Playing soft was the right game plan

[RedStickHusky]

and it worked to a tee. We just didn't have enough offense for it to matter. Forced them to throw under all day and lengthen their drives.. they had trouble finishing for three qtrs. Play them tight and they start hitting us over the top and we're in a shot out -- that gets uglier earlier. BYU didn't pull away until we wrapped critical mistakes in bonehead decisions and gave them back to back short fields (or was it back-to back-to back?)

 

[Stinger92860]

Can't say I agree on agree on this. We were way too soft and kept giving up 3rd down conversions. They took what we gave them and it was easy for them to move the ball. Then they made critical mistakes.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Can't say I agree on agree on this. We were way too soft and kept giving up 3rd down conversions. They took what we gave them and it was easy for them to move the ball. Then they made critical mistakes.

yes it was ugly but it was a 10-10 game late in the third...they were not finishing their long drives.

 

[Bonehead]

I agree about the 10-10 score however I still believe there is too much bend don't break when the O averages about 13 points a game.
It's one thing to play bend don't break D when you are ND and your offense is averaging 33 a game with studs everywhere and another when figuring out how to get a running game going and put points on board.

Field position would improve offensively as well with some 3 and outs now and again.

 

[RedStickHusky]

yeah, I admit that our lack of offense rendered it moot. especially when you're answering long drives with three and outs, your defense ends up on the field all day and is gassed in the 4th. but playing to shorten the game and hold down the score is classic underdog strategy. don't want to start a discussion of former coaches but UConn fans have seen it all before.

 

[RedStickHusky]

right and wrong is a pretty subjective call though, let me just say that I think I understand them playing loose and with more from the offense it might've worked.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Strongly disagree. BYU has big WR's. Getting deep is not their forte. We gave them exactly what they wanted.

 

[businesslawyer]

LOL that we're even having this discussion. The defensive strategy worked fine. Michigan was successful with press coveerage? Big whoop. How do you expect to successfully play press coverage for 60 minutes when you can't generate a pass rush.

Our OL isn't good enough and our DL, while very good against conventional running, doesn't have pass rushers. You can't coach your way through those issues. You have to develope your roster better over time.

 

[rich1122]

The more their you QB threw the ore chance of a mistake. It worked to some extent. We could not pick up their safeties coming up the middle.

 

[SubbaBub]

This is a false correlation. BYU could have run those under routes all day. The fact they didn't was a knock on their strategy, not a proof that ours was correct.

 

[kcc1442]

Strongly disagree. BYU has big WR's. Getting deep is not their forte. We gave them exactly what they wanted.

Magnum completed passes of 38 and 42 against Nebraska in 1 quarter of play. And passes of 84, 70, and 41 against Boise State. So there goes that argument. Each one of those passes is a drive changer and point maker and it all happens in one play. Our offense can't play like that, if we allow other offenses to then we are screwed.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Magnum completed passes of 38 and 42 against Nebraska in 1 quarter of play. And passes of 84, 70, and 41 against Boise State. So there goes that argument. Each one of those passes is a drive changer and point maker and it all happens in one play. Our offense can't play like that, if we allow other offenses to then we are screwed.

Spent all that time doing that crack research? Were those plays where the WR got behind defenders or catch and runs?