The Kyle Whittingham Thread

[LA Ute]

A lot of truth in the post, but, don't want to fall into the "grass is always greener" syndrome. I guess, like Whit, I'd rather play it safe and keep him, than to roll the dice elsewhere.

I agree. He's our guy. I'm just saying he is who he is, and to expect less than very conservative decisions from him will just be frustrating.

I don't even know what this means. Was there an opportunity in that game to use the dagger? Do people feel like we let up? We went for it on 4th down in the 4th quarter with a lead, right?

The "prevent" that gave up a TD was driven by trying for a game ending sack. We were sending more than 4 on that drive, but we weren't getting through.

I guess Sean O'Connell is putting ideas into my head. They cut through us like a knife through butter on that drive while we played "bend but don't break." You only get game-ending sack opportunities on fourth downs. Meanwhile, on first, second and third downs our secondary gave their receivers plenty of room and they took it. So I found myself standing there, watching Michigan with an onside kick and a chance to tie the game, asking myself, "Why did we let this happen?" Chalk it up to my old Ute fan PTSD.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If we played them tougher and we were aggressive on D, and they broke off a big TD with 3:40 left then there is a good chance we lose the game. As it played out Michigan went dink and dunk, chewed up clock, and scored the TD with 1:02 left. We recovered the onside kick, and knelt on it to end the game.

[Rocker Ute]

If we played them tougher and we were aggressive on D, and they broke off a big TD with 3:40 left then there is a good chance we lose the game. As it played out Michigan went dink and dunk, chewed up clock, and scored the TD with 1:02 left. We recovered the onside kick, and knelt on it to end the game.

This is the answer. If you noticed the defense shifted to keep plays inbounds and the clock running. Also keep in mind that Harbaugh had burned his timeouts so we really needed to burn the clock to 1:30 and we win the game taking knees. If Harbaugh still had 3 timeouts left it alters that strategy dramatically.

Like LA I was bothered by it at first, but it really was a well executed clock management strategy and also like LA this is who Whittingham is.

You'll also note on that Ute drive before the disputed punt touchback, we ran a vanilla offense meant at burning clock too. That game was effectually over when Thomas got the pick 6 with the time that was remaining in the game and both teams style of defense.

On that note, reflect on the McBride days where there was no such thing as clock management, we lost a few because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

If we played them tougher and we were aggressive on D, and they broke off a big TD with 3:40 left then there is a good chance we lose the game. As it played out Michigan went dink and dunk, chewed up clock, and scored the TD with 1:02 left. We recovered the onside kick, and knelt on it to end the game.

I get it. Still, we'd all be singing a different tune if they'd recovered that onside kick and scored.

Sancho, a sack would eat a lot of clock, yes, but Michigan would have lined up quickly and spiked the ball. Kyle was playing the percentages. That's how he coaches, he won't change. That's my point. When we get a lead, he's going to sit on it rather than try to insert the dagger. It's a style that we will live or die by.

[USS Utah]

Utah always plays "bend but don't break" defense, it's been their M.O. ever since Whit was hired to be the defensive coordinator.

It's not like Michigan suddenly came to life in the last three minutes of the game, they had shown that they could move the ball between the 20s, but then Utah would get the key stop and force a punt or an FG attempt -- when they didn't commit a stupid penalty, that is.

Thomas's pick 6 all but sealed the game. Give credit to Michigan, though, because they refused to quit. After the pick 6, they drove to the Utah 35, and 5:13 remained on the clock. They go for it on 4th down but Utah stops De'veon Smith for no gain.

Utah ball with about 5 minutes to go, time for the four minute offense. Utah drives to the Michigan 42 but Travis loses three yards on 3rd down. Hackett punts with 2:53 on the clock -- and gets robbed by a horrendously bad call. Instead of starting inside the 5, Michigan gets the ball at the 20.

