Sunday, January 6, 2008

Post Bowl Game


So, I've got to say that the Poinsettia Bowl was probably my favorite bowl game that Utah has been to.
Now, everybody I say this to always comes back with "Better than the Fiesta Bowl?" Well, I think it was better than the Fiesta Bowl. Here's why:

1. The Fiesta Bowl is one of the all-time best Utah Football memories. But it was the journey, not the event, that made it so great. The Fiesta Bowl itself wasn't that great.

2. The organization of the Poinsettia Bowl was much better. With the Fiesta Bowl, the line for the tickets for families was incredibly unorganized (Alex Smith's family couldn't get in until after kick-off because they were only had one person working the lists, and they couldn't find most tickets. It took us three hours).

3. The concessions sucked(only small hot dogs and stale popcorn), and the facilities sucked (the seats were hard benches and the bathrooms were dirty urinal troughs).

4. The crowd atmosphere wasn't as good. Don't get me wrong. Seeing 55,000 Utah fans in the same place gave me great pride. But you can't deny that there were too many Utah bandwagoners, and hardly any Pitt fans in attendance. Navy, on the other hand, brought great fans - most of whom were very classy. Navy had great tradition, and it was fun to take part in that. Pitt was a bad team, and they didn't care to be there. And the Utah fans in San Diego were the die-hards - all 12,000 of them.

Now, what I didn't like about the game: How freaking close it was. Utah manhandled Pitt, as expected. The BCS wasn't ready for a non-BCS school to take on one of their money-makers, but I have no doubt that Utah could have played USC or Auburn that year. That they happened to run the table when three other schools did was horrible luck. And Pitt never had a chance.
Navy, on the other hand, shouldn't have played Utah as close as they did. They had the worst passing D in the NCAA, and Utah had the athletes at WR to exploit that. But they chose not to. That first half was the most frustrating half of football that I've seen in a long time. Utah played completely conservatively - trying to milk the clock. They passed fewer attempts than Navy in the first half (6 vs. 7) and fewer yards. Johnson looked so tentative, and the Utes D played well - though they looked pretty pissed off at the coaching strategy as they head into the locker room.
Whit pulled his head out at half-time, and after six minutes, the Utes offense came out passing. But why did it take that long? Some Whittingham apologists claim that it was a good strategy. If it was a good strategy, then why was he apologizing after the game? Why was the team, including Johnson and his wide receivers, so obviously mad at the play-calling in that first half? It was a mistake, and the reason that they moved the ball in the second half wasn't due to a sudden ability to execute. It was because the playcalling was more conservative.

After watching that game, I have no doubt that Utah could have beat BYU had they played to win, rather than to not lose. This coaching staff is their own worst enemy, at times. Another example of this was when Utah went into prevent after their 10 point lead with 1:30 left vs. Navy. Why would you go into prevent against Navy? They don't throw the ball. Going man to man worked great all game. Why change? Well, they threw a TD pass and recovered an onsides recovery, and had Navy decided to run, rather than pass (stupidly), then they could have taken that game into overtime and snatched another loss from the jaws of victory.

I hope Whittingham is honest with himself in this off-season, and reviews the mental hiccups that took place during the year. The game plan lost the game vs. Air Force (no running game, no scheme adaptibility for Grady), UNLV (only 12 carries for Mack?), and BYU. The OSU game was lost due to the unfortunate injuries - but the other three games were lost more on coaching, and if they don't face this and address these common mental hiccups, then Utah will never be better than a second or third place team year after year - despite the great talent in this program.

No comments: