I was very skeptical when BM re-hired coach Anae, but I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. I now have the benefit of more doubt. I was far too often frustrated by his play-calling before when he was OC. It's almost like he refused to let his players win or lose it on the field. When he didn't trust his players, his play-calling was incredibly conservative, playing seemingly "not to lose," rather than "playing to win." He looks good when he's got a player like Taysom Hill, who has the respect to over-ride Anae's poor play-calling, and not get yanked for it. But, he is very poor at allowing players to elevate their game, and become better, because he never takes a chance and gives them a chance to do so. No risk = no gain. It's like he's just too much of a "control freak." Then, it would seem, if the players do succeed, he can pat himself on the back because of his OC prowess, not their own striving and talent. I'm sure he does not see it that way at all, and believes he wants nothing more than his players to succeed, but the entirety of the product on the field does not seem to match that for me, and I'm not convinced that he's telling his own self the truth. What I see too often with his offense are players who are playing restrained, not free.

Furthermore, one of the main reasons that I frankly don't trust coach Anae is that he seems to be incredibly prideful. Sure, he's been involved in the game a long time, but he treats the fans who may question his calls with contempt and disdain. It does not seem to make him consider that perhaps he may want to change his approach. And, that attitude seems to carry over to the field, being on full display during the UM game, as it has been in many other games, mostly losses. It's as if he's saying, "we're going to keep doing what WE do, because I know best, even if it's not working, because the only reason we're not succeeding is because we're not executing the masterful plan I have in place." I just don't buy his mantra anymore, as I have seen too many plays like the 3rd and 5 against UCLA in the 4th Q. UCLA had been stuffing our run except for a select few plays we broke free, and we call a run on 3rd and 5 at the 16 yard line, when our clear strength is our tall and talented WR's and our resourceful QB? IMO, that call probably lost the game for us, more than any other event during the game. Even if the shot at the end zone, (or better yet a surprise crossing route to the 5 yard line), went incomplete, we were still well within FG range. It was just a ridiculous call, but when the fans complain, he just seems to get more indignant, not more teachable or humbled by the loss.

This rigidity and stubbornness was again on full (glorious, but dubious) display against UM, and I'm fed up with it. Although I criticized the run play against UCLA in the 4th Q, I'm not just one who wants there to be long passes all the time., and no run game. In fact, there were far too many "going for broke" passes up the sideline against UM, when they (UM's DB's) were clearly running with (and mauling) our WR's, and over-playing all those longer routes - no surprise with Hail Marry Mangum coming to town that they were keen on that. But, with the O-Line not giving Tanner much a pocket to work in, do you think Anae could adjust, and throw in more releases like the beautiful TE release play that UM did on their first or second TD, or more crossing routes, more short and quick dump passes to take the pressure off his pocket-starved QB, and especially more come-back routes with UM over-playing? And how about trick plays for a change of pace, if for nothing else than to keep the D honest, he almost never allows - far too fancy - "we need to just keep pounding it like real men do."

I feel that Anae's play-calling almost takes the fun out of watching BYU football at times, with very little creativity. There used to be a time when the BYU offense had me giggling with delight over running play after play that I didn't even expect, with success. Now, I can almost predict everything BYU is going to do, and if I can, as a lowly armchair OC, you can bet the opposing DC's can do much, much better than I, which they clearly have done repeatedly.

People were calling for BM's head again after this humiliating loss, but BM simply cannot over-ride his OC's decisions repeatedly without undermining him. But, Bronco did show the ability, as he often does, to at least adjust his "D" in the second half to make it respectable on that side of the ball. BM's folly is not his ability to motivate players, change things up when needed, or to call creative defensive plays, but his folly is in his inability to choose good OC's.