Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Wyokie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pm
Translation: we don't have much depth. The starters are fine/good/great. It's the backups that are the problem?
Seems pretty obvious right?..I mean...Guys like Granderson or Brian Hill or Josh Allen would probably play and start for any program in the country. But at Wyoming, the backups to those guys are generally not very good. Look at the powerhouses...they have backups that would be all conference in the G5 conferences.
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
Follow me on Twitter for all of your Free/Paid sports wagers all year around. Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, etc….
488-348 +721 Units won in 6.5 months follow @bet_chase on twitter….
Wyokie wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pm
Translation: we don't have much depth. The starters are fine/good/great. It's the backups that are the problem?
Seems pretty obvious right?..I mean...Guys like Granderson or Brian Hill or Josh Allen would probably play and start for any program in the country. But at Wyoming, the backups to those guys are generally not very good. Look at the powerhouses...they have backups that would be all conference in the G5 conferences.
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
That feels about right. Nice to hear from an actual player's experience of that.
My impression of the conversation around why we struggle so mightily to get to the top of the conference is that a lot of us (myself included until recently) have decided that it can't be talent...after all we have so many guys in the pros! I think that idea comes from the elevated profile of Wyoming alumni in the NFL and not from an actually significant increase in professional level alumni. Now, I'm not saying that there is no talent at Wyoming...I'm just saying that, in retrospect, I don't really feel like we have ever been significantly better than the median of the MWC. And I'm sure that we have not been significantly more talented than the top of the MWC.
The magic sauce at MWC level programs is one part out-recruiting your rivals, and one part exploiting the inevitable mismatches that are going to arise when you play against another team that has a few talent deficiencies. Are we out-recruiting our rivals?...I'd say not really. I mean I'm sure we win some recruiting battles and lose others.....I also don't think we are being left behind by MWC schools in recruiting. So, if we are going to be at the top of the conference, we had better have a coach and staff that is better at putting our players into advantageous situations. That seems to be very lacking.
seattlecowboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:29 pm
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
Seattlecowby, I am thinking about this aspect of not having backups at the level of the powerhouse teams.
Could this be used as a valid reason to shorten the game/play possession football? I mean if our starters are on the level of the other teams starters...but there is a drop off after that....it seems like it would be best to not get into shootouts or games with a high amount of possessions since that would be advantageous to the deeper/more talented team. When I think about it...this is exactly what AFA does. They are amazing at getting a slight lead and just driving the clock to zero and reducing the chance that their more talented opponent has to win.
I think basketball is a good analogy of this. You see tons of upsets in the NCAA tournament where a more talented team gets outplayed for one game and goes home during March Madness. This almost never happens in the NBA because over the course of a series the more talented team will almost always wins.
seattlecowboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:29 pm
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
Seattlecowby, I am thinking about this aspect of not having backups at the level of the powerhouse teams.
Could this be used as a valid reason to shorten the game/play possession football? I mean if our starters are on the level of the other teams starters...but there is a drop off after that....it seems like it would be best to not get into shootouts or games with a high amount of possessions since that would be advantageous to the deeper/more talented team. When I think about it...this is exactly what AFA does. They are amazing at getting a slight lead and just driving the clock to zero and reducing the chance that their more talented opponent has to win.
I think basketball is a good analogy of this. You see tons of upsets in the NCAA tournament where a more talented team gets outplayed for one game and goes home during March Madness. This almost never happens in the NBA because over the course of a series the more talented team will almost always wins.
Yeah I have thought for awhile they should maybe try the triple option or something.
But if I remember right in the early to mid 80’s when Al Kincaid was coach of Wyoming I believe he tried running the option here and they were mediocre at it. Never were as good as the military schools are. Not sure if Wyoming could find a good enough coach of the triple option to make it good at Wyoming or not.
As for basketball, that’s why Shyatt would slow the game down. Gave them a better chance against better teams. Just play smart basketball, play good defense and slow the game.
You saw Lindor make that adjustment last year at in the MWC tournament against the Aztecs. Slowed the game way down cause he knew we would get blown off the court if we tried to run against them. Almost worked.
Follow me on Twitter for all of your Free/Paid sports wagers all year around. Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer, Tennis, etc….
488-348 +721 Units won in 6.5 months follow @bet_chase on twitter….
seattlecowboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:29 pm
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
Seattlecowby, I am thinking about this aspect of not having backups at the level of the powerhouse teams.
Could this be used as a valid reason to shorten the game/play possession football? I mean if our starters are on the level of the other teams starters...but there is a drop off after that....it seems like it would be best to not get into shootouts or games with a high amount of possessions since that would be advantageous to the deeper/more talented team. When I think about it...this is exactly what AFA does. They are amazing at getting a slight lead and just driving the clock to zero and reducing the chance that their more talented opponent has to win.
I think basketball is a good analogy of this. You see tons of upsets in the NCAA tournament where a more talented team gets outplayed for one game and goes home during March Madness. This almost never happens in the NBA because over the course of a series the more talented team will almost always wins.
Yeah I have thought for awhile they should maybe try the triple option or something.
But if I remember right in the early to mid 80’s when Al Kincaid was coach of Wyoming I believe he tried running the option here and they were mediocre at it. Never were as good as the military schools are. Not sure if Wyoming could find a good enough coach of the triple option to make it good at Wyoming or not.