• 1st and 10 at MICH 20
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Grant Perry for 6 yds to the Mich 26
• 2nd and 4 at MICH 26
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Jehu Chesson for 9 yds to the Mich 35 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 10 at MICH 35
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Jake Butt for 16 yds to the Utah 49 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 10 at UTAH 49
  
  Jake Rudock pass incomplete to Amara Darboh
• 2nd and 10 at UTAH 49
  
  Jake Rudock pass incomplete to Jake Butt
• 3rd and 10 at UTAH 49
  
  Jake Rudock run for 4 yds to the Utah 45
• 4th and 6 at UTAH 45
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Grant Perry for 10 yds to the Utah 35 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 10 at UTAH 35
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Grant Perry for 25 yds to the Utah 10 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 0 at UTAH 10
  
  Jake Rudock pass complete to Amara Darboh for 10 yds for a TD, (Kenny Allen KICK)

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...meId=400756883

Time on the clock: 54 seconds.

Michigan then attempts the onside kick, with two of the worst kicks I have ever seen.

A couple of those pass plays got more yards than I would have liked, but the drive took almost two minutes. What if Michigan had finally been able to connect on one of those throws over the top and score with more than two minutes still on the clock? I didn't notice the defense dropping back into prevent, but they might have been allowing Michigan to use the middle of the field to use up the clock.

Sometimes I wonder if Utah fans are not a bit jaded after the rough transition in the Pac, or after the 70s and 80s for that matter. Or maybe all fans are like this, I don't know. What I do know is that Utah got a solid win over Michigan on Thursday.

[Mormon Red Death]

I get it. Still, we'd all be singing a different tune if they'd recovered that onside kick and scored.

Sancho, a sack would eat a lot of clock, yes, but Michigan would have lined up quickly and spiked the ball. Kyle was playing the percentages. That's how he coaches, he won't change. That's my point. When we get a lead, he's going to sit on it rather than try to insert the dagger. It's a style that we will live or die by.

Kyle has only lost 1 (maybe twice) game when leading at half. The results speak for themselves

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Sometimes I wonder if Utah fans are not a bit jaded after the rough transition in the Pac, or after the 70s and 80s for that matter. Or maybe all fans are like this, I don't know. What I do know is that Utah got a solid win over Michigan on Thursday.

If you read my other posts, you will see that I am very happy with the win and with how the team played. So we don't need to go where you just went.

Kyle has only lost 1 (maybe twice) game when leading at half. The results speak for themselves

Hey, I've been watching Ute football since 1968 or so and have seen my share of collapses. I just didn't like the feeling of Michigan having a chance to win in that situation. PTSD, like I said. Besides, I am not in love with Kyle's historic indifference to offense and conservative "get a lead and hang on" philosophy. I have lots of company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

If you read my other posts, you will see that I am very happy with the win and with how the team played. So we don't need to go where you just went.



Hey, I've been watching Ute football since 1968 or so and have seen my share of collapses. I just didn't like the feeling of Michigan having a chance to win in that situation. PTSD, like I said. Besides, I am not in love with Kyle's historic indifference to offense and conservative "get a lead and hang on" philosophy. I have lots of company.

??

I'm scratching my head at that one.

[LA Ute]

??

I'm scratching my head at that one.

Maybe I misread your post. Your final paragraph reads like a sad lament over the inability of some Utah fans to see matters properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utebiquitous]

I can't let a brother be alone. I am totally with LA Ute on this one. Put this game absolutely in the category of being unable to put a game away. Now, there were circumstances - mainly two missed field goals - that would have had made things easier. I appreciate the thoughts pointing out playing the percentages and forcing Michigan to use clock on their touchdown drive. You all convince me that that part of the argument is flimsy - the defense as it was called was probably the right thing. What you cannot convince me of is the three-and-out offensive possession that preceded Michigan's drive. Get a first down! Get two first downs! And then stick one more in the end zone or kick a field goal that truly puts it away. Utah does not do this under Kyle. I'm not going to presume to tell you what Roderick should have called. I'm not a coach. I'm a fan who preferred Urban's go-for-the-jugular style. I'm not calling for a coaches head - Whittingham's our guy - I'm just tired of it. We lose games because we play not to lose. Nebraska lost a game today because they played not to lose. They had three drives in the fourth quarter - if you want to call them that - that could have put the game away. On the final play of the game they rushed three - knowing that BYU had to go to the end zone. Absolutely no pressure was put on Magnum. He picked his spot and took advantage of poor defense in the end zone. By the way, rushing three is a perfect example of my critique of Kyle. We do it quite a bit and sure give up a lot of big plays as a result.

