What's wrong with Utah and how can it be fixed?
We knew heading into this season there was a possibility the Utes could struggle. 2010 was less than spectacular and while they returned more experience at key positions, there were still questions surrounding the ability of Utah to contend right out of the gate with the second-tier Pac-12 schools.
After three games, I think it's clear we're not there yet.
But why? Why has Utah, which started 2-1 with a solid showing against SC and a dominant win over BYU, struggled so badly in two conference home games that mirror each other frighteningly well?
Let me start by saying I do not believe it's the Pac-12 grind. That is an easy excuse, but not applicable here because the Utes have only played three conference games, two at home, and only these past couple came paired. The other, against SC, was after a warm up win over Montana State and even then, Washington was off a win against a non-BCS school and a bye-week.
It's not the Pac-12 grind doing this. Utah has faced three BCS teams in a regular season before, sometimes in back-to-back games, and got by just fine in the past.
I believe this is a bit less deep than that.
Yes, it's clear the Utes, across the board, just don't have the athletes like Washington and Arizona State, and that's not a quick fix. It's going to take a few recruiting classes to get to their level, especially in terms of depth.
That's not correctable this season. You just have to make do with what you've got and right now, Utah is starting a team that's led by a junior college quarterback and has spent the past few years recruiting talent to win the Mountain West Conference.
It is what it is.
So, we've got to focus on what is correctable and those problems that need to be fixed are, in my view anyway, more tied to the losses these past two weeks than anything dealing with talent.
The past two games, the Utes have played very undisciplined and it's showed with the many turnovers and inexcusable penalties that kill drives, allow opposing drives to continue and just become an overall nuisance. Those are absolutely, positively correctable. Lack of talent is not a reason for stupid penalties. The turnovers we witnessed Saturday had little to do with playing a Pac-12 schedule with Mountain West athletes and everything to do with a team playing very emotionally and it's something that needs to be fixed or it will only continue to kill the season.
This is Kyle Whittingham's challenge. I would wager, the past two weeks, Utah has been very schematically sound on both sides of the ball. But that means a lick if you're emotionally and mentally weak and right now, that's exactly how the Utes have played the past two games.
Now I don't know the direct result of turnovers and maybe it's something that is a bit deeper than this. But then again, it could be just tentative players trying to prove through big plays they're deserving of Pac-12 affiliation. It's entirely possible this team feels it has to prove it belongs and it's causing them to overexert themselves - recklessly going for extra yards and then getting stripped because of it or forcing the ball into coverage trying to make the play.
I don't know if the answer is that easy, but I've got to think if the Utes correct their penalty problem and get a handle on these turnovers, they'll win some games, even if Jordan Wynn has to miss the entire season.
What I've seen the past two weeks is a team very close to being pretty good. This isn't last year's team that just rolled over from the start and failed to compete at any point. They played tough in the first half against Washington and held the lead against ASU midway through the third quarter. Obviously that means little when the end result is still a loss, but those losses were a direct result of turnovers and, in some instances, extremely damaging penalties. Unlike talent or depth, this can be fixed this season.
That's the major thing Whittingham and his staff has to figure out and the fate of the season really hinges on it. If they're going to have a respectable season, a bowl berth and some Pac-12 victories, they will need to hold on to the ball and cut out the ridiculous penalties.
It really is the only thing that can be fixed this season. The talent is here to stay and I've been pretty content with the play calling this year. So it does come down to fielding fundamentally sound football teams because, though not always, they can make up for the discrepancy in talent.
Utah is in badly need of fundamentals or this season will be lost and we'll be spending the holidays home for the first time in nine years.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The scary thing is...
We won the turnover battle vs. USC 3-1 and still managed only 14 points against a team that just gave up 41 to arizona. Yeah the turnovers have made things difficult but it’s too easy of a excuse for a struggling offense that doesn’t have an identity of what it wants to be. Yes it didn’t help we had a front loaded conference schedule before we could figure stuff out, but now we have winnable games coming up it’s time to get it together. The season is judged as a whole we have a long way to go.
Yes, the offense has struggled...
And that makes these turnovers that much more damning. You aren’t going to win many games with a bad offense that turns the ball over as much as Utah has the past two games.
This team can win, but it’s going to take the offense not crapping the bed.
That's not a fair comparison
Teams get better/worse from week to week, injuries change things up, etc. Now Utah may not be quite as potent as ASU on offense right now, but to say ASU’s offense is 300% better isn’t accurate.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
Not Surprising Results So Far
We must take this season into perspective. First of all, this team, in fact the past 2 seasons previous have been no where near the ‘08 squad. Granted that team was special, but it also had experience and discipline, having learned from previous seasons and close losses (i.e. BYU twice). It’s a bad argument to suggest because the Utes are 0-3 in conference play that “we can’t hang with the big boys.” Washington finished 0-12 recently. For one year they couldn’t hang with anybody. One season cannot tell you anything, especially for a team coming into a season with so many question marks. Judgment should be reserved after several years, once the playing field is evened ( recruiting, money, etc.) We shouldn’t have expected the Utes to jump right in for contention considering the disastrous free fall the last few games of ’10. There were too many question marks with the offense heading into this season: New starting RB, is Jordan really healthy?, a new offense, etc.
This year, I have the audacity to suggest the Utes are more talented than the ’08 team, but we are missing the experience and discipline. We have seniors and upperclassmen but who has taken the reins of the team? Jordan is a leader but when have we seen him play with passion and guts? Remember the swagger that BJ had before his famous drive against Ore State in ’08 and again against TCU?
