Craig Bohl

[PorkerPoke]

Sure, Bohl’s overly conservative style might have cost us a few games…but it also probably won us a few games. Agree with you that folks will always find ways to criticize a coach no matter how good of job they do or no matter what type of program they establish.

I agree with your point and yet I have my mixed emotions with Bohl.

This breakdown shows how many games Bohl may have left on the table by the reluctance to enhance offensive productivity:

Games under 300 yards total offense:
14 0-3
15 0-3
16 0-0
17 5-3
18 0-5
19 2-3
20 0-1
21 0-4
22 2-5
23 1-3

10-30 under 300 yds 6-21 mwc 4-9 OOC
51-30 over 300 yds 31-20 mwc 19-10 OOC
61-60 all games

33% of all games were under 300 yards of offense

25% win rate (22.2% mwc) under 300 yards of offense

67.5% of under 300 yards of offense were conference games

The 9-4 final year:

2023 4-4 vs .500+
2023 5-0 vs sub .500

The area that leaves the criticism door open is being unable to win conference games against the winning programs and the lackluster offensive production in those games. If that 37-41 MWC record was 50-28 Wyoming might well be in the same conference as CSU today. That is what chunking a few winnable games can do to define a program as a winner or a loser. It certainly didn’t hurt USU when they won games in the MWC.

Only one season had no games under 300 yards (2016 Josh Allen) and one season with winning success in under 300 yard games (2017 Josh Allen).

I truly believe that if Bohl would have made a concerted effort to pursue better QB play along with better WR’s and utilizing the TE as an offensive weapon, the program could have put up as good or better W-L numbers than Calhoun did at AFA during the Bohl tenure.

In retrospect we have to place responsibility for offensive anemia directly on Bohl because his two OC’s have gone on to produce some pretty decent offensive teams with the last one geared up to win the MWC in 2026. The OC’s were loyal to Bohl and did what the system required them to do. Unfortunately the Bohl rush then punt offense to try and control field position left the program vulnerable to losing games when an opponent was strong enough to load the box and shut down the rushing game because the passing game was weak.

Yet - the 10 year tenure of Bohl was the best run of success since the successes of the 80’s and 90’s. So kudos to Bohl and as a fan I gladly accepted the MWC bowl games because it was a time to party with Poke fans and get some national attention.

Some Wyoming fans are simply hungry for more. I’m starving.

 

[307bball]

I agree with your point and yet I have my mixed emotions with Bohl.

This breakdown shows how many games Bohl may have left on the table by the reluctance to enhance offensive productivity:

Games under 300 yards total offense:
14 0-3
15 0-3
16 0-0
17 5-3
18 0-5
19 2-3
20 0-1
21 0-4
22 2-5
23 1-3

10-30 under 300 yds 6-21 mwc 4-9 OOC
51-30 over 300 yds 31-20 mwc 19-10 OOC
61-60 all games

33% of all games were under 300 yards of offense

25% win rate (22.2% mwc) under 300 yards of offense

67.5% of under 300 yards of offense were conference games

The 9-4 final year:

2023 4-4 vs .500+
2023 5-0 vs sub .500

The area that leaves the criticism door open is being unable to win conference games against the winning programs and the lackluster offensive production in those games. If that 37-41 MWC record was 50-28 Wyoming might well be in the same conference as CSU today. That is what chunking a few winnable games can do to define a program as a winner or a loser. It certainly didn’t hurt USU when they won games in the MWC.

Only one season had no games under 300 yards (2016 Josh Allen) and one season with winning success in under 300 yard games (2017 Josh Allen).

I truly believe that if Bohl would have made a concerted effort to pursue better QB play along with better WR’s and utilizing the TE as an offensive weapon, the program could have put up as good or better W-L numbers than Calhoun did at AFA during the Bohl tenure.

In retrospect we have to place responsibility for offensive anemia directly on Bohl because his two OC’s have gone on to produce some pretty decent offensive teams with the last one geared up to win the MWC in 2026. The OC’s were loyal to Bohl and did what the system required them to do. Unfortunately the Bohl rush then punt offense to try and control field position left the program vulnerable to losing games when an opponent was strong enough to load the box and shut down the rushing game because the passing game was weak.

Yet - the 10 year tenure of Bohl was the best run of success since the successes of the 80’s and 90’s. So kudos to Bohl and as a fan I gladly accepted the MWC bowl games because it was a time to party with Poke fans and get some national attention.

Some Wyoming fans are simply hungry for more. I’m starving.

