4 Straight Losses

[LanderPoke]

I would not be shocked to see a win Saturday and a win vs Hawaii. But I am not expecting any more wins. :face_vomiting:

 

[laxwyo]

That’s easy to answer. The D wasn’t very good.

You are wrong on many levels.

First, Burman actually lacks the vision you describe. His default setting is "We're Wyoming. We just need to be good enough for Wyoming". His hires, outside of Shyatt (who fell into his lap), have been less than stellar.

Second, the number of players that have gone on to the NFL says that the talent CAN be recruited to Laramie, it's just not being properly coached and developed.

Here's something to ask yourself- when was the last time Wyoming hired an actual D1/ FBS head coach from another program? We keep hiring FCS HC's and/ or promoting college coordinators. Our next hire really needs to be a rising star out of the MAC, Sunbelt, C-USA, etc...

The statement should not be that talent "cannot" be refried to Laramie..it obviously can. The question is " can it be recruited in sufficient quantity to field a competitive football program?" I don't see much evidence that the latter is possible. Yes the Allen's, Wilson's, and other pros who have come through a
Laramie may make it seem like we have the talent.... But we don't. It's not the marquee guys, it's the second string corner... The unheralded but solid backup tackle... That is what Wyoming rarely has. I'll put our one's up against most anybody... But that surface is terribly thin. Football is so dependant on those guys

We have more guys in the NFL than anyone in the MW outside of Boise (but only by a couple guys), and we’re not even in the same spectrum of success that Boise has. It’s coaching, scheme, and maybe piss poor QB talent evaluation (Allen fell into their lap).

Look at the talent on that 2016 team…how Bohl doesn’t walk through the MW with that team is beyond belief.

Which was on the coaching. Everyone knows the D was horrendous that year, but coaching quickly got that talent to top-25 level in a year. I give Bohl credit for cutting loose Stanard, but he was a year late. He’s too loyal to a fault…from his coaching fraternity or players.

It’s almost as if you think the difference between the 2-10 cowboys and a top 25 defense was only coaching and not a whole squad going from freshmen to juniors. The defense was still pretty damn young in 16’.

 

[307bball]

It’s almost as if you think the difference between the 2-10 cowboys and a top 25 defense was only coaching and not a whole squad going from freshmen to juniors. The defense was still pretty damn young in 16’.

Having good players is under valued and having good coaching is over valued. I'll take higher talent over better coaching any day. (if I have to choose...Obviously...I want both)

Here are some numbers per the NFL:

https://imgur.com/zNOVaO6

That number of 6500 players scouted every year jumped out at me. That is a lot of players considering the 259 daft slots. If you consider that, of the drafted players, 94.8% of them come from the FBS level...and you assume that ratio would hold for the "scoutable" players....that means there are 6098 "scoutable" players in FBS. If those players were distributed evenly, each FBS team would have 47 "scoutable" players!!!! That is enough for an offense, a defense, and a special team!!!

Now obviously ... "scoutable" players are going to be pretty dominant in college football even if almost none of them will ever get drafted. These are the players that form the backbone of the the Alabama's, Notre Dame's, and Ohio St's of the world. I would argue that these guys are all over the SEC and Big 10...followed by the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 in that order. That gets you to the rest of the FBS. Where are the rest of those guys? I don't think they are in Laramie in any numbers.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

It’s almost as if you think the difference between the 2-10 cowboys and a top 25 defense was only coaching and not a whole squad going from freshmen to juniors. The defense was still pretty damn young in 16’.

Having good players is under valued and having good coaching is over valued. I'll take higher talent over better coaching any day. (if I have to choose...Obviously...I want both)

Here are some numbers per the NFL:

https://imgur.com/zNOVaO6

That number of 6500 players scouted every year jumped out at me. That is a lot of players considering the 259 daft slots. If you consider that, of the drafted players, 94.8% of them come from the FBS level...and you assume that ratio would hold for the "scoutable" players....that means there are 6098 "scoutable" players in FBS. If those players were distributed evenly, each FBS team would have 47 "scoutable" players!!!! That is enough for an offense, a defense, and a special team!!!

Now obviously ... "scoutable" players are going to be pretty dominant in college football even if almost none of them will ever get drafted. These are the players that form the backbone of the the Alabama's, Notre Dame's, and Ohio St's of the world. I would argue that these guys are all over the SEC and Big 10...followed by the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 in that order. That gets you to the rest of the FBS. Where are the rest of those guys? I don't think they are in Laramie in any numbers.