The offensive playcalling the past 2 games I believe has been spectacular. When we weren’t giving the ball up and when John Cullen wasn’t providing his weekly drive killing penalty, we had sustained drives with a healthy balance of run and pass.
Can we place the yesterday’s loss on Hays? I don’t think so. He showed some real potential there, still raw, but he has a better zip on the ball than Jordan, plus he adds mobility which came in handy during some offensive drives.
In all, the difference I believe between MANY of the teams in the PAC-12 and Utah is the experience and discipline. For now the old adage applies “One game at a time.”
The 2008 team had a dozen future NFL draft picks on it
You’re crazy if you think there is that much future NFL talent on this year’s Utah team.
by 100ThingsUtah on Oct 10, 2011 2:04 AM MDT up reply actions
I can name 6
Bergstrom, Christopher, Dres, Blechen, Shelby, Lotelelei
08 team had
Robert Johnson, Brice McCain, Sean Smith, Paul Kruger, Koa Misi, Shelby (he has to count; was a starter), Sly, Slaughterhouse, Zane Taylor, Zane Beadles, and RJ Stanford.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions
oh and
brandon burton, though he was a reserve with Stanford. Dang. We had FOUR corners that year that would go on to get drafted…..
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions
More
Asiata and Brown made practice squads, and Burton played a little that year as well. Forgot David Reed.
oh man
Sorry David!
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 2:46 PM MDT up reply actions
Agree with two
Star and Blechen yes. The other four are a reach. Is Shelby better than Burnett? He barely made it to a practice squad. Will Dres be better than Savoy? Hopefully, if he doesn’t leave 2 years early. Jury’s out on DeVonte and Tony.
I put the loss on Hays. Every one of his interceptions was an underthrown ball.
And he had at least two more that were dropped that were underthrown. Id take Wynn’s wounded-duck passes any day.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 8:29 AM MDT up reply actions
Agree with everything but the, "more talented than the '08 team", opinion.
I thought of this before the last game. How many starters on this team would I choose over their ‘08 counterpart? You can do this with the ’04 team too, to see where we stand up to those teams talent-wise or if you’re really bored. With the ‘08 team, my answer was 2. I would take two 2011 starters out of 24 positions (punter + kicker are counted) over the 2008 counterpart. Bergstom over Hensel and Lotuleilei over Eliapo. Some spots were close. If you’re being generous to our current team, you could take Walker over Wright, Martinez over Gaison/Fotu, and White over Asiata/Mack. So being generous, you could take 5/24 spots over the ‘08 team. That’s how far away this team is from the 2008 team. Not even close. Keep in mind, that roster has 12 in the NFL right now. Does the 2011 team have that many that will make the league?
"What's wrong with Utah and how can it be fixed?"
That’s easy. Go back to a two game schedule.
(Sorry. It was just served up on a tee.)
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Oct 10, 2011 12:36 AM MDT reply actions
South Carolina fan is feeling bad because they haven't had 10 wins since 1984...
…they have had 10 losses though, twice since 1998.
Last season was your best in 25 years & you still lost to Kentucky. I bet that’s “the grind” of the SEC, right? 6-7 Kentucky…who lost to Pittsburg…a team we beat in one of our “2 games” from last year. Kentucky, who finished 74th on Sagarin’s computer ratings…Below 8 of the 13 teams Utah faced last year.
How about you run smack when you manage not to piss away a game during your best season in ages vs. a team like that…okay Mr. Expert?
I am properly chagrined.
Not really. It is nice to see that you have a sense of humor though.
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Oct 10, 2011 9:16 AM MDT up reply actions
Go back to the safety of your SEC blog...
Clearly you didn’t know what you were getting yourself into.
This is rich. A Gamecock fan running smack on Utah
by 100ThingsUtah on Oct 10, 2011 2:06 AM MDT up reply actions
My, we're testy of late.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
Why play nice with people who only come around to rub salt in an open wound?
Especially when they have decided to play the “strength of schedule” card.
In ’04, according to Sagarin, South Carolina played the 61st most difficult schedule in the FBS/FCS. Utah played the 67th…yet South Carolina was only able to go 6-5, while Utah went 12-0.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm
Now South Carolina played an extremely tough schedule last year…so maybe “The Grind” got to them…but don’t come around running smack about how Utah hasn’t faced more than 2 difficult games in a calendar year. It’s ignorant.
I'd say turnovers and poor play from the offensive line are the two biggest problems right now.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
the semantics of the "grind"
… I get what you are saying about “the grind” not being relevant if your definition is the wear and tear of accumulated games over the course of the season. However, if you shift your focus to the wear and tear that accumulates over a game, a different point of view emerges.
Think about under what situation a turnover emerges. Its one of three things: an error in execution, a player is tired, or a player is injured. The latter two are directly related to the grind of a single game. The former can often be a matter of adjustment to the speed of the game, especially the preponderance of your experience is with slower competition.
No doubt, the turnovers have led to a stunning 59-21 scoring differential in the three conference games you have played. Another sign that the physicality and the speed required on every play hasn’t sunk in.
For what it is worth, I don’t see any serious gaps in athleticism along your lines. Your big bodies are stout and nasty and already in middle if not upper half of the whole Pac12. You might have a little more recruiting to do among your skill guys, but its not like the situation WSU was in a few years ago. You guys are already there, its just a matter of withstanding both the grind of a single game by dialing it up every play and surviving the grind of a season by developing your depth.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Breaking down the turnovers...