I think there is a generational thing going on here. If you came online as a UW sports fan anytime after 1999, CB's run was the best you've had it. For people who go back further, there is an appreciation but we were ultimately left wanting more.

 

[307bball]

The 9-4 final year:

2023 4-4 vs .500+
2023 5-0 vs sub .500

The area that leaves the criticism door open is being unable to win conference games against the winning programs and the lackluster offensive production in those games. If that 37-41 MWC record was 50-28 Wyoming might well be in the same conference as CSU today. That is what chunking a few winnable games can do to define a program as a winner or a loser. It certainly didn’t hurt USU when they won games in the MWC.

How is the criticism that he's unable to win against teams with better records any different than he just doesn't win enough? Any meaningful increase in winning percentage is going to come by beating better and better teams.

The offense held them back. With a better offense, Wyoming would have won more games (assuming everything else stays the same). Those wins would have come against the better teams on our schedule.

One thing that this specific criticism about offense doesn't take into account is that, even in the pre-NIL era, focus on something has a cost. What I mean by that is, programs like Wyoming have a finite amount of coaches and hours in a day. So, while talent was distributed somewhat more equally historically in college football, the great equalizer was hours in a day to teach the game and prepare for the opponent. The best coaches did that well and efficiently but they can't manufacture practice or planning hours.

What if Bohl had decided, after Allen left, "I'm going to find a high flying coordinator to help me with a whiz-bang passing game and go hard for tip top QB and WR talent"? Is there any way this doesn't come at some cost to other aspects of the team that we had come to appreciate? Now...maybe he didn't have it right and was getting diminishing returns on other things he chose to focus on...but I think it's a mistake to say that there was some opportunity to be better at offense that has no impact on the other aspects of the team.

 

[TheRealUW]

How is the criticism that he's unable to win against teams with better records any different than he just doesn't win enough? Any meaningful increase in winning percentage is going to come by beating better and better teams.

The offense held them back. With a better offense, Wyoming would have won more games (assuming everything else stays the same). Those wins would have come against the better teams on our schedule.

One thing that this specific criticism about offense doesn't take into account is that, even in the pre-NIL era, focus on something has a cost. What I mean by that is, programs like Wyoming have a finite amount of coaches and hours in a day. So, while talent was distributed somewhat more equally historically in college football, the great equalizer was hours in a day to teach the game and prepare for the opponent. The best coaches did that well and efficiently but they can't manufacture practice or planning hours.

What if Bohl had decided, after Allen left, "I'm going to find a high flying coordinator to help me with a whiz-bang passing game and go hard for tip top QB and WR talent"? Is there any way this doesn't come at some cost to other aspects of the team that we had come to appreciate? Now...maybe he didn't have it right and was getting diminishing returns on other things he chose to focus on...but I think it's a mistake to say that there was some opportunity to be better at offense that has no impact on the other aspects of the team.

Just look at what happened to the team under Christensen. We had better offenses but some pretty horrific defenses.

 

[PorkerPoke]

One thing we might agree on regardless of generation in the examination of if the cause was this or that and the solution was and will remain difficult to obtain is:

Wyoming football (sports in general) is usually middle of the conference when “good” and more often than not in the bottom half.

The slogan “Cowboy Tough” has become more of it’s tough being a Cowboys fan with dreams and desires of success. Had a bumper sticker with that slogan on the garage wall for years. It got old like me and I disposed of it before Bohl since it had lost its essence.

 

[Vapoke]

One thing we might agree on regardless of generation in the examination of if the cause was this or that and the solution was and will remain difficult to obtain is:

Wyoming football (sports in general) is usually middle of the conference when “good” and more often than not in the bottom half.

The slogan “Cowboy Tough” has become more of it’s tough being a Cowboys fan with dreams and desires of success. Had a bumper sticker with that slogan on the garage wall for years. It got old like me and I disposed of it before Bohl since it had lost its essence

"Those who stay will be champions" was removed while he was still Coach as well

 

[cowpoke pride]

Those who stayed are still waiting....

 

[Brew_Poke]

My biggest Bohl complaint was his, what I call, loser's mentality. What I mean here is if we had the ball with 2 minutes in any half, he would, never, EVER try to score. He'd run out the clock. I mean, abstractly I understand it was part of his ball control 'philosophy', but it was just such fucking loser shit. Sawvel does the same. I was flat out disgusted, and may never get my Cowboy pride back, after Sawvel laid down and showed his belly doing this exact same thing at CU last year. That was a completely winnable game! Fucking nuts. I guess I just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand football, because this behvior makes no sense.

