[Goose]

I still think the coaches remain unwilling to accept the identity of this team - pass-first on offense,

Can't agree with you there. The coaches clearly realize it. That is why we pass so much. They don't like it, but they know it. They also know that we have to run the ball, or at least try to do so. If we go too pass-heavy, we will get blitzed to death. We saw that in this game. The coaches also know that our receivers often don't actually get "open". We throw to a covered receiver and rely on the receiver winning the battle. That certainly isn't optimal for a "pass first" team. If the QB misses the target by even a little, an interception is the likely result. Throwing into double coverage will also do that. We may be a pass-first team, but we aren't really designed to be that. As a result, it is a bit of a kludge when we do it. Sometimes, it works. But not all the time. Probably our only option right now, but that simply means we aren't very good no matter what we do.

and needing to be much more aggressive on defense.

If you have players that are tackling challenged, I suggest that a high-risk defensive strategy is going to result in even worse results. Utah, up to last night, didn't do much on offense. Our defense made them look good because we got beat at the LOS and missed tackles we should have made. A more attacking approach just makes it easier for them to do that. Granted, we give up a lot of underneath stuff. However, we are relying on the idea that we need just one bad play in a set of downs to force a punt. We usually get that. However, we then blow the next play by not tackling somebody/not covering somebody. A more attacking style will just make those errors more costly.
Last night, the offense made the defense's life real hard by giving up turnovers. When you turn the ball over four times, the defense has challenges  in not wearing down, If that doesn't happen, and if the offense stays on the field, the defense was "good enough", which is the best we can hope for.

[Goose]

I still think the coaches remain unwilling to accept the identity of this team - pass-first on offense,

Can't agree with you there. The coaches clearly realize it. That is why we pass so much. They don't like it, but they know it. They also know that we have to run the ball, or at least try to do so. If we go too pass-heavy, we will get blitzed to death. We saw that in this game. The coaches also know that our receivers often don't actually get "open". We throw to a covered receiver and rely on the receiver winning the battle. That certainly isn't optimal for a "pass first" team. If the QB misses the target by even a little, an interception is the likely result. Throwing into double coverage will also do that. We may be a pass-first team, but we aren't really designed to be that. As a result, it is a bit of a kludge when we do it. Sometimes, it works. But not all the time. Probably our only option right now, but that simply means we aren't very good no matter what we do.

and needing to be much more aggressive on defense.

If you have players that are tackling challenged, I suggest that a high-risk defensive strategy is going to result in even worse results. Utah, up to last night, didn't do much on offense. Our defense made them look good because we got beat at the LOS and missed tackles we should have made. A more attacking approach just makes it easier for them to do that. Granted, we give up a lot of underneath stuff. However, we are relying on the idea that we need just one bad play in a set of downs to force a punt. We usually get that. However, we then blow the next play by not tackling somebody/not covering somebody. A more attacking style will just make those errors more costly.
Last night, the offense made the defense's life real hard by giving up turnovers. When you turn the ball over four times, the defense has challenges  in not wearing down, If that doesn't happen, and if the offense stays on the field, the defense was "good enough", which is the best we can hope for.