I support Kyle - but like LA Ute - I have some PTSD from following this Kyle-coached team. I embrace it but it doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

[utefan]

I'm also in favor of first downs. I just don't understand trying for three and outs instead.

I don't think they specifically try for three and outs. They just run plays designed more to eat clock than gain a lot of yards. Every opposing coach knows this, so they're well prepared for it.

I honestly believe that in a lot of circumstances Kyle would rather have a drive eat a lot of clock and end in either no points or 3 points, than have a quick 80 yard touchdown. To him, a 5 minute drive that ends in a punt or field goal attempt is better than a 30 second drive that ends with a touchdown. At least that is the impression he gives me with his ultra conservative offense.

We've changed offensive coordinators every year, and we've completely changed the roster since the first year in the Pac 12. Yet, here we are with the same offensive problems we had in year 1. The only constant there is Kyle.

[USS Utah]

What you cannot convince me of is the three-and-out offensive possession that preceded Michigan's drive. Get a first down! Get two first downs! And then stick one more in the end zone or kick a field goal that truly puts it away. Utah does not do this under Kyle. I'm not going to presume to tell you what Roderick should have called. I'm not a coach.

Utah didn't go three and out on the possession that preceded Michigan's drive. They got one first down and were three yards away from a second first down. They ran 2:22 off the clock. Also, if the ref makes the right call on Hackett's punt, we aren't having this discussion.

• 1st and 10 at UTAH 35
  
  Devontae Booker run for 16 yds to the Mich 49 for a 1ST down
  
• 1st and 10 at MICH 49
  
  Devontae Booker run for 4 yds to the Mich 45
  
• 2nd and 6 at MICH 45
  
  Travis Wilson run for 3 yds to the Mich 42
  
• 3rd and 3 at MICH 42
  
  Travis Wilson run for a loss of 2 yards to the Mich 44
  
• Timeout MICHIGAN, clock 02:53
  
• 4th and 5 at MICH 44
  
  Tom Hackett punt for 44 yds for a touchback

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...meId=400756883

[NorthwestUteFan]

One of the goals for the game was to have three or fewer 3-and-out possessions. I only recall two of them, and they were in the 1st quarter. That was a HUGE improvement over last year, where we seemed to have at least 4-6 of those per game.

[USS Utah]

I don't think they specifically try for three and outs. They just run plays designed more to eat clock than gain a lot of yards. Every opposing coach knows this, so they're well prepared for it.

I honestly believe that in a lot of circumstances Kyle would rather have a drive eat a lot of clock and end in either no points or 3 points, than have a quick 80 yard touchdown. To him, a 5 minute drive that ends in a punt or field goal attempt is better than a 30 second drive that ends with a touchdown. At least that is the impression he gives me with his ultra conservative offense.

We've changed offensive coordinators every year, and we've completely changed the roster since the first year in the Pac 12. Yet, here we are with the same offensive problems we had in year 1. The only constant there is Kyle.

I think what Kyle would prefer is three running plays that run maybe a minute of more off the clock over 3 incomplete passes that run 30 seconds or less off the clock.

Frankly, I would prefer that, as well.

[LA Ute]

One of the goals for the game was to have three or fewer 3-and-out possessions. I only recall two of them, and they were in the 1st quarter. That was a HUGE improvement over last year, where we seemed to have at least 4-6 of those per game.

I liked what I saw from the offense Thursday night, perhaps because I am an eternal optimist. I think it's going to be better this year. We're throwing to tight ends, throwing to the middle, throwing long, now and then, to receivers who have speed. Wilson is much more comfortable now, and likes his OC. Not much of that was present last season. As I've said ad nauseum, we just need a decent, average or slightly above average offense to be successful this season. My point in griping about the Michigan game is really just to remind myself -- and any others who may wish things will change -- that the basic blueprint will not change. Win or lose, we're going to do it Kyle's ultra-conservative, defense-first, way. As utebiquitous says, we should just embrace it and enjoy the ride as much as we can. (As fans, we do get to gripe now and then.)