Starting with the Washington game…
1Q – Lacy Fum: Poorly secured ball. Coughed up with little contact.
2Q – Wynn Int: Did not read the coverage well. Credit to the Wash D for reading the play. (RZ)
2Q – Anderson Fum: Poorly secured ball. Barely forced. (RZ)
3Q – Hays Int: Floated into coverage, underthrown.
3Q – Hays Fum: Trying to throw as he was being sacked…on a 1st & 10, Utah had the ball at the Wash 20… (score was 31-7, 4th Q…I’ll attribute that to “the grind”)
ASU…
2Q – Hays Int: Deep ball floated into coverage, underthrown.
2Q – Hays Int: Corner route floated, underthrown. (RZ)
3Q – White Fum: Driving for extra yards, stripped by defender. (“the grind”)
3Q – Hays Int: Floated pass into coverage (seeing a pattern here?)
3Q – Dunn Fum: Coughed up with little contact. (seeing another pattern?)
-
…so between those 2 games and the 10 turnovers, I see 2 TO’s that I would credit to a strong play on the defensive players part. 3 of these TO’s were in the red zone, would have given Utah the lead if Utah doesn’t turn the ball over. In every case (as with most turnovers), they could have been prevented.
-
In the MWC, maybe the secondary just breaks up the pass rather than intercepts it when Hays floats his 10th ball into coverage…but I doubt it, as would most who watched the games.
I don’t see this as a “depth” issue…other than Hays/QB. Backup QB should have been a priority, but perhaps we did all we could, and just were terribly unfortunate. I know we missed out on a few guys, including a JC guy that you (Wash) picked up. Outside of that, I don’t see that we’re suffering due to lack of depth. Any D is going to get physically & more importantly, mentally exhausted when your offense keeps turning the ball over. It’s like trying to run up a sand hill. No one can survive 5 TO’s.
Also, depth at O-line needs improvement...
If the depth was there, we wouldn’t be starting a Left Tackle as terrible as Cullen.
Id almost rather see Miles Mason or Sam Brenner
there at left tackle and bring in Latu to fill in at the guard spot. John Cullen just isn’t getting it done. Good guy, good teammate, but just not doing it.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 10:21 AM MDT up reply actions
Anyone want to guess how many yards in penalties Cullen has cost us this year to date?
I’m not only talking about yards assessed for penalties but also big plays called back (i.e. DVC’s 80 yards on Saturday).
ab-so-freaking-lotuely.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 11:21 AM MDT up reply actions
ha, i wasn't obviously expecting anyone to do the math
…but i’d guess its somewhere in the 250-300 range. that doesn’t also take into consideration the opportunity cost of a sustained vs. killed drive and potential yards/points given up. hopefully my point is clear that the guy is killing us…
I thought you were doing the math...
…you can also factor away 2-3 turnovers caused by the loss of Wynn…and maybe another due to the QB being hurried because of pressure from the left.
Missing the point.
There’s a difference between a turnover, whether forced or un-forced, and the ability of your opponent to capitalize. You can turn the ball over against Wyoming and New Mexico and win.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 11, 2011 4:43 PM MDT up reply actions
Wyoming and UNM probably wouldn't manage to turn that many mistakes into turnovers
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 13, 2011 5:41 AM MDT up reply actions
Go back to my above list...
Perhaps they would have only converted on 3 1/2…
(I only see 1 “forced” TO in both of those games, but I’ll give you another half-point)
…of those 5 TO’s per game, but most of the TO’s were unforced errors.
On the other side of the coin, the TO ratio would have been closer, because they would have been making mistakes as well…but that’s not the point.
BTW, go explain “The Grind” to me on this thread…
http://www.blocku.com/2011/10/13/2487300/dear-pac-10-vets-lets-define-the-grind
Against those two . . .
But against Air Force, TDS, SDSU, and TCU those are still losses. At the same time, I could say that 5 TOs against the 2008 Washington schools would have still been wins. Every team can go from down to up, and vice versa, within a few years so you’ll always have one or two games you can still stumble to victory.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
I have to whole heartedly disagree with this statement.
“Yes, it’s clear the Utes, across the board, just don’t have the athletes like Washington and Arizona State”
No, we have the athletes to compete. We are just as good as those teams, but we just have executed poorly. And maybe we aren’t quite as deep, but the talent and the athletes are there, that is for sure.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 8:25 AM MDT reply actions
Actually, it is the Pac-12 grind
Allow me to explain. And before I do, I hope you don’t take this as running smack or trolling.
But it really is the conference now. I am a believer in you guys. I know you’ve got a good team with the ability to beat anyone else on any given game. However, up through last year, you didn’t face a consistent slate or opponents who could also do the same. You might have had as few as two or as many as four games against teams that shared your talent level. Other than that, your opponents weren’t really up there.
But now, every week you face a team like you: a team that has the talent to beat any other team in any given game. Suddenly it’s not a matter of having to face Pitt, only then to get to recover against New Mexico. Now, you have USC, then Washington, then ASU. And in the coming weeks you have to deal with another six teams that each can beat you. It just keeps comingweek after week, team after team. It’s what everyone was saying before the season started, there are no “off” weeks. So even though you’ve only played a third of the conference schedule, each one of those games was against a more-or-less equal opponent.
