Wyoming gave up 690 yards of total offense

SnowyRange said:

Good Lord.

Let me explain something: when a consensus pre-season last place team is coached to a division championship and the title game, you don't fire coordinators. You reward coordinators.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but in all but the CSEWe game, there were glaring instances where the defense tried to give the game back to NIU/AFA/ Boise/ USU/ SDSU. Stanard was utterly unprepared for both UNLV and UNM, and, arguably, EMU.

I could chalk the first five up to youth, inexperience, and injuries, but the performances against UNLV and UNM are inexcusable. He appeared to not have even prepared for either opponent. There's no room for that kind of half-assed approach to your job at the FBS level.

I believe Coach Bohl has grown into the FBS level, as has Vigen. Those two, along with much of the rest of the staff, deserve a huge amount of credit for such a turnaround. Stanard, however, has demonstrated a comparatively lax approach to his duties.

I hear Bohl is lobbying hard for more money for his staff, I believe it's warranted, and I believe there's donors willing to help make that happen. However, there is little to no justification for Stanard to receive a raise. Either Stanard can stay at his current salary level and show improvement next season (after which he is either let go or raised), or he can resign his position and possibly be evaluated for another position on the staff. If Stanard is going to receive any kind of upward pay adjustment heading into next year (any bonuses he has contractually earned this season, aside) the donors might be a bit reticent in their generosity to the cause...

Asmodeanreborn said:

If SDSU lines up in pistol formation on Saturday, I might just leave. I'm really not into slasher movies and similar entertainment.

Speaking of which - why can't we stop that type of offense, while we kept the assignments just fine vs Air Force? It's not _that_ different, is it? Is it really all because of the linemen we lost?

Click to expand...

It's not too much different, but Davie schemed a very aggressive triple option that really necessitates an extremely disciplined defend-the-line-of-scrimmage defense. Our defense kept trying to "pressure" the QB by running into the offensive backfield. Of course, the QB felt zero pressure because there were two, sometimes three guys he was giving the ball to out of the back field. With half our LBs and DBs in their back field, we were wildly undermanned beyond the DL, and it was child's play to get past them and into our secondary (and through it). The only defensive players who should have been beyond the line of scrimmage in 90% of the snaps should have been our linemen driving back theirs. Our LBs and two DBs should have been sealing the line of scrimmage with our DEs sealing off the the interior corners and two DBs closing up the outside corners as the plays unfolded.

What we saw instead was a mildly disciplined version of "smear the qveer", hair-on-fire, chase down the QB scheme that never had a chance against the triple option.

I'm sorely disappointed in the loss but progress was made on the D this year. Is the offense further along? Yes. I'm disappointed that we can come out and stop the best teams in the league but falter against offenses that other teams had no issues with. It's hard to fathom. I do think we're a victim of our own success and expectations are raised. If you're 7-2 against all the good teams, you expect you can be 9-2 and maybe 10-2. I was worried about the New Mexico game on the road from the beginning but there were lots of games to be worried about. After CSU dismantled them, I expected us to do the same. Was that fair? Maybe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm torn. Last night and UNLV and inexcusable in my book. I think most of our d improvement is a function of our offense dominating TOP in a lot of the games. I'd not shed any tears if we didn't bring Stanard back.

This argument is stupid. At the beginning of the year, we knew we didn't have much depth, especially on the defensive line.

Now, without Granderson, Appleby, and Sidney, we're supposed to "scheme" our way to victory over a nine win UNM team on the road, against an offense we haven't matched up well with all year?

It was ugly, but it wasn't defensive coaching that lost us the game, it was the fact that we don't have defensive line depth, we're playing Cain and Ghaifan way too many reps, and we're missing Granderson's ability to crash the qb.

That shouldn't have surprised anyone, and it wasn't Stanards fault that we didn't have defensive line depth to start the season and even less with three guys in the rotation out with injury.

Cowboy Junky said:

This argument is stupid. At the beginning of the year, we knew we didn't have much depth, especially on the defensive line.

Now, without Granderson, Appleby, and Sidney, we're supposed to "scheme" our way to victory over a nine win UNM team on the road, against an offense we haven't matched up well with all year?

It was ugly, but it wasn't defensive coaching that lost us the game, it was the fact that we don't have defensive line depth, we're playing Cain and Ghaifan way too many reps, and we're missing Granderson's ability to crash the qb.

That shouldn't have surprised anyone, and it wasn't Stanards fault that we didn't have defensive line depth to start the season and even less with three guys in the rotation out with injury.

Click to expand...

Then why was our secondary always behind the play, in the offensive back field, instead of in front of it? This is Football 101. Against the triple option, you shouldn't be in their backfield.

I agree, we're thin and a bit depleted, but this was not well-coached. Bohl said as much.

I agree that the scheme could have been better with what we have. I thought we should have packed the box and we left the safeties out of the box for the most part, and they came crashing up after the snap, usually to the wrong spot.