But good coaches are going to recognize that they are only good because of their players and will seek to put the effort in recruiting and player evaluation. It is indisputable that Bohl has recruited quite a few NFL level players to Wyoming in comparison to our conference peers. The issue to me has been that player talent has not been consistent across the board, and, coaching hasn't always adopted the gameplan to the strengths of the players we do have.

For instance, I was watching the Giants-Chiefs yesterday. Daniel Jones has nowhere near the arm talent of Mahomes or even most NFL QBs. In addition, the Giants line has big troubles in pass blocking. But Daniel Jones has abilities to run, roll out and create with his feet...so the coaches throw in a lot of RPOs and even some traditional option plays (which is unheard of in the NFL). To me, that is the coaching realizing the strengths of the players (or lack thereof) to give them the best chances to win. Turning Sean Chambers to a drop back passer never made any sense to me. The guy is just too inaccurate and lacks some of the timing and progression fundamentals that are required. But put Chambers in an option attack and he would be gold IMO.

 

[307bball]

Having good players is under valued and having good coaching is over valued. I'll take higher talent over better coaching any day. (if I have to choose...Obviously...I want both)

Here are some numbers per the NFL:

https://imgur.com/zNOVaO6

That number of 6500 players scouted every year jumped out at me. That is a lot of players considering the 259 daft slots. If you consider that, of the drafted players, 94.8% of them come from the FBS level...and you assume that ratio would hold for the "scoutable" players....that means there are 6098 "scoutable" players in FBS. If those players were distributed evenly, each FBS team would have 47 "scoutable" players!!!! That is enough for an offense, a defense, and a special team!!!

Now obviously ... "scoutable" players are going to be pretty dominant in college football even if almost none of them will ever get drafted. These are the players that form the backbone of the the Alabama's, Notre Dame's, and Ohio St's of the world. I would argue that these guys are all over the SEC and Big 10...followed by the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 in that order. That gets you to the rest of the FBS. Where are the rest of those guys? I don't think they are in Laramie in any numbers.

But good coaches are going to recognize that they are only good because of their players and will seek to put the effort in recruiting and player evaluation. It is indisputable that Bohl has recruited quite a few NFL level players to Wyoming in comparison to our conference peers. The issue to me has been that player talent has not been consistent across the board, and, coaching hasn't always adopted the gameplan to the strengths of the players we do have.

For instance, I was watching the Giants-Chiefs yesterday. Daniel Jones has nowhere near the arm talent of Mahomes or even most NFL QBs. In addition, the Giants line has big troubles in pass blocking. But Daniel Jones has abilities to run, roll out and create with his feet...so the coaches throw in a lot of RPOs and even some traditional option plays (which is unheard of in the NFL). To me, that is the coaching realizing the strengths of the players (or lack thereof) to give them the best chances to win. Turning Sean Chambers to a drop back passer never made any sense to me. The guy is just too inaccurate and lacks some of the timing and progression fundamentals that are required. But put Chambers in an option attack and he would be gold IMO.

I hear you Oredigger. I think your right but only really for QB. A pro-level QB in a mis-matched system is going to look pretty bad but that would not be true for almost any other position. Talent that would interest an NFL scout can shine through a poorly matched system at WR, defensive and offensive Line, linebacker, RB...you name it.

I'm really liking the "scoutable" moniker as a stand in for how much talent is actually on a given college team. Nobody is disputing that Bohl has overseen more Cowboy's in the pros than his contemporaries....but my claim is, that is fine, but without a critical mass of high talent that will never show up in the pros, you still can't be considered "talented". Heck...Wyoming has more guys in the pros than a lot of really quality P5 programs. *edit* upon further investigation...this is actually not true...was just shooting from the hip here. There are only 2 P5 programs with less active guys than Wyoming.

How many guys on Wyoming's teams..even the "talented" '16 team, are "scoutable"? Was it way more than SDSU or BSU?...My eye test and gut reaction is that we lag those programs even with the Josh Allen's and Brian Hills on our team. That is why I'm not offended that we did not "walk through" the MWC during those years.