The good news is, you fit in because you can beat any of the teams you face. Unfortunately, the opposite is true, too.
So it’s really not you … it’s the conference.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
by SoCal Oski on Oct 10, 2011 10:00 AM MDT reply actions 5 recs
thank you!
one of the things that has been pleasantly surprising about this new conference is that everyone seems to see the same thing you do……Utah can compete, its just a matter of getting used to the new enviornment. Utah is not at a big disadvantage talent wise. It will take some getting used to by everyone, but we will start winning our share of games.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions
Not really...
Utah has defeated BCS teams in the past, no?
Why are we suggesting the Washington game, which took place after a bye week and two weeks after an instate game against a non-BCS team, is a completely different environment than anything Utah has faced in the past?
We’re not foreign to hosting BCS teams! That’s where yours, and Oski’s point, crumbles. The Utes have played plenty of BCS and Pac-12 teams in Salt Lake City and, up until these last two games, had defeated every one going back to 2000.
In ‘03, Utah lost to Texas A&M the 2nd week of the season, defeated Cal in SLC the third week of the season and then Oregon two weeks later in SLC. That schedule is not dramatically different than what Utah’s seen this season. You had back-to-back BCS games, one on the road and one at home, and another BCS game only two weeks later.
Utah went 2-1 in ’em.
Was there a grind there? Just like this season, they opened up against a lesser opponent (USU instead of MSU) and played a respected non-BCS opponent on the road (CSU instead of BYU).
What really was the difference? Talent? Possibly? Discipline? Definitely. But it wasn’t the grind. Right?
I completely agree with your last point.
I have never said that this losing was caused by the grind. My argument has always been that we are losing games because we aren’t executing. And I dare say that for wahtever reason, this particular team seems a bit intimidated by our new conference foes.
I refuse to get too low after losses. We competed for a large chunk of that game against a top 20 team (who I think will beat Oregon this week) without our starting QB. Mental erros caused us to lose.
Sure, Utah went 2-1 against BCS teams back to back or wahtever in 2003. These are different teams. We gotta find that swagger that the 2003 guys had. Thats all Im saying. We will get there, I am convinced of that.
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions
I don't disagree...
It’s fundamentals, stupid! haha
That’s what has kept Utah from winning these past two games. Whittingham has to figure out now how to fix these undisciplined issues and if he does, I think we have a good shot of winning most our games.
agreed!
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Oct 10, 2011 2:06 PM MDT up reply actions
You've been around long enough that we (BlockU regulars) know you're not a "Troll"...
…but I respectfully disagree.
“The Grind”, as I understand the term, would be if a respected program loses a game to a “lesser” opponent (Oregon St. beating USC in ’08 for example) in conference due to injuries decimating the team, or a general lack of preparation, resulting in what most would term as an upset.
-
I guess the question would be, were any of these losses to a team that Utah “should” have beaten?
Utah had 2 weeks to prepare for Washington. (Adv. Utah)
Both ASU & Washington are, at worst, just as talented / well coached as Utah (talent making up for the Erickson deficiencies, in ASU’s case). I’d say in both cases, Wash/ASU had more talented athletes across the board. (Adv. Wash, ASU)
Utah didn’t have to travel for either of these games. Both Washington and ASU suffered from an altitude disadvantage. (Adv. Utah)
-
…so I guess we could say that Washington was a game we “should” have won…ASU would have been neutral. Neither of these losses were upsets…in fact, Utah beating ASU would have been the upset.
…so I’m not buying that this is “The Grind”…at least as I understand it.
Not just, not just
The fact that there really aren’t any gimme games ahead on the schedule affects game-to-game preparation even early on. On the one hand, you can’t get caught looking past this week’s opponent, because if you do, you’ll most likely lose; but on the other hand, you have to manage the season as a whole, giving serious attention to each team you play. You can’t focus your efforts and energy on just a couple games, figuring you can win the rest of them on talent alone, because you don’t have that sort of talent edge on anybody. Not even USC at their peak had that kind of edge in talent — if they coasted, they lost, or at least got a real scare. And psychologically, everyone knows there’s no break ahead — you have to stay at your peak, or close to it, week after week after week, the whole way through the season; there’s nowhere you can say, “Once we get through this game, we can let down and take it a little easier.” That has its effects, even early in the season.
Personally, it looks to me (and I think Jazzy was saying this too) like the Utes are over-amped, over-revved, trying too hard, and flying out of control on the field. If that’s part of the deal, it really shouldn’t be surprising, but here’s hoping Whittingham can get his kids settled down and playing with more precision.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 10, 2011 11:39 AM MDT up reply actions
So if you're just focusing on the upcoming opponent...
Utah had 2 weeks to prepare for Washington. Can’t really call that “The Grind”. ASU…maybe…but they were favored to beat us anyway.
To me, “the grind” seems like when you’re playing Washington St. and lose…not when you lose to equal or favored teams.
-
I agree with your assessment of being “out of control”. The fumbles have all seemed like breakdowns in fundamentals (Not making ball security the primary focus, trying to do too much).
My point is, it's all of a piece
The effect is systemic — it comes into play every week. Early games become must-win games because you need the cushion for later, and so on, and that raises the overall pressure, and the overall stress level; and the higher the stress level, the more likely you are to have injuries.
And honestly, I think y’all would have beaten us if you hadn’t had the bye week; as it looked to me, I think all the week off did was give everybody more time to get keyed up.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 11, 2011 7:54 AM MDT up reply actions
Nope.