[NorthwestUteFan]

I liked Travis Wilson's moxie in this game. He looked comfortable and made a lot of good decisions. The keeper for the TD was a thing of beauty. He wont face a D line that good until USC or maybe ASU, and HardRod are calling plays that work well to his abilities.

[Damage U]

Pretty nice piece with Whitt from the PAC-12 Network if you haven't seen it. 'One-on-One'
http://pac-12.com/videos/one-one-uta...mike-macintyre

[USS Utah]

Our 4th quarter play calling was fine. We ran the ball. Smart because it chewed clock, and smart because it gave us the best chance at 1st downs. 3rd and 3? Yes, you run. We had been converting short yardage all night. TW had converted some with his legs. Nothing wrong with running him in that situation.

I just finished watching a replay of the game. It was a good play call, and Travis would have gotten the first down if not for a great play by Jabril Peppers.

[USS Utah]

The Utah win over Michigan was replayed tonight on the Pac-12 Network as the Game of the Week. For those of you suggesting that Utah ran the prevent on the last Michigan drive, I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about. I paid close attention while watching the replay and, I'm sorry, I just didn't see it.

One other thought. The Game of the Week followed a replay of the 2013 BYU game. Even with the controversial mountain sleeves, the new uniforms are so much better than the topographical uniforms they replaced.

[jrj84105]

Why don't we go long more? It's not about Kyle. It's about personnel. We go long, and we have a 10% chance at something great and a 90% chance at losing a down. We often need all three downs to move the chains. We will go long this season, but we will hopefully be smart about it.

I think (hope) we'll see more downfield passing in upcoming games. Against Michigan, we frequently had 3 on 2 numbers in the flats but couldn't block Peppers to save our lives. With the numbers Michigan was putting in the box when we were spread, we should have had a field day on the quick passes.

[LA Ute]

The Utah win over Michigan was replayed tonight on the Pac-12 Network as the Game of the Week. For those of you suggesting that Utah ran the prevent on the last Michigan drive, I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about. I paid close attention while watching the replay and, I'm sorry, I just didn't see it.

Why, after leading by 14 with only a few minutes to go, did we suddenly see Michigan scoring with 55 seconds remaining in the game after a nine-play, 80-yard drive that took 1:52, leaving us facing an onside kick with :55 to go and the game suddenly on the line? Was that because Michigan simply outplayed us, despite our absolutely sound, unquestionable management of the game? That seems to be what you are saying. John Pease, post-game, said the Utah made lots of mistakes that they'll need to correct this coming week prior to the USU game. So maybe there's room for a little bit criticism. Again, I'm happy we won but am frustrated that the game became much more interesting than it needed to be.

[utefan]

I think what Kyle would prefer is three running plays that run maybe a minute of more off the clock over 3 incomplete passes that run 30 seconds or less off the clock.

Frankly, I would prefer that, as well.

You're assuming that we can't complete any passes. If Kyle also has that assumption, then that is not good for the confidence of our offense.

Of course we'd all rather see 3 running plays instead of 3 incomplete passes. But we'd also rather see 3 25 yard complete passes instead of 3 1 yard running plays.

The offense would be much better if it weren't so predictable. Throughout the game it was much better than last year. But in the 4th quarter we went back to the typical "run the ball no matter what the defense is doing, and try to use as much clock as possible, hopefully we can pin them deep in their own territory when we inevitably punt" mindset.

Just a few short passes mixed in could have iced that game a lot earlier.

Did any of you guys watch the Washington/Boise State game? Imagine the Utes running a trick play where someone other than the QB throws a pass, like Boise did. Or running a "hide the snap, secret hand off" style play like Washington did.

I don't really want to complain after a huge win, especially with how much better our offense looked compared to last year. But it was kind of concerning that some of the same problems were plaguing the offense in the 4th quarter. And it doesn't seem to be related to personnel at all.

Hopefully they work that out. The FG kicking isn't as automatic as everyone thought, so maybe they'll go for 7 more often instead of playing to get 3 and chew more clock.

[utefan]

Or, cost us the game. We've all seen teams lose because they didn't take off enough time when they had the chance. We've also seen teams lose because of late interceptions. Whitt has a great W-L record in close games. He knows what he's doing.