Here is a breakdown of NFL players in the NFL by school.

https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt
https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt

As you can see...we may have climbed from the group of schools that have 0 to 5 players in the NFL into the group that have between 6 and 10 but we are firmly level with the rest of the G5....not out-talenting anybody anytime soon with those numbers. *edit* These numbers published by the NCAA at the start of the season.

 

[PokeNer]

That’s easy to answer. The D wasn’t very good.

You are wrong on many levels.

First, Burman actually lacks the vision you describe. His default setting is "We're Wyoming. We just need to be good enough for Wyoming". His hires, outside of Shyatt (who fell into his lap), have been less than stellar.

Second, the number of players that have gone on to the NFL says that the talent CAN be recruited to Laramie, it's just not being properly coached and developed.

Here's something to ask yourself- when was the last time Wyoming hired an actual D1/ FBS head coach from another program? We keep hiring FCS HC's and/ or promoting college coordinators. Our next hire really needs to be a rising star out of the MAC, Sunbelt, C-USA, etc...

The statement should not be that talent "cannot" be refried to Laramie..it obviously can. The question is " can it be recruited in sufficient quantity to field a competitive football program?" I don't see much evidence that the latter is possible. Yes the Allen's, Wilson's, and other pros who have come through a
Laramie may make it seem like we have the talent.... But we don't. It's not the marquee guys, it's the second string corner... The unheralded but solid backup tackle... That is what Wyoming rarely has. I'll put our one's up against most anybody... But that surface is terribly thin. Football is so dependant on those guys

We have more guys in the NFL than anyone in the MW outside of Boise (but only by a couple guys), and we’re not even in the same spectrum of success that Boise has. It’s coaching, scheme, and maybe piss poor QB talent evaluation (Allen fell into their lap).

Look at the talent on that 2016 team…how Bohl doesn’t walk through the MW with that team is beyond belief.

Which was on the coaching. Everyone knows the D was horrendous that year, but coaching quickly got that talent to top-25 level in a year. I give Bohl credit for cutting loose Stanard, but he was a year late. He’s too loyal to a fault…from his coaching fraternity or players.

It’s almost as if you think the difference between the 2-10 cowboys and a top 25 defense was only coaching and not a whole squad going from freshmen to juniors. The defense was still pretty damn young in 16’.

Did I say they should have been top 25 in ‘16? No. But I am a firm believer that a good vs bad D coordinator makes a ton of difference. If we have Hazleton in ‘16, I believe he would have had them top 50 and would have won the MW (a good D coordinator could have adjusted and not allowed 70 pts to UNLV or gotten absolutely gashed by NM). Whether he makes that much difference in the championship game is another question.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Having good players is under valued and having good coaching is over valued. I'll take higher talent over better coaching any day. (if I have to choose...Obviously...I want both)

Here are some numbers per the NFL:

https://imgur.com/zNOVaO6

That number of 6500 players scouted every year jumped out at me. That is a lot of players considering the 259 daft slots. If you consider that, of the drafted players, 94.8% of them come from the FBS level...and you assume that ratio would hold for the "scoutable" players....that means there are 6098 "scoutable" players in FBS. If those players were distributed evenly, each FBS team would have 47 "scoutable" players!!!! That is enough for an offense, a defense, and a special team!!!

Now obviously ... "scoutable" players are going to be pretty dominant in college football even if almost none of them will ever get drafted. These are the players that form the backbone of the the Alabama's, Notre Dame's, and Ohio St's of the world. I would argue that these guys are all over the SEC and Big 10...followed by the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 in that order. That gets you to the rest of the FBS. Where are the rest of those guys? I don't think they are in Laramie in any numbers.

But good coaches are going to recognize that they are only good because of their players and will seek to put the effort in recruiting and player evaluation. It is indisputable that Bohl has recruited quite a few NFL level players to Wyoming in comparison to our conference peers. The issue to me has been that player talent has not been consistent across the board, and, coaching hasn't always adopted the gameplan to the strengths of the players we do have.

For instance, I was watching the Giants-Chiefs yesterday. Daniel Jones has nowhere near the arm talent of Mahomes or even most NFL QBs. In addition, the Giants line has big troubles in pass blocking. But Daniel Jones has abilities to run, roll out and create with his feet...so the coaches throw in a lot of RPOs and even some traditional option plays (which is unheard of in the NFL). To me, that is the coaching realizing the strengths of the players (or lack thereof) to give them the best chances to win. Turning Sean Chambers to a drop back passer never made any sense to me. The guy is just too inaccurate and lacks some of the timing and progression fundamentals that are required. But put Chambers in an option attack and he would be gold IMO.