"The Grind", as I understand the term, would be if a respected program loses a game to a "lesser" opponent (Oregon St. beating USC in ’08 for example) in conference due to injuries decimating the team, or a general lack of preparation, resulting in what most would term as an upset."
That’s the extreme end of it. What “the grind” means is that there are no “circle the calendar” dates. There are no “that’s a win, that’s a win, that’s a win, but Nov 12 is a GAME” in PAC-12 play. You take a half, a quarter, a play off and your season goes down the toilet. That’s the grind. The grind means that Wazzu has been laughable for a few years yet has enough talent to send you the Holiday Bowl rather than the Rose Bowl.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 11, 2011 4:52 PM MDT up reply actions
Absolutely wrong...
No offense, but your theory doesn’t hold because Utah hasn’t strung together a few games against Pac-12 opponents.
We opened against Montana State, a FCS school, then played USC, then went back to OOC play with a non-BCS opponent, only to have a bye before the last two games.
Were the turnovers seen a week ago against Washington, after a bye week, so essentially two weeks of not playing a Pac-12 team, because of the ‘grind’? Of course not. No one would be ridiculous enough to suggest it because it’s impossible to call it a grind when you’re looking at a one-game window in a span of three weeks.
Moreover, as I said in the post, the Utes have played BCS teams in the past at the rate they did this season and it hasn’t negatively impacted them this way like it has in the past.
Your point would work so well if Utah had faced BCS teams every week the past four, but that just isn’t the case. You yourself open up a paragraph by saying, “But now, every week you face a team like you…” and that’s not true – at least not yet. Only two weeks in a row have we faced a team ‘like us’ and the first opponent of that back-to-back, again, happened when the Utes were coming off a bye week and had played BYU the week before.
Again, no grind there.
If this was happening in November, or even later this month, I would absolutely agree with you. But if the Utes are already starting to feel the Pac-12 grind, even only two games into the conference schedule, where that one game comes after two weeks of not playing a BCS opponent, then we might as well concede this team won’t make it through the remainder of the schedule A) without a victory & B) without most their team.
Because if that’s the reason they’re losing, this early into the conference slate, we’re f’n screwed.
yes and no
We might be screwed if you’re talking about 2011. If you’re saying we’re screwed in the Pac12, then that’s false.
Utah will continue to improve their player talent. As I’ve said before, Utah is still a non AQ team in an AQ conference, depth-wise. Time will fix that.
You also gotta see it this way: the toughest part of Utah’s schedule was the first half. Thus, if our struggles were going to happen, these would be the games they happen in. And they have. Throw in a backup QB and it’s not hard to see why we’ve struggled.
But the least difficult part of the schedule remains. If after the season we’re still in the same boat, then let’s discuss it. But I don’t think we will be. I am very confident Utah will finish the season strong because of the lower-quality of our opponents.
by TomahawkRed on Oct 10, 2011 11:07 PM MDT up reply actions
it depends
It just depends on what your interpretation of the “grind” is.
To you, it means becoming physically and psychologically taxed week-after-week playing Pac 12 opponents… to the point that you’re not 100% by the time you face the next one.
To me, it means having to play (week in and week out) competition far superior to what we faced in the MWC. The “grind” is, there are no gimme games… you have a chance to win all the games you play, and you have a chance to lose all the games you play. Utah has been physically and psychologically ready for every team they’ve played so far. They just haven’t come out on the winning end yet.
That’s the grind, in my book.
by TomahawkRed on Oct 10, 2011 11:18 PM MDT up reply actions
Either definition doesn't work, tho...
Because, for many years, at this point in the season, Utah has played similar schedules than what they’ve seen in ’11.
Up there I pointed out to ’03 as an example. It was a schedule that very much mirrored this year. They opened against a cupcake (USU), played a tough roadie against a BCS team a week later (A&M), came home and played a Pac-10 team the very next week (Cal) and, after a brief conference game against CSU, returned home to play Oregon at RES.
Utah was 3-1 after four games that season. Obviously ’03’s team was very good and I’m not entirely comparing the two, but the grind wasn’t an issue then and it’s not now.
The Utes aren’t losing because there are no gimmie games. Many times, though not always, there aren’t many gimmie games this early in the season anyway, even when looking at when they played in the MWC. Much of that is because, in years past, the BCS games were generally scheduled early in the season.
Sure, it’s not like that every season (last year, there was only one gimmie), but in some years, Utah did just fine getting through its tough early schedule.
There is no grind. Not yet, anyway.
Right, and after that opening you had the likes of NMSU and UNLV
This year, not so much. Getting through a tough early schedule is easier when it’s a sprint followed by the chance to recover on the bike than when it’s one big hill followed by . . . just a slightly-lower hill.
In any case, I expect Whittingham and the Utes to right the ship, as long as your backup QB settles in OK; Utah might have some work to do to build Pac-caliber depth, but from where I sit, the talent’s basically there. Against UW and ASU, y’all were right there in the first half — you just wore down a bit, mentally and physically, the emotions got loose a little bit later in the game, and you had some breakdowns that did you in. IMHO, that’s very fixable, and I think your coaches have a track record that gives confidence they’ll get it fixed.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 11, 2011 8:01 AM MDT up reply actions
Sheesh.
Get back to us at the end of next season. You’ll understand by then. And yes, you’re probably f’n screwed until you get a couple more recruiting classes in.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Oct 11, 2011 4:54 PM MDT up reply actions
100% correct
The new Pac 12 grind is very much part of the problem.