 

[PorkerPoke]

Watching the Bills game last night made me realize all the more the “strategy” of playing field position and ball control really only works against weaker opponents.

I can’t think of any NFL team that intentionally tries to draft or trade specifically to run a mediocre offense. Those that make draft mistakes or trade to strengthen an area at the cost of another area are usually the ones that lose more frequently.

In the FBS the majority of mediocre and below average offenses are the teams that struggle to win games. It’s true there are some teams that put up some decent offensive numbers that have no ability to play defense and struggle to win games. We saw that with Christensen who could score 38 but easily give up 48.

I would rather see my team be the one that might give up 24 to 31 points but be a legitimate threat to score 31 to 38 points in most games.

As with any sport the objective is to score more points than your opponent. Why emphasize playing “keep away” if the onus is to put your opponent in the situation of having to “catch up” to stay in the game. If you have the tools to score you have a better chance to catch up than if you fall behind and find scoring a difficult task. Anyone notice that NDSU thrives on being a much bigger threat to score than they are in trying to hold an opponent scoreless?

I recall a certain Wyoming basketball coach in recent years who would not even try for an offensive rebound. When his team had a bad shooting game they were challenged to win games because the opponents focused on scoring points instead of being afraid to try knowing we were conceding the missed shot.

My point is that I am done with the mentality that defense wins games. Defense is a great weapon but having firepower is a necessary weapon. When the Wyoming offense can’t perform as well as the opponents offense does against the “tough” Wyoming defense it’s a bad recipe. Barely beating weak teams, being outplayed frequently by average teams and almost always getting throttled by the better teams leaves us closer to the bottom half more often than the top half. That’s why Bohl was 61-60 (37-41). When his teams played better offense he won more games than the teams with struggling offenses. With the retention of the Bohl staff to keep the program from the ravages of the portal it has got us to 8-17. That puts the Bohl influenced 12 year era at 69-77 (41-52) and we are to be excited that it has been some of the “greatest” Wyoming football.

Which half of the cup do we want to drink from ? I’m tired of dwelling in the glass is half empty woe is me can’t do anything better when we have been sold that being amongst the top salaries in the MWC for over a decade is a requirement for building success.

 

[LanderPoke]

Watching the Bills game last night made me realize all the more the “strategy” of playing field position and ball control really only works against weaker opponents.

I can’t think of any NFL team that intentionally tries to draft or trade specifically to run a mediocre offense. Those that make draft mistakes or trade to strengthen an area at the cost of another area are usually the ones that lose more frequently.

In the FBS the majority of mediocre and below average offenses are the teams that struggle to win games. It’s true there are some teams that put up some decent offensive numbers that have no ability to play defense and struggle to win games. We saw that with Christensen who could score 38 but easily give up 48.

I would rather see my team be the one that might give up 24 to 31 points but be a legitimate threat to score 31 to 38 points in most games.

As with any sport the objective is to score more points than your opponent. Why emphasize playing “keep away” if the onus is to put your opponent in the situation of having to “catch up” to stay in the game. If you have the tools to score you have a better chance to catch up than if you fall behind and find scoring a difficult task. Anyone notice that NDSU thrives on being a much bigger threat to score than they are in trying to hold an opponent scoreless?

I recall a certain Wyoming basketball coach in recent years who would not even try for an offensive rebound. When his team had a bad shooting game they were challenged to win games because the opponents focused on scoring points instead of being afraid to try knowing we were conceding the missed shot.

My point is that I am done with the mentality that defense wins games. Defense is a great weapon but having firepower is a necessary weapon. When the Wyoming offense can’t perform as well as the opponents offense does against the “tough” Wyoming defense it’s a bad recipe. Barely beating weak teams, being outplayed frequently by average teams and almost always getting throttled by the better teams leaves us closer to the bottom half more often than the top half. That’s why Bohl was 61-60 (37-41). When his teams played better offense he won more games than the teams with struggling offenses. With the retention of the Bohl staff to keep the program from the ravages of the portal it has got us to 8-17. That puts the Bohl influenced 12 year era at 69-77 (41-52) and we are to be excited that it has been some of the “greatest” Wyoming football.

Which half of the cup do we want to drink from ? I’m tired of dwelling in the glass is half empty woe is me can’t do anything better when we have been sold that being amongst the top salaries in the MWC for over a decade is a requirement for building success.

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner!!