I hear you Oredigger. I think your right but only really for QB. A pro-level QB in a mis-matched system is going to look pretty bad but that would not be true for almost any other position. Talent that would interest an NFL scout can shine through a poorly matched system at WR, defensive and offensive Line, linebacker, RB...you name it.

I'm really liking the "scoutable" moniker as a stand in for how much talent is actually on a given college team. Nobody is disputing that Bohl has overseen more Cowboy's in the pros than his contemporaries....but my claim is, that is fine, but without a critical mass of high talent that will never show up in the pros, you still can't be considered "talented". Heck...Wyoming has more guys in the pros than a lot of really quality P5 programs. *edit* upon further investigation...this is actually not true...was just shooting from the hip here. There are only 2 P5 programs with less active guys than Wyoming.

How many guys on Wyoming's teams..even the "talented" '16 team, are "scoutable"? Was it way more than SDSU or BSU?...My eye test and gut reaction is that we lag those programs even with the Josh Allen's and Brian Hills on our team. That is why I'm not offended that we did not "walk through" the MWC during those years.

Here is a breakdown of NFL players in the NFL by school.

https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt
https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt

As you can see...we may have climbed from the group of schools that have 0 to 5 players in the NFL into the group that have between 6 and 10 but we are firmly level with the rest of the G5....not out-talenting anybody anytime soon with those numbers. *edit* These numbers published by the NCAA at the start of the season.

Good analysis. I suspected that Wyoming didn’t compete with many P5s in terms of NFL talent. But I do believe Wyoming under Bohl probably stacks up relatively well with all MWC teams including Boise. The only difference is that Boise and SDSU tend to have higher rated draft classes and Wyoming tends to offer more projects with little FBS interest.

I’m more convinced than ever that Wyoming needs to run an option offense that can take into account the talent gap. I know New Mexico tried this under Davie and failed miserably but I look at teams like Georgia Tech, Navy, Army and Air Force that have given other more talented teams fits over the years.

 

[307bball]

Having good players is under valued and having good coaching is over valued. I'll take higher talent over better coaching any day. (if I have to choose...Obviously...I want both)

Here are some numbers per the NFL:

https://imgur.com/zNOVaO6

That number of 6500 players scouted every year jumped out at me. That is a lot of players considering the 259 daft slots. If you consider that, of the drafted players, 94.8% of them come from the FBS level...and you assume that ratio would hold for the "scoutable" players....that means there are 6098 "scoutable" players in FBS. If those players were distributed evenly, each FBS team would have 47 "scoutable" players!!!! That is enough for an offense, a defense, and a special team!!!

Now obviously ... "scoutable" players are going to be pretty dominant in college football even if almost none of them will ever get drafted. These are the players that form the backbone of the the Alabama's, Notre Dame's, and Ohio St's of the world. I would argue that these guys are all over the SEC and Big 10...followed by the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 in that order. That gets you to the rest of the FBS. Where are the rest of those guys? I don't think they are in Laramie in any numbers.

But good coaches are going to recognize that they are only good because of their players and will seek to put the effort in recruiting and player evaluation. It is indisputable that Bohl has recruited quite a few NFL level players to Wyoming in comparison to our conference peers. The issue to me has been that player talent has not been consistent across the board, and, coaching hasn't always adopted the gameplan to the strengths of the players we do have.

For instance, I was watching the Giants-Chiefs yesterday. Daniel Jones has nowhere near the arm talent of Mahomes or even most NFL QBs. In addition, the Giants line has big troubles in pass blocking. But Daniel Jones has abilities to run, roll out and create with his feet...so the coaches throw in a lot of RPOs and even some traditional option plays (which is unheard of in the NFL). To me, that is the coaching realizing the strengths of the players (or lack thereof) to give them the best chances to win. Turning Sean Chambers to a drop back passer never made any sense to me. The guy is just too inaccurate and lacks some of the timing and progression fundamentals that are required. But put Chambers in an option attack and he would be gold IMO.