That's out of necessity though. They did that because they didn't have defensive line depth to start the season, before we lost our best d-end, our best d-tackle, and the primary back-up at d tackle.

We aren't just a bit depleted. We're running a skeleton crew on the dline. If we had depth there or at linebacker, we wouldn't have had to scheme the way we did.

Stanard gets a pass for that game. If we can't defend the read option next season, then it's a problem, but for now, he's done a marvelous job getting us to 8-4 and a home MWC championship game with a defense that didn't have depth to start the season and has already lost our two best defensive linemen.

Cowboy Junky said:

I agree that the scheme could have been better with what we have. I thought we should have packed the box and we left the safeties out of the box for the most part, and they came crashing up after the snap, usually to the wrong spot.

That's out of necessity though. They did that because they didn't have defensive line depth to start the season, before we lost our best d-end, our best d-tackle, and the primary back-up at d tackle.

We aren't just a bit depleted. We're running a skeleton crew on the dline. If we had depth there or at linebacker, we wouldn't have had to scheme the way we did.

Stanard gets a pass for that game. If we can't defend the read option next season, then it's a problem, but for now, he's done a marvelous job getting us to 8-4 and a home MWC championship game with a defense that didn't have depth to start the season and has already lost our two best defensive linemen.

Click to expand...

This.

evilpoke said:

Cowboy Junky said:

I agree that the scheme could have been better with what we have. I thought we should have packed the box and we left the safeties out of the box for the most part, and they came crashing up after the snap, usually to the wrong spot.

That's out of necessity though. They did that because they didn't have defensive line depth to start the season, before we lost our best d-end, our best d-tackle, and the primary back-up at d tackle.

We aren't just a bit depleted. We're running a skeleton crew on the dline. If we had depth there or at linebacker, we wouldn't have had to scheme the way we did.

Stanard gets a pass for that game. If we can't defend the read option next season, then it's a problem, but for now, he's done a marvelous job getting us to 8-4 and a home MWC championship game with a defense that didn't have depth to start the season and has already lost our two best defensive linemen.

Click to expand...

This.

Click to expand...

And the UNLV game? That's two passes...

Glad I was tied up Cosmic Bowling under the lazer lights than watch that garbarge, grrrr....better get shored up for this weekend, don't wanna see Pumphrey go off

Bumping this because, well you know.
It will be an interesting off-season. Many on this board are quick with excuses even in defense of stanard. Bohl wasn't. I wonder if he'll view the excuses for vigen as sufficient or if he thinks we should have done better?

Bohl has made the right decisions so far. I trust and support his judgement. I'm not on the "fire vigen" bandwagon, but having a bottom 3 offense against bad defenses with an NFL qb at helm ain't good. It will be interesting to see what he does.

ragtimejoe1 said:

Bumping this because, well you know.
It will be an interesting off-season. Many on this board are quick with excuses even in defense of stanard. Bohl wasn't. I wonder if he'll view the excuses for vigen as sufficient or if he thinks we should have done better?

Bohl has made the right decisions so far. I trust and support his judgement. I'm not on the "fire vigen" bandwagon, but having a bottom 3 offense against bad defenses with an NFL qb at helm ain't good. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Click to expand...

Watching from afar and going through years of “fire Vigen” rants in fargo. Vigen is safe. And is viewed as Bohls heir apparent in coach bohls world

With that said. The o line isn’t where Vigens offense needs to big. Big strong and powerful. To get there they need to recruit the kids that can spend 2 3 years in the weight program and get the size and speed

Strength coach is the key hire to make this go.

Big line also makes Allen look that much better as well

ragtimejoe1 said:

Bumping this because, well you know.
It will be an interesting off-season. Many on this board are quick with excuses even in defense of stanard. Bohl wasn't. I wonder if he'll view the excuses for vigen as sufficient or if he thinks we should have done better?

Bohl has made the right decisions so far. I trust and support his judgement. I'm not on the "fire vigen" bandwagon, but having a bottom 3 offense against bad defenses with an NFL qb at helm ain't good. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern. However, I believe the offensive issues are more personnel related.

I don't envision Bohl making major changes to the offense. We aren't going to suddenly switch to a spread offense. Bohl will build his team on running the ball.

Stanard wasn't Bohl's first choice as DC in 2014. He probably wasn't even his second choice. Those would be Chris Klieman (his DC at the time and current NDSU HC) and probably Scottie Hazelton.

Vigen was Bohl's first choice as OC. We've already seen this offense have success in the Mountain West if you get the right players in the program.

joshvanklomp said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

Bumping this because, well you know.
It will be an interesting off-season. Many on this board are quick with excuses even in defense of stanard. Bohl wasn't. I wonder if he'll view the excuses for vigen as sufficient or if he thinks we should have done better?

Bohl has made the right decisions so far. I trust and support his judgement. I'm not on the "fire vigen" bandwagon, but having a bottom 3 offense against bad defenses with an NFL qb at helm ain't good. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern. However, I believe the offensive issues are more personnel related.