As SoCal Oski mentioned, every game Utah has played so far, they have had a chance to win. In other words, none of the games were over before they started. The fact that this will continue to be true should be reason enough not to give up on Utah.
It’s the difference between facing teams you KNOW you will beat (MWC)… and facing teams you know you CAN beat (Pac 12).
So far, it’s just that Utah hasn’t pulled any of the conference games out. But they went in with more than decent chances to win, and that’s all you can ask for.
A lost cause would be a team going into every game, every week KNOWING with almost 100% certainty that they’re going to lose. We’re not even close to that scenario.
by TomahawkRed on Oct 10, 2011 11:12 PM MDT up reply actions
And that isn't the grind at play...
I’ll say it again, though now I am repeating myself, Utah has had schedules in year’s past that were very similar to what they’ve seen this year (a cupcake, a decent non-BCS team and two or three BCS teams) and got through it just fine.
The way the schedule was set up does kind of disprove the theory of the grind. Utah opened against a FCS opponent the week before their first conference game, so there was a tuneup game at that point and they still went down to SoCal and lost. Then, a week later, they went out of Pac-12 play to take on a struggling BYU team and won easily. THEN they had a bye week before a showdown with Washington AT HOME.
That’s not really a grind at all. The Utes effectively had three weeks between their first and second Pac-12 games. And since the same problems that Utah saw against Washington were the same problems they saw against ASU, I’ve got to believe it’s not nearly as easy as saying, “eh, it’s the grind…”
Like I’ve said, and will say again and again, I guess, Utah has faced plenty of BCS teams at home, even sometimes after a tough, tough game, and did just fine. Washington was the first BCS team to win at RES since the ‘00 season. Eleven years ago. Yes, the sample size isn’t that large, but even so, BCS teams rolling into SLC, sometimes back-to-back, or at least only a game apart, fell here.
If Utah teams of past did just fine playing a string of BCS opponents early in the season, then this year’s team should too because they’ve been pretty lucky all things considered. I mean, they’ve played two conference home games and they still couldn’t get it done.
That’s not the grind. Washington didn’t beat Utah because of the grind. Not after Utah went three weeks without playing a Pac-12 team or BCS team heading into that contest. They lost to Washington because they were not fundamentally sound. But in reality, that type of play we’ve seen the last two weeks will lose you a great deal of games – whether against the BCS or not.
Again, "string of BCS opponents early" followed by several easy wins is not "very similar" at all
It’s very different. The grind isn’t just about the last two weeks, it’s also about the next three.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 11, 2011 8:04 AM MDT up reply actions
So Utah only lost because they were looking ahead to the gauntlet of the Pac-12 schedule?
I’m having a hard time buying that one. Sorry guy, but you’re way off here. If Utah is losing games because they’re somehow focused on the tougher games ahead, the coaching staff deserves to be fired, or we deserve to be kicked out of the Pac-12.
No, it's not just a matter of "looking ahead"
The fact that you can’t plan in gimme games to take it easy and recover makes a very real difference. I think, though, that this is probably one of those things that just has to be learned through experience; you’ll understand over time.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 13, 2011 5:41 AM MDT up reply actions
The "Next Three" games had no effect on the "Last Two"
That’s Jazzy point, and you are proving it for him. If the grind is the next three weeks, then you can’t blame the grind for the losses because the grind hasn’t happened yet.
Past effects the future, the future does not effect the past.
No, but the future very much affects the present
unless you have a neurological disorder leaving you incapable of planning for it or being aware of it (and even then it does, you just don’t know it); and since every point in the past was at one time the present, that means that the past has been affected by the future.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 13, 2011 5:38 AM MDT up reply actions
Turnovers, Turnovers, Turnovers, not the good ones from Arby's
I finally got to see Utah play on Saturday for the first time this season. It kills me because this was a game we should have won, but instead gave it away with poor ball security and some poor decisions by John Hays trying to force throws that just weren’t there. I won’t take anything from John Hays though because he came in ready to play and I know he played his heart out. With some good coaching and more experience, the kid is going to be nasty!
But damn, if your turn the ball over on the first play of three drives in a row, the defense is going to get tired, and any team is going to take advantage of it, let alone the PAC-12 south leaders in Arizona State. If we learn to hold onto the damn ball and start forcing turnovers again the way we did in the first three weeks of the season, we are going to have a strong finish to this season. It’s as if the rut we fell into last season has extended into this season.
Fans shouldn’t despair though. In my opinion, Utah has proved that it has got the talent to compete with any team in the PAC-12, but you’ve got to remember that we are transitioning into a new offense and we are a VERY young team this year. Our defense is for the most part solid. Once we get the new offense clicking and learn to hold onto the damn football, you’re going to start seeing the 10 plus wins every season. In my eyes, the hardest part of our schedule is over. I think a win at PITT next week could be a huge momentum shift and we will come back and show the rest of the PAC-12 what Utah Football really is all about. I do sincerely believe that a Rose Bowl bid will be something we see in the next few seasons. Here’s to finishing this season strong and learning how to hold onto the damn football! GO UTES!!!!
Tom Brady was an afterthought...Wes Welker isn't big enough...
