. We have great LBs and a solid D-line, they dont need as much help stopping the run as our corners need in coverage.

I noticed that when rewatching the AFA game. Gooch especially sells out on the run fake. I feel bad trashing him because I know his family personally, but the kid's got to wake up. If you can't trust Kehl, Nixon and co., then you're in sad shape anyway.

cougjunkie · 09-23-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikuman

I noticed that when rewatching the AFA game. Gooch especially sells out on the run fake. I feel bad trashing him because I know his family personally, but the kid's got to wake up. If you can't trust Kehl, Nixon and co., then you're in sad shape anyway.

Gooch was definitely the worst culprit, his first step was always forward on every play, he doesnt have the speed to make up for mistakes like that. He played better against AFA, but Buchanan stilled struggled, I would really like to see Brandon Howard more.

nikuman · 09-23-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Gooch was definitely the worst culprit, his first step was always forward on every play, he doesnt have the speed to make up for mistakes like that. He played better against AFA, but Buchanan stilled struggled, I would really like to see Brandon Howard more.

Howard looked good in the Tulsa game. I thought he looked like the first true athlete we've had at that position in a long, long time.

09-23-2007, 04:21 AM	#1
nikuman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Somewhere between NYC and Houston Posts: 625	Defense against Tulsa - aberration? We did to AFA exactly what I thought we would. Everybody touts Carney as some second coming of Doug Flutie, but I think it's all relative - we're talking about a school where it used to nigh unto a miracle if a guy could throw it downfield without tripping over his own feet. The best defense to the option is a bunch of good, fast linebackers, so I expected that we'd to a relatively good job on their running game, and I wasn't worried about them beating us deep consistently like Tulsa did. That said, I'm still a bit concerned. There were a couple of plays, IIRC, on which our secondary could have been beaten deep if the ball was thrown better, one that should have gone for a touchdown but for the fact that their receiver looked like somebody had attached cinder blocks to his cleats, and about a hundred plays on which the secondary was biting on the play fake like Charlie Weiss on a box of donuts. This last bit is what concerns me. Our defense against the run is very good, and our secondary has a big part in that, but I am thinking that our safeties especially are becoming a bit "run first" and are therefore prone to play fakes. One part of me is really scared to face teams with QBs who can exploit that (is there anybody left on the schedule outside of CSU's Hanie?); the other part wonders if this week's problems were the result of practices that focused on stopping the run (this is AFA, after all) and Tulsa was just a matter of not coming in prepared and a QB having a silly day. I've always said that, no matter how good your defense, you're going to have at least one game in which the defense will get torched and you'll lose if your offense can't keep up. Utah was that game last year (and maybe BC). Is Tulsa that game this year, or should I buckle up?

09-23-2007, 06:01 AM	#3
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	It's a good thing Carney isn't a good passing QB, cause there were still several AFA WR open today and were it not for the front 7 putting pressure on him he could've had some long plays. Buchanon and Criddle stink. Buchanon is especially overated. It boggles my mind that Brandon Howard isn't starting. From my seat in the stadium....there were a few plays where our DB's bit HARD....and we were just fortunate enough that Carney didn't make the plays. __________________ Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.

09-23-2007, 07:09 AM	#5
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	All of last week was an aberration. Unless, of course, you mean to tell me that the same team that beat the crap out of UCLA last week just got bitch-slapped by UNLV to the tune of 27-0. __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος

09-23-2007, 03:19 PM	#7
cougjunkie Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 5,741	Biggest problem was what Jaime Hill said: "a few guys on our defense are not trusting their teammates" He was talking specifically about Quinn Gooch and Corby Hodgkiss. Those guys sell out on every single run fake. When in reality they need to play the pass first with the weakness we have at corner. We have great LBs and a solid D-line, they dont need as much help stopping the run as our corners need in coverage. __________________ LINCECUM!

09-23-2007, 04:29 AM	#2
TheSizzle36 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,786	Tulsa's WRs = Very Fast BYU's DBs = Not as fast Tulsa came out with a scheme to beat BYU and took advantage of it. If you can't keep players in front of you, of course a team is going to go over the top time after time. Yes, BYU's defense (secondary in particular) needs to improve keeping people in front of them. But part of the problem in Tulsa was the lack of BYU to put pressure on the QB early enough, and then shut down the run later. BYU essentially was in a position where they couldn't stop anything, so the stopped nothing. I think Bronco remembered the importance of putting pressure on the QB. That was big today against Air Force. The only times the QB really had much time was on their play action passes. A lot of d-line stunts, and a few blitzes by backers helped put pressure on the QB and helped the DBs out. So, to answer your question... was the Tulsa game a bit of an abberation defensively? I would say yes. I would also say that there were some issues schematically that have since been addressed to some degree, and while we may still have some troubles covering the deep ball, we'll do a better job earlier of putting pressure on the QB.