I hear you Oredigger. I think your right but only really for QB. A pro-level QB in a mis-matched system is going to look pretty bad but that would not be true for almost any other position. Talent that would interest an NFL scout can shine through a poorly matched system at WR, defensive and offensive Line, linebacker, RB...you name it.

I'm really liking the "scoutable" moniker as a stand in for how much talent is actually on a given college team. Nobody is disputing that Bohl has overseen more Cowboy's in the pros than his contemporaries....but my claim is, that is fine, but without a critical mass of high talent that will never show up in the pros, you still can't be considered "talented". Heck...Wyoming has more guys in the pros than a lot of really quality P5 programs. *edit* upon further investigation...this is actually not true...was just shooting from the hip here. There are only 2 P5 programs with less active guys than Wyoming.

How many guys on Wyoming's teams..even the "talented" '16 team, are "scoutable"? Was it way more than SDSU or BSU?...My eye test and gut reaction is that we lag those programs even with the Josh Allen's and Brian Hills on our team. That is why I'm not offended that we did not "walk through" the MWC during those years.

Here is a breakdown of NFL players in the NFL by school.

https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt
https://imgur.com/a/LBPayrt

As you can see...we may have climbed from the group of schools that have 0 to 5 players in the NFL into the group that have between 6 and 10 but we are firmly level with the rest of the G5....not out-talenting anybody anytime soon with those numbers. *edit* These numbers published by the NCAA at the start of the season.

Good analysis. I suspected that Wyoming didn’t compete with many P5s in terms of NFL talent. But I do believe Wyoming under Bohl probably stacks up relatively well with all MWC teams including Boise. The only difference is that Boise and SDSU tend to have higher rated draft classes and Wyoming tends to offer more projects with little FBS interest.

I’m more convinced than ever that Wyoming needs to run an option offense that can take into account the talent gap. I know New Mexico tried this under Davie and failed miserably but I look at teams like Georgia Tech, Navy, Army and Air Force that have given other more talented teams fits over the years.

I think the data on program alumni in the pros is pretty illuminating. I had assumed that we actually were on par with kind of the bottom end of the P5 but we really are not. The list I was working off of only accounted for players on active NFL rosters as of Sept 1st. This leaves off any reserve/Covid-19 or Injured guys. The real break point in talent is right at 10 guys in the league. Of the college programs with double digit alumni in the pros...94% are P5. Of the College programs with 9 or less alumni in the Pros...86% are G5.

When you look at the list...the very top and the very bottom seem pretty predictive of the success or failures of the program...The colleges with 30+ players in the pros are legit powerhouses with no exceptions. The bottom of the list...meaning the teams with 5 or less professional alumni, is pretty bad with the exception of San Diego St (5), Iowa St (3), Navy (1), and Air Force. The list of teams between 5 and 10 alumni in the pros (Wyoming is in this category) Is mostly bad as well but has quite a few more programs like BYU, Utah St, Colo St level programs.

I think Josh Allen's notoriety has elevated in peoples minds how much pro talent Wyoming was actually putting into the NFL. It seams like it may be slightly up...but not enough for this fan to consider us as more talented than the rest of the MWC...if anything...we are right on the level of the MW, at least when measured by alumni in the NFL. I still believe that for the vast majority of the programs that have less than 10 or 15 professional alumni, the relative talent on the team will ultimately be measured by the sum of the guys that don't make the pros. Guys like Drew van Maanen or Chase Appleby might get a workout or two but will never make an active roster....those are the types of guys that are all over the "talented" teams.

 

[laxwyo]

That’s easy to answer. The D wasn’t very good.

You are wrong on many levels.

First, Burman actually lacks the vision you describe. His default setting is "We're Wyoming. We just need to be good enough for Wyoming". His hires, outside of Shyatt (who fell into his lap), have been less than stellar.

Second, the number of players that have gone on to the NFL says that the talent CAN be recruited to Laramie, it's just not being properly coached and developed.

Here's something to ask yourself- when was the last time Wyoming hired an actual D1/ FBS head coach from another program? We keep hiring FCS HC's and/ or promoting college coordinators. Our next hire really needs to be a rising star out of the MAC, Sunbelt, C-USA, etc...