I don't envision Bohl making major changes to the offense. We aren't going to suddenly switch to a spread offense. Bohl will build his team on running the ball.

Stanard wasn't Bohl's first choice as DC in 2014. He probably wasn't even his second choice. Those would be Chris Klieman (his DC at the time and current NDSU HC) and probably Scottie Hazelton.

Vigen was Bohl's first choice as OC. We've already seen this offense have success in the Mountain West if you get the right players in the program.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this entire post.

I think the problem for Wyoming, is a great majority of our fan base can't remember past the "Erickson Air Express", when Wyoming's offense changed from a traditional power running game to a pass happy spread affair.

When Erickson did it, no one else in the country was doing it and it worked. When Roach took over for Erickson, we kept passing the ball, although with more balance. Joe Tiller took over for Roach and was cutting edge with the spread(still hadn't taken off around the country yet). It worked for Tiller as well. Dimel's offense was gimmicky. Joe Glenn didn't throw it much and we weren't very good. A lot of the Wyoming fan base thinks you have to run the spread and be aggressive all the time, because the last guys that were successful here did just that. It took Dave Christensen to force Wyoming into going in a different direction, towards power football at altitude.

Spread offense isn't a cultural fit: we don't have a lot of quick shifty athletes to recruit in Wyoming that fit the spread. Finesse isn't a cultural fit. Lunch bucket/blue collar is.

A majority of our fan base has been brought up on spread offense. The older guys that can remember our dominant 1960's run remember what is a cultural Wyoming fit: good defense and power running.

It really isn't a fit at all anymore, because everyone is doing it, so there aren't as many good receivers out there being over-looked. It's harder to recruit spread athletes now, because everyone is recruiting spread athletes.

Now, if we aren't throwing the ball 2/3 of the time, being aggressive ALL the time, and trying to gain yards instead of running the clock, our fan base thinks we're vanilla. If we're playing conservatively to grind out the clock for time of possession, we're playing to lose. If we're up 28 in the second half, and run the ball on first and second down, they don't recognize that we're protecting the ball, time of possesssion, and the lead. They want us to fling the ball around the field and take chances of turning it over, instead of killing the clock for the win.

People were critical of Vigen last year when we averaged 30 + points per game, in a power running offense with great balance.

Wyoming has a lot of fans that believe in spread offense and don't think conservative rushing attacks can win in Laramie. That's reality.

It's not Vigen's fault really. It's Dennis Erickson's fault.

I was mostly happy with the playcalling yesterday - we even involved Overstreet more in the run game, which showed. What I didn't like was doing trick plays late in the first half up 21-0 when we could've just run the ball and killed the clock. Instead Allen got hurt and Air Force scored with 25 seconds to spare.

Hindsight is 20/20, but even at the time it felt like a weird thing to do.

Dave Christensen was viewed as a mastermind on offense before being hired on in Laramie and he was all about the spread. We know how that story ended.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair 3 of the top receivers last year (2 D.C. Guys, and juco te) were spread guys. I don't buy the argument that we can't get spread type of receivers seeing as DC could recruit NFL caliber WRs ( Gentry, Doctaon, & Herron) not to mention high quality WRs Maulhart, Rufran, & ect. Not saying we should run the spread as running an o at fast pace doesn't match with defensive philosophies, but the offensive success we see this year is often out of 3 wr sets and out of the shotgun. Vigen will probably have a good offense every four years when we are a senior heavy team. Otherwise the offense will have to be timely and good defenses in order to win games.

marcuswyo said:

To be fair 3 of the top receivers last year (2 D.C. Guys, and juco te) were spread guys. I don't buy the argument that we can't get spread type of receivers seeing as DC could recruit NFL caliber WRs ( Gentry, Doctaon, & Herron) not to mention high quality WRs Maulhart, Rufran, & ect. Not saying we should run the spread as running an o at fast pace doesn't match with defensive philosophies, but the offensive success we see this year is often out of 3 wr sets and out of the shotgun. Vigen will probably have a good offense every four years when we are a senior heavy team. Otherwise the offense will have to be timely and good defenses in order to win games.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you can't do it, just that it's harder to do it.

D.C. didn't really recruit anything else aside from Qb's, doughboy linemen, and wide receivers. He got lucky on a couple of other players, but his focus was on receivers and qb's.

I think our team is a bell cow running back and a strength coach from being pretty good offensively, although replacing Josh Allen won't be easy.

We're loaded on defense and special teams, and I can't remember a time when D.C. was here where we were dominant in 2 aspects of the game, and we're losing less than 3 seniors from the 2 deep on that side of the ball.

Our offensive line is young. They'll get better.

I would argue it is a lot harder to recruit a bell cow running back than any other position. Good WRs and good QBs go along ways in having a good offense, and there are a lot more of them than there use to be because of the spread offense coming to high schools and jucos.However I see your point on somethings.

Hopefully Overstreet or Mike Green can fill that role of lead back going forward.