• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Fire Vigen

stymeman said:
Sure wanna see drastic change against a fcs team in Laramie this upcoming weekend and not waiting for the takeaway to get it started, lets see it from start to finish against the Vandals
Click to expand...

If you're talking about offensive gameplan, prepare to be disappointed. I doubt we will see more than 8-10 passes all game from the Pokes against the Vandals. This will be a run heavy vanilla offense game. And I am just fine with that. I am calling it right now, the Pokes put up over 275 yards on the ground against Idaho.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
stymeman said:
Sure wanna see drastic change against a fcs team in Laramie this upcoming weekend and not waiting for the takeaway to get it started, lets see it from start to finish against the Vandals
Click to expand...

If you're talking about offensive gameplan, prepare to be disappointed. I doubt we will see more than 8-10 passes all game from the Pokes against the Vandals. This will be a run heavy vanilla offense game. And I am just fine with that. I am calling it right now, the Pokes put up over 275 yards on the ground against Idaho.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see us get the kinks worked out on our passing attack. If that's even possible. But I'm not holding my breath
 
WyomingAg said:
OrediggerPoke said:
LanderPoke said:
You could not call a more predictable game if you tried. Talk about not putting your players in a position to succeed.
Click to expand...

Right because Vigen dropped the deep throw into the end zone.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. But on the 2nd drive in the game down by 7 with no momentum he called 3 run plays by the running back up the middle and then a punt to give the ball immediately back to Texas st. The exact same as we did last week.... Predictable

Why do we do that because obviously our game plan in first quarters are no passes, no qb keeps, no outside runs, because in 2 games so far this season the first quarters have been full of runs up the middle by the running backs. Pretty predictable and I detect a pattern, I wonder if opposing defensive coordinators can see the pattern?
Click to expand...

I am no football expert, but when I listen to Coach Bohl's interviews it sounds like he wants to soften up the other side by slamming them up the middle early and often. It sounds like the idea is that the other side will not have the will to keep up the fight by the end of the game. Coach Bohl's philosophy does not sound like it is built on deception as much as it is built on execution and a battle of wills.
 
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
 
Seems like the game plan was much more vanilla for Texas st. I believe Bohl even underestimated the bobcats and it showed in the post game interview. I just didn't see the pre snap movement we saw against Mizzou. The o line can dominate but they need the help to get defenders moving in a designed direction. Seemed like the entire game plan was to out muscle texas st. Where against Mizzou we ran mostly trap and option plays.
 
307bball said:
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it somewhat, but let me remind you of the Steve Stanard coaching change and situation. Hazelton was a MAJOR and very necessary upgrade. Maybe the same will happen with Vigen - not sure, and probably doubt it. Especially when you are winning...that and Vigen didn't give up 262 of rushing yards and 21 points in the first quarter of the NM game in 2016.

:shock: :rofl:
 
McPeachy said:
307bball said:
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it somewhat, but let me remind you of the Steve Stanard coaching change and situation. Hazelton was a MAJOR and very necessary upgrade. Maybe the same will happen with Vigen - not sure, and probably doubt it. Especially when you are winning...that and Vigen didn't give up 262 of rushing yards and 21 points in the first quarter of the NM game in 2016.

:shock: :rofl:
Click to expand...
Did you have to remind me of that game?? I still have nightmares of Josh Allen getting destroyed by dirty defenders and all of the long runs by New Mexico, including the should have been Poke Gipson.
 
McPeachy said:
307bball said:
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it somewhat, but let me remind you of the Steve Stanard coaching change and situation. Hazelton was a MAJOR and very necessary upgrade. Maybe the same will happen with Vigen - not sure, and probably doubt it. Especially when you are winning...that and Vigen didn't give up 262 of rushing yards and 21 points in the first quarter of the NM game in 2016.

:shock: :rofl:
Click to expand...
Agree. What if Vigen is just a shitty coach (and all signs point to him being such)? What have we got to lose? It’snot like we have a good offense anyway. It could hardly get worse! It’s mind blowing that we just keep rolling with the same thing year after year expecting better results. Bohl has got to realize things need to change
 
OrediggerPoke said:
McPeachy said:
307bball said:
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it somewhat, but let me remind you of the Steve Stanard coaching change and situation. Hazelton was a MAJOR and very necessary upgrade. Maybe the same will happen with Vigen - not sure, and probably doubt it. Especially when you are winning...that and Vigen didn't give up 262 of rushing yards and 21 points in the first quarter of the NM game in 2016.