The statement should not be that talent "cannot" be refried to Laramie..it obviously can. The question is " can it be recruited in sufficient quantity to field a competitive football program?" I don't see much evidence that the latter is possible. Yes the Allen's, Wilson's, and other pros who have come through a
Laramie may make it seem like we have the talent.... But we don't. It's not the marquee guys, it's the second string corner... The unheralded but solid backup tackle... That is what Wyoming rarely has. I'll put our one's up against most anybody... But that surface is terribly thin. Football is so dependant on those guys

We have more guys in the NFL than anyone in the MW outside of Boise (but only by a couple guys), and we’re not even in the same spectrum of success that Boise has. It’s coaching, scheme, and maybe piss poor QB talent evaluation (Allen fell into their lap).

Look at the talent on that 2016 team…how Bohl doesn’t walk through the MW with that team is beyond belief.

Which was on the coaching. Everyone knows the D was horrendous that year, but coaching quickly got that talent to top-25 level in a year. I give Bohl credit for cutting loose Stanard, but he was a year late. He’s too loyal to a fault…from his coaching fraternity or players.

It’s almost as if you think the difference between the 2-10 cowboys and a top 25 defense was only coaching and not a whole squad going from freshmen to juniors. The defense was still pretty damn young in 16’.

Did I say they should have been top 25 in ‘16? No. But I am a firm believer that a good vs bad D coordinator makes a ton of difference. If we have Hazleton in ‘16, I believe he would have had them top 50 and would have won the MW (a good D coordinator could have adjusted and not allowed 70 pts to UNLV or gotten absolutely gashed by NM). Whether he makes that much difference in the championship game is another question.

I believe our recent foray into the O coordinator change disproves everything you said. The same thing was said, “if only Vigen was gone ….” Listen, that D was almost all sophomores and 1 season from getting shit stomped as freshmen. Maybe a good d coordinator could have squeezed that lemon more but I doubt it. Yes, hazelton seemed to be better but he also had almost all juniors with multiple nfl’ers on the roster.

 

[PokeNer]

I believe our recent foray into the O coordinator change disproves everything you said. The same thing was said, “if only Vigen was gone ….” Listen, that D was almost all sophomores and 1 season from getting Sh#t stomped as freshmen. Maybe a good d coordinator could have squeezed that lemon more but I doubt it. Yes, hazelton seemed to be better but he also had almost all juniors with multiple nfl’ers on the roster.

Again - putting words into my mouth. I think there is a lot more that goes into it on the O side, especially if the guy that touches the ball every single play isn't up to snuff (I was expecting a huge improvement over Vigen, but that obviously didn't occur). In one year from Stanard to Hazelton, the D improved yards allowed per play to almost 2 yards less, 3rd down conversions allowed went down 6% and ppg went down 11.6! I get maturation plays a role, but defensive coaching schemes can have a major impact, and you don't necessarily need a wholesale change in personnel to go from one scheme design to the next like offense does. Obviously Bohl thinks that D coordinators make a difference; even as loyal as he is, he canned Stanard.

2019's D with Dickert was very similar in composition to 2016.

2015 D (Stanard)
6.4 yd/play
46% 3rd down conversion
34.0 ppg allowed
SOS 94

2016 D (Stanard)
6.59 yd/play
43% 3rd down conversion
34.1 ppg allowed
SOS 65

2017 D (Hazelton)
4.7 yd/play
37% 3rd down conversions
23.5 ppg allowed
SOS 95

2018 D (Hazelton)
4.8 yd/play
39% 3rd down conversion
20.7 ppg allowed
SOS 75

2019 D (Dickert)
5.0 yd/play
38% 3rd down coversion
17.8 ppg allowed
SOS 106

 

[laxwyo]

I believe our recent foray into the O coordinator change disproves everything you said. The same thing was said, “if only Vigen was gone ….” Listen, that D was almost all sophomores and 1 season from getting Sh#t stomped as freshmen. Maybe a good d coordinator could have squeezed that lemon more but I doubt it. Yes, hazelton seemed to be better but he also had almost all juniors with multiple nfl’ers on the roster.

Again - putting words into my mouth. I think there is a lot more that goes into it on the O side, especially if the guy that touches the ball every single play isn't up to snuff (I was expecting a huge improvement over Vigen, but that obviously didn't occur). In one year from Stanard to Hazelton, the D improved yards allowed per play to almost 2 yards less, 3rd down conversions allowed went down 6% and ppg went down 11.6! I get maturation plays a role, but defensive coaching schemes can have a major impact, and you don't necessarily need a wholesale change in personnel to go from one scheme design to the next like offense does. Obviously Bohl thinks that D coordinators make a difference; even as loyal as he is, he canned Stanard.