As for basketball, that’s why Shyatt would slow the game down. Gave them a better chance against better teams. Just play smart basketball, play good defense and slow the game.
You saw Lindor make that adjustment last year at in the MWC tournament against the Aztecs. Slowed the game way down cause he knew we would get blown off the court if we tried to run against them. Almost worked.
It wouldn't work. Any player with pro aspirations is not going to come block for an offense that had it's heyday 35 years ago. The game is setup for passing. The rules give the passing team huge advantages they didn't have in the past. What we need is an offensive mind like Dennis Erickson or Joe Tiller to implement a passing game.
Teams with little depth should shorten the game. Bohl almost got it done 2 years ago against Boise st.. TVW hardly threw a pass but he committed no turnovers and ended losing in overtime. But the strategy was a good one. Maybe Bohl felt like this year's team was different. Opening up the offense has led to us losing the turnover battle in game after game. We can't win if lose the turnover battle. I think Bohl knows this but, we have a defense that has created next to no (or actually none) turnovers in the MW.
I think our only chance tomorrow is to let Levi pass rarely and hope we win a defensive battle. If Levi throws more than 20 times, I think our chance of winning drops dramatically.
seattlecowboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:29 pm
To your point……
I spoke to a former Cowboy Defensive back that started for 3 years. He played on one of the early 2000 teams. They had played at Auburn one time. I asked him how it was competing against those sec guys. He told me their starters were just about as good as Auburns starters were for the most part. He said the biggest problem is the depth. He said when Auburn would put in their 2nd or 3rd string guy that is where the advantage took place.
He said there wasn’t much of a drop off at all if any. So if Wyoming put any 2nd or 3rd team guy in the drop off for Wyoming was huge. Auburn could just keep rotating guys in with no drop off while Wyoming starters would get tired or sub another guy in that wasn’t close to as good as Auburns and that’s where the good teams start pulling away.
So basically the starters can keep up with the bigger teams starters for awhile. It’s after that where things fall apart for smaller schools. Wyoming starters get too tired against whichever bigger team or they sub in 2nd string guy and boom that’s when the separation starts.
Of course against conference teams this shouldn’t be as big of a problem. Conference teams are a lot different than having to play at Auburn.
Seattlecowby, I am thinking about this aspect of not having backups at the level of the powerhouse teams.
Could this be used as a valid reason to shorten the game/play possession football? I mean if our starters are on the level of the other teams starters...but there is a drop off after that....it seems like it would be best to not get into shootouts or games with a high amount of possessions since that would be advantageous to the deeper/more talented team. When I think about it...this is exactly what AFA does. They are amazing at getting a slight lead and just driving the clock to zero and reducing the chance that their more talented opponent has to win.
I think basketball is a good analogy of this. You see tons of upsets in the NCAA tournament where a more talented team gets outplayed for one game and goes home during March Madness. This almost never happens in the NBA because over the course of a series the more talented team will almost always wins.
Yeah I have thought for awhile they should maybe try the triple option or something.
But if I remember right in the early to mid 80’s when Al Kincaid was coach of Wyoming I believe he tried running the option here and they were mediocre at it. Never were as good as the military schools are. Not sure if Wyoming could find a good enough coach of the triple option to make it good at Wyoming or not.
As for basketball, that’s why Shyatt would slow the game down. Gave them a better chance against better teams. Just play smart basketball, play good defense and slow the game.
You saw Lindor make that adjustment last year at in the MWC tournament against the Aztecs. Slowed the game way down cause he knew we would get blown off the court if we tried to run against them. Almost worked.
It wouldn't work. Any player with pro aspirations is not going to come block for an offense that had it's heyday 35 years ago. The game is setup for passing. The rules give the passing team huge advantages they didn't have in the past. What we need is an offensive mind like Dennis Erickson or Joe Tiller to implement a passing game.
Teams with little depth should shorten the game. Bohl almost got it done 2 years ago against Boise st.. TVW hardly threw a pass but he committed no turnovers and ended losing in overtime. But the strategy was a good one. Maybe Bohl felt like this year's team was different. Opening up the offense has led to us losing the turnover battle in game after game. We can't win if lose the turnover battle. I think Bohl knows this but, we have a defense that has created next to no (or actually none) turnovers in the MW.
I think our only chance tomorrow is to let Levi pass rarely and hope we win a defensive battle. If Levi throws more than 20 times, I think our chance of winning drops dramatically.
You’re correct. We really do know why the offense was only ever opened up with Josh as QB.
PokeTransplant wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 11:29 pm
We will go 0-fer in conference this year.
Remaining schedule:
vs CSU -- They have been close in both of their conference losses to USU and BSU, something that for anyone who has watch our games lately cannot say about the Pokes. CSU by 7.
@BSU -- As rough as the Donks have been this year, we lose this by 2 TDs on the road. BSU by 14.
@USU -- The Aggies have an offense and something that resembles an adequate defense, which is all you need against the Pokes. USU by 10.
vs UH -- Any resemblance of team pride is gone. 'Bows come into the War and finish the job. UH by 13.
4-8 overall with an 0-8 record in conference.
Here for my first serving of crow. Was pleasantly surprised by Levi. He looked really comfortable out there. Made some really nice throws and missed some other, but overall he played a hell of a game. Swen is a monster and hopefully continues to punish the way he did this game. This game has given me a glimmer of hope, but not ready to make any victory predictions at this point.