There is only one reason for the last two losses – Turnovers. As far as the SC game, our group was a little shell shocked at the mighty Coliseum, the SC faithful, the pageantry. That will not be the case next year after the gauntlet isn’t what it was hyped. Our athletes and our coaching is more than good enough to compete well with all teams. How did we have such great NFL talent in 05’ and 08’? It is because this program is top tier. We have a great staff and a great environment for kids to flourish. All the other programs that recruit talent don’t always create talent and create competitive teams…The U does.
One is an accident, two is a trend, three is a problem.
After two similarly-disastrous weeks, we are trending toward a sloppy, poorly-coached team. I don’t think we’re a poorly-coached team, but we sure looked like it Saturday. And I’m not just referring to the turnovers, which I blame squarely on the players. Turnovers aside, in the second half on Saturday we burned two timeouts in the first 3 mintues, our substitutions and play calls were late on both sides of the ball, our defense looked disoriented and confused at times, and stupid penalties compounded everything. Neither Arizona State or Washington looked bigger, faster, or stonger than us (USC did), but they did look like better football teams. As is the case in any disaster, there is rarely a single source of failure. The problem was most likely some combination of coaching, natural ability, experience, mental toughness, scheduling, and luck. It’s going to be fixed with some combination of those too.
PAC XX is wierd
I will try and provide an insight into the PAC that might help you understand more. The PAC XX has a very bad history in non-league games before the season starts. Many western schools have victories over many of the PAC schools. This has been a real mystery to me for 30 or more years.
I believe the issue is the State of California culture. Please realize that EVERY PAC xx team is dominated by California kids. The good ones all want to play in the PAC xx and go to the Rose Bowl and then the NFL. There are thousand of them and the best will go to the PAC. These kids do not want to be defensive or offensive linemen, they want the glory and want to go to USC. For the ones that don’t go to USC there are plenty of other PAC schools.
Once they get in school they most likely will disrespect a San Jose State, or Wyoming and not try as hard. which may contribute to a close game or loss. When they play a Big 10 or SEC team early they get beat up as those teams are tougher early.
Throught the course of the season, the coaches finally get it through their heads what has to be done and they get better and better and do well in the Bowl season.
I believe a kid that is recruited for the PAC xx has a big ego that may create a let down. We lose early to the SEC and Big 10 and beat them in a bowl. But, I have seen it year after year that as the season progresses the PAC xx teams get better and better albiet they will have 5 and 5 records and appear to be weak to the Eastern press.
The PAC XX grind, then, is a progressely harder process as the younger kids get better and all teams have good depth. I have been to six Rose Bowls and very rarely did the Big 10 opponet dominate the Huskies (this was a long time ago, right :)). But, I do fee the California culture has a lot to do with how the PAC xx plays.
Fix what? Season's over
The best thing our team can do for itself at this point is to bow out of its remaining schedule and save itself the embarrassment of actually having to go out there and lose each of its games by a two score margin or more. Think of it like shooting old yeller, it’s not that anyone didn’t like old yeller he was great! But at some point you’ve got to put him out of his misery. It’s really just an insult to ourselves, everyone we play, and football in general to honestly field the team we do.
ha ha ha!
What nonsense.
Ya, I think I’ve seen that one on a motivational poster before: ADVERSITY – Get thrown off the horse, and immediately remain in the fetal position.
You’ve gotta be kidding me man. You’re either an awful Ute fan, or someone posing to be a Ute fan… or you’re being sarcastic (in the most subtle way I’ve ever seen).
Keep fighting. If Utah wants to make it in the Pac 12, we keep fighting. To throw in the towel after a little adversity is something I would expect from BYU fans.
by TomahawkRed on Oct 10, 2011 10:58 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m not on the team… why would it matter if I think they suck? I’m a ute fan and I don’t see any point in sugar coating it to make myself feel better. The last 8 quarters of football the Utes have played are the worst I’ve watched on a college field, that’s just the bottom line. What reason do I have to think that this trend will suddenly stop? Being a fan and being delusional aren’t the same thing
the answer is two fold
1) We don’t have BCS depth. I think the gap between Pac-12 reserves on other teams and reserves on Utah is huge. That’s something we still need to develop and we will have that in a couple years.
The gap is evident on the first string as well. Washington, USC and ASU have all shown they are bigger and faster than Utah is. That’s why we’re seeing so many injuries right now. MWC competition wouldn’t have knocked Wynn, Christopher and McGill out like the Pac 12 has. We will close that gap as well in the coming years.
2) The offense. No one should expect Utah to compete with the offense they currently have. Anytime you lose your starting QB, your offense is fighting an uphill battle. Throw in a new coordinator and a new environment (Pac 12), and the offense will struggle.
I believe that’s 99 percent of what’s wrong. The good news is, each of those things can (and will) be corrected as Utah develops in the Pac 12.
Maybe 50% of what's wrong...
Because if it’s 99% of the problem, nothing can be done this season, or even really next season, and it’s likely we’ll see only one or two more wins the remainder of the year.
The more losses that pile up if that’s the case, the more likely Utah becomes the lost cause you’re deriding in one of your replies above.
But see, I disagree. I don’t think it’s 99% the problem. Utah held their own the last two weeks in the first half and crapped the bed in the second half of both games. The first game makes sense because they lost Wynn and the team was completely deflated after that injury. However, the second game was completely correctable and not about experience, speed or talent.
Utah led ASU roughly midway through the third quarter. They were holding the ASU offense in check mostly and forced some key third downs that they couldn’t hold and then allowed the Sun Devils to convert on two fourth downs. I’ll give you that talent was a big reason for that, as they’ve got a great offense. However, even then, Utah stepped up and kept ASU out of the end zone, forcing a field goal.