And we've seen plenty of teams lose because they played not to lose, instead of playing to win. We've probably seen the Utes do it more consistently than anyone else though. The Arizona State and Washington State games last season come to mind.

We're been running a lot of trick plays under Whittingham the past few seasons. Don't know what you're complaining about here.

We run 1 or 2 per season. We should run 1 or 2 per game.

This might be intractable due to all the OC changes, but we passed a lot with Brian Johnson against Alabama. It does appear to be personnel related. We haven't had a good QB/WR connection since then. If you want to complain about Kyle, this is where to complain. He's willing to pass the ball, but he hasn't had a team capable of it for too long.

I can't agree with pointing to a game from like 7 years ago as an example of how Kyle prefers his offense to function. We've had dozens of games since then, in the Pac 12, and only a handful of them attempted to show an explosive offense.

[UTEopia]

And we've seen plenty of teams lose because they played not to lose, instead of playing to win. We've probably seen the Utes do it more consistently than anyone else though. The Arizona State and Washington State games last season come to mind.

You are assuming that had Kyle played those differently, Utah would have executed the less conservative plays and ultimately won the games. The opposite view is that if Dres simply catches a pass right in his hands, several yards behind the nearest defender and runs into the end zone, Utah beats WSU and if Phillips makes a FG Utah beats ASU. Now, in no way am I defending the WSU loss. That was a total meltdown in every aspect of the game, but you cannot simply point to losses and conclude that if Utah had been more aggressive on offense the outcome would have been different. Sometimes aggressive offense leads to turnovers and mistakes which turn a close game into a route.

[Damage U]

They cut through us like a knife through butter on that drive while we played "bend but don't break." You only get game-ending sack opportunities on fourth downs. Meanwhile, on first, second and third downs our secondary gave their receivers plenty of room and they took it. So I found myself standing there, watching Michigan with an onside kick and a chance to tie the game, asking myself, "Why did we let this happen?" Chalk it up to my old Ute fan PTSD.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking the same thing.

[LA Ute]

This might be intractable due to all the OC changes, but we passed a lot with Brian Johnson against Alabama. It does appear to be personnel related. We haven't had a good QB/WR connection since then. If you want to complain about Kyle, this is where to complain. He's willing to pass the ball, but he hasn't had a team capable of it for too long.

Well, trying to be optimistic, I think it does look like our WRs and TEs are better, and Wilson is posed to have a solid season. Covey, Bubba, Handley, and K. Scott (if he plays like the senior "go to" receiver that he is supposed to be) look like guys Travis can connect with. So there are grounds for hope that Utah will have a decent offense. I think "decent" is the most we can hope for and will also be good enough to have a good season (8-9 wins).

You point to the real reason we have been in this jam, I think: In 2008 Kyle was willing to throw the ball, but that was also when the musical chairs at the OC position started. I hope things have settled down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

Why, after leading by 14 with only a few minutes to go, did we suddenly see Michigan scoring with 55 seconds remaining in the game after a nine-play, 80-yard drive that took 1:52, leaving us facing an onside kick with :55 to go and the game suddenly on the line? Was that because Michigan simply outplayed us, despite our absolutely sound, unquestionable management of the game? That seems to be what you are saying. John Pease, post-game, said the Utah made lots of mistakes that they'll need to correct this coming week prior to the USU game. So maybe there's room for a little bit criticism. Again, I'm happy we won but am frustrated that the game became much more interesting than it needed to be.

First, give Michigan some credit. They have some talent, and they refused to quit. They had shown throughout the game that they could move the ball against Utah's "bend but don't break" defense. Usually, Michigan would make a mistake or Utah would make a play, ending those drives. There were two exceptions, when Paul's late hit extended a drive and handed Michigan a touchdown, and the last drive.

Second, yes, Utah made mistakes, but playing prevent was not one of them. I find break downs in coverage to be more likely explanations for the two or three big gains on Michigan's last drive than prevent defense.

[USS Utah]

You're assuming that we can't complete any passes. If Kyle also has that assumption, then that is not good for the confidence of our offense.