2019's D with Dickert was very similar in composition to 2016.

2015 D (Stanard)
6.4 yd/play
46% 3rd down conversion
34.0 ppg allowed
SOS 94

2016 D (Stanard)
6.59 yd/play
43% 3rd down conversion
34.1 ppg allowed
SOS 65

2017 D (Hazelton)
4.7 yd/play
37% 3rd down conversions
23.5 ppg allowed
SOS 95

2018 D (Hazelton)
4.8 yd/play
39% 3rd down conversion
20.7 ppg allowed
SOS 75

2019 D (Dickert)
5.0 yd/play
38% 3rd down coversion
17.8 ppg allowed
SOS 106

The fact that Dickert did what he did proves my point more than it does yours. You basically take an established team and D and insert random dude to be coordinator and they do just fine. Or do you think Dickert was some sort of magician or prodigy? I’ll go with the coordinator lucked into a good D. I’m not saying a coordinator makes no difference but I think as we’re finding out, there’s only so much they can do. What’s wrong with the Chiefs offense? They have largely the same players and same coaches? Do the coaches that were once heralded now suck?

 

[bladerunnr]

A lot of comments about our 2016 defense. I remember Chase Appleby getting a season ending injury (in the Air Force game) and we also lost Granderson for the season with an ACL. That's when the defense fell apart against Vegas and then New Mexico. I'm not defending Stanard, just pointing out that he lost some key players and there wasn't much behind them.

 

[Wyokie]

Translation: we don't have much depth. The starters are fine/good/great. It's the backups that are the problem?

 

[307bball]

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.

 

[PokeNer]

I believe our recent foray into the O coordinator change disproves everything you said. The same thing was said, “if only Vigen was gone ….” Listen, that D was almost all sophomores and 1 season from getting Sh#t stomped as freshmen. Maybe a good d coordinator could have squeezed that lemon more but I doubt it. Yes, hazelton seemed to be better but he also had almost all juniors with multiple nfl’ers on the roster.

Again - putting words into my mouth. I think there is a lot more that goes into it on the O side, especially if the guy that touches the ball every single play isn't up to snuff (I was expecting a huge improvement over Vigen, but that obviously didn't occur). In one year from Stanard to Hazelton, the D improved yards allowed per play to almost 2 yards less, 3rd down conversions allowed went down 6% and ppg went down 11.6! I get maturation plays a role, but defensive coaching schemes can have a major impact, and you don't necessarily need a wholesale change in personnel to go from one scheme design to the next like offense does. Obviously Bohl thinks that D coordinators make a difference; even as loyal as he is, he canned Stanard.

2019's D with Dickert was very similar in composition to 2016.

2015 D (Stanard)
6.4 yd/play
46% 3rd down conversion
34.0 ppg allowed
SOS 94

2016 D (Stanard)
6.59 yd/play
43% 3rd down conversion
34.1 ppg allowed
SOS 65

2017 D (Hazelton)
4.7 yd/play
37% 3rd down conversions
23.5 ppg allowed
SOS 95

2018 D (Hazelton)
4.8 yd/play
39% 3rd down conversion
20.7 ppg allowed
SOS 75

2019 D (Dickert)
5.0 yd/play
38% 3rd down coversion
17.8 ppg allowed
SOS 106

The fact that Dickert did what he did proves my point more than it does yours. You basically take an established team and D and insert random dude to be coordinator and they do just fine. Or do you think Dickert was some sort of magician or prodigy? I’ll go with the coordinator lucked into a good D. I’m not saying a coordinator makes no difference but I think as we’re finding out, there’s only so much they can do. What’s wrong with the Chiefs offense? They have largely the same players and same coaches? Do the coaches that were once heralded now suck?

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. That Dickert D was very close in average age/class as 2016. Granted SOS was much higher in 2016, but ultimately the '19 D allowed only ~18 ppg and the '16 D gave up nearly double that. I'm a firm believer that a good D coordinator can make a world of difference.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

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.

I get what you're saying about depth but our 1s aren't competing well in the MWC let alone our 2s. The exception is obviously some of the defense.

 

[307bball]

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.

I get what you're saying about depth but our 1s aren't competing well in the MWC let alone our