The Utes still led 14-13. The game changed, however, when White, going for extra yards, was stripped and turned the ball over. It was completely irresponsible of him to try for extra yardage like that and any team, talented or not, is going to go for the strip there.
Game over.
Had White never turned it over, though, and I’m confident the game is far closer, and maybe even a better outcome, than what we eventually saw. But because of it, the Sun Devils quickly scored and Utah panicked. Just like that, they trailed.
Now I’ll give you, against BCS teams, the margin of error is far smaller. But Utah has known that for years with all the times they’ve played BCS opponents in the regular season and in bowl games.
You can’t make those mistakes and get away with it. With that said, I still don’t think it’s a talent issue. This team has played stupid the past two weeks and maybe it’s all emotional, the fact they’re trying to prove to the conference they belong, but whatever it is, it’s the main reason, the 99% really, that is keeping them from winning.
You said it yourself, these two games Utah could have won. I think we’ve seen they’ve got the talent to at least hang with these teams. But mistakes will kill you and if you’re turning the ball over five times in a game, you better hope you have a comfortable lead or you’re going to get killed.
Now you’re right about the offense. As bad as the offense is, the turnovers hurt that much more. Hays threw an interception right before the half that killed any chance of points. It was a bad and needless throw. Had Utah scored there, coupled with their first second half drive, and they’re looking at a 17-10 or 21-10 lead. The dynamics of the game are completely different if that’s the case.
But because Utah turned it over like they did, all the talent in the world wasn’t going to help them Saturday.
Correct that and they should win most games from here on out. Don’t and they’ll be lucky to win any game from here on out.
And that’s all with depth and talent that doesn’t quite stack up against many Pac-12 teams.
There's a big semantical difference between `could have won' and `should have won'.
`Could have won’ implies a game effort against a peer or superior foe.
`Should have won’ implies a sloppy effort against a team that you are clearly better than.
UW and ASU are both clearly (IMO) `could have won’ games. These are toss-up games, where the winner is determined by the quality of the execution ON THAT DAY. And frankly, you got out-executed. Some of that is good play on the other team, and some of that is bad play on your side. For the sake of argument, lets say 50-50.
‘The grind’ is simply a drastic reduction (if not a complete elimination) of `should have won’ games. Like it or not, your guys are USED to `should have won’ games. It’s been part of your scheduling M.O. for years, if not forever. Its part of your fan mindset, still. And now, in the Pac-12, those days are pretty much over. You have an adjustment to make, and sorry to say, its probably going to be brutal.
`Should have won’ games are a HUGE benefit for a ballclub. They’re like uber-practices, where you can semi-safely work out the kinks, and try out some plays, and rest your wounded, and get your depth some game experience in front of an adoring crowd, and build some confidence. And rack up some wins.
Occasionally, you will lose a `should have won’ game. And that’s embarrassing. But win or lose, you still get most of the `should have won’ benefits. And that helps you focus, fine focus, on the next `Could have won’ game on your schedule.
`Could have won’ games, you’re pretty much .500 going in. When you play in a conference that is chock full of `Could have won’ teams, you’re looking at a .500 record, IF EVERYTHING GOES RIGHT!
And if things start going wrong? Oh baby, that’s trouble. There’s no `Should have wons’ to get well on. All there are is a bunch of teams that are just like you, but having better years. Healthier. Deeper. More confident. More to play for. Things can spiral completely out of control in a flash.
There’s a reason, after all, that the Huskies came in third in the conference last year, sporting a mediocre 5-4 conference record. The reason being, there were seven other teams that got beat up even worse. It’s not that they’re mediocre teams. It’s that their schedule is a complete bastard, full of mirror images of themselves. They were .500 going in, if everything goes right. And everything went right.
What you’re looking for now, is a rare and precious state of grace, where you are playing the very best college football in the world. Like Stanford and Oregon, all the pieces are in place. You are a complete team, with abundant star power, considerable and promising depth, an awesome upperclass, and no glaring weaknesses. Top of the Pac is top of the world. You can take on all comers, anytime, anyplace, and destroy them (unless you’re Oregon). There are no shortcuts.
Anything less than that, you are part of the great muddled middle, just another `Could have won’ team. The great muddled middle has its own set dynamic. You’re either going up, going down, or solidly entrenched in-between. There’s furious dog-eat-dog play involved, always, to either establish yourself as an up and comer (the next Stanford, the next Oregon), or to avoid being being cast as a sliding failure. The only thing they all have in common is, they’re all pretty damn decent teams.
UW was a should have
ASU would fit in the could have category, but there is a claim to be made for Should have. Especially when you consider the Utes had the lead with the ball with 5 to go in the 3rd.
But the UW game definitely is a Should Have game.
Where, in the UW match-up, was Utah athletically superior?
I didn’t see any clear advantages for Utah at all. Linebacker, maybe?
Maybe, due to the Dawgs inexperience at OLB.
Where was the UW clearly superior? QB. RB. TE/WR. Kicker. Just better players.
And everything else on the field, O-line, D-line, DB’s, punter, was either a push, or a slight lean to the Huskies.
You got out-jocked. Your guys played hard, but they bounced off a lot of bigger bodies.
To think Utah `should have won’ this game strikes me as delusional. What can you possibly base that on? Altitude? Attitude? Pixie dust?

by 