Of course we'd all rather see 3 running plays instead of 3 incomplete passes. But we'd also rather see 3 25 yard complete passes instead of 3 1 yard running plays.

The offense would be much better if it weren't so predictable. Throughout the game it was much better than last year. But in the 4th quarter we went back to the typical "run the ball no matter what the defense is doing, and try to use as much clock as possible, hopefully we can pin them deep in their own territory when we inevitably punt" mindset.

Just a few short passes mixed in could have iced that game a lot earlier.

Did any of you guys watch the Washington/Boise State game? Imagine the Utes running a trick play where someone other than the QB throws a pass, like Boise did. Or running a "hide the snap, secret hand off" style play like Washington did.

I don't really want to complain after a huge win, especially with how much better our offense looked compared to last year. But it was kind of concerning that some of the same problems were plaguing the offense in the 4th quarter. And it doesn't seem to be related to personnel at all.

Hopefully they work that out. The FG kicking isn't as automatic as everyone thought, so maybe they'll go for 7 more often instead of playing to get 3 and chew more clock.

I am sure we can complete some passes, as we did so throughout the game. Even completed passes, however, take less time off the clock than running plays. Also, with these passes, you want to stay away from the sidelines, lest a completion take the receiver out of bounds which would stop the clock, that leaves you with less field with work with, which at least complicates the matter. I'm sure the opposing defense understands this and is trying to take away the middle of the field.

3 straight completions of 25 yards or more is pie in the sky.

On the last drive, Utah went to the 4 minute offense by design. The previous possession, however, was not made up of only predictable running plays.

• 1st and 10 at UTAH 25
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Devontae Booker for 9 yds to the Utah 34
• 2nd and 1 at UTAH 34
  
  Devontae Booker run for 3 yds to the Utah 37 for a 1ST down
• End of 3rd Quarter
• 1st and 10 at UTAH 37
  
  Travis Wilson run for 4 yds to the Utah 41 Travis Wilson fumbled, recovered by Utah Tyrone Smith
• 2nd and 6 at UTAH 41
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Britain Covey for 18 yds to the Mich 41 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 10 at MICH 41
  
  Travis Wilson pass incomplete to Kenneth Scott
• 2nd and 10 at MICH 41
  
  Devontae Booker run for 2 yds to the Mich 39
• 3rd and 8 at MICH 39
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Harrison Handley for 7 yds to the Mich 32
• 4th and 1 at MICH 32
  
  Devontae Booker run for 2 yds to the Mich 30 for a 1ST down
• 1st and 10 at MICH 30
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Devontae Booker for a loss of 4 yards to the Mich 34
• 2nd and 14 at MICH 34
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Britain Covey for a loss of 3 yards to the Mich 37
• 3rd and 17 at MICH 37
  
  Travis Wilson pass complete to Kenneth Scott for 9 yds to the Mich 28
• 4th and 8 at MICH 28
  
  Andy Phillips 46 yd FG MISSED

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...meId=400756883

That's 7 pass attempts with 6 completions and 4 running plays.

If Phillips makes that FG, we aren't having this conversation. If Hackett doesn't get robbed on that punt, we aren't having this conversation.

[USS Utah]

They cut through us like a knife through butter on that drive while we played "bend but don't break." You only get game-ending sack opportunities on fourth downs. Meanwhile, on first, second and third downs our secondary gave their receivers plenty of room and they took it. So I found myself standing there, watching Michigan with an onside kick and a chance to tie the game, asking myself, "Why did we let this happen?" Chalk it up to my old Ute fan PTSD.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thinking the same thing.

Look, I understand the "I've seen this movie before" feeling. But a closer look at what happened says it wasn't the "usual" prevent "playing not to lose" situation at all.

[Damage U]

Look, I understand the "I've seen this movie before" feeling. But a closer look at what happened says it wasn't the "usual" prevent "playing not to lose" situation at all.

I agree with you, we have seen the movie before, and yes, the Monday morning QB look at the game tells a different story. I'm liking what l'm seeing this year. I got used to the urgency the offense seemed to always have to play with the past few years because games were too close or playing from behind. TW seems to have a lot more confidence and composure this year.