:shock: :rofl:
Click to expand...
Did you have to remind me of that game?? I still have nightmares of Josh Allen getting destroyed by dirty defenders and all of the long runs by New Mexico, including the should have been Poke Gipson.
Click to expand...

We were there, that was awful, sorry about digging that up. Stanard gave up and knew he was a goner at the end of the year.
 
McPeachy said:
307bball said:
Here is what it comes down to....At this point, the cost of replacing Vigen seems to be that Bohl would be gone as well. This means "Fire Vigen" is synonymous with a replacement of the current program leadership. I believe reasonable people can weigh the sputtering offensive output against an overall rising level of competitiveness in the program and come to a decision one way or another. What you cannot do is act like getting rid of Vigen would happen in a vacuum and have no impact on anything else in the program. At least address the consequences of the actions you would like to see happen. If we had to replace Bohl...what is the likelihood that the replacement would be better overall..not just in one facet of the game? I say...not very likely.

Once again....saying "fire Vigen" is tantamount to pushing for a change at the top.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and agree with it somewhat, but let me remind you of the Steve Stanard coaching change and situation. Hazelton was a MAJOR and very necessary upgrade. Maybe the same will happen with Vigen - not sure, and probably doubt it. Especially when you are winning...that and Vigen didn't give up 262 of rushing yards and 21 points in the first quarter of the NM game in 2016.

:shock: :rofl:
Click to expand...

Yes, but also remember that Standard was only with Bohl for 5 years (2 @ NDSU, 3 @ Wyoming), Vigen has been with Bohl since 2003, that's 17 years!
 
Why would they fire him when he’s going to be our next HC?

How many more years do you think bohl will coach?
 
People may not like it, but I think Bohl fully supports calling very conservative plays on the first two drives, to hopefully establish physicality (which won't be evident until later in the game), and read how opposing defenses are going to play against certain base formations.

Play calling after those drives are then driven and derived by what they've seen on those early drives.
 
yopaulie said:
People may not like it, but I think Bohl fully supports calling very conservative plays on the first two drives, to hopefully establish physicality (which won't be evident until later in the game), and read how opposing defenses are going to play against certain base formations.

Play calling after those drives are then driven and derived by what they've seen on those early drives.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that Chambers never gets into any kind of rhythm. I can't understand why Vigen won't give him a few easy rollouts/screens to start the game just to get going. We can always fall back on the running game. Point blank Chambers may be missing certain throws but he is not being put in a position to succeed.
 
Poke in New England said:
yopaulie said:
People may not like it, but I think Bohl fully supports calling very conservative plays on the first two drives, to hopefully establish physicality (which won't be evident until later in the game), and read how opposing defenses are going to play against certain base formations.

Play calling after those drives are then driven and derived by what they've seen on those early drives.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that Chambers never gets into any kind of rhythm. I can't understand why Vigen won't give him a few easy rollouts/screens to start the game just to get going. We can always fall back on the running game. Point blank Chambers may be missing certain throws but he is not being put in a position to succeed.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the very first play call of the game against Idaho was a play-action bootleg rollout?
It ended with a pass interference call. Abojei then had a terrible penalty that put the Pokes back 15 yards after that. But then there was a nice play with the tight end Marcotte sitting over the middle for a completion and a first down. This was probably the best executed pass of the day. Then there was a 10 year out that should have been an easy completion but Chambers was wild on the throw. This was all on the first drive. It ended with a Rothe missed FG.
 
I've never heard it mentioned but do we script plays? Are the first 10 or however many plays scripted and run regardless of the down and distance?
 
bladerunnr said:
I've never heard it mentioned but do we script plays? Are the first 10 or however many plays scripted and run regardless of the down and distance?
Click to expand...
It was with Dave Christensen. I don't believe it is with Bohl. The first play of the Idaho game was clearly scripted to try and get Chambers into a rhythm.
 
bladerunnr said:
I've never heard it mentioned but do we script plays? Are the first 10 or however many plays scripted and run regardless of the down and distance?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I dont remember if it was Bohl or Vigen early on in their tenure said they script the first 20 plays and DO NOT deviate come hell or high water. Something about Vigen being such a genius that in those 20 failures, er, plays he can accurately diagnose what the D is doing and adjust accordingly. It seems to be working quite well in year 5....

EDIT: Its kind of smart.... By this logic they can script damn near the entire first half and not have to worry about snap on the fly decisions.... Leave the hard shit for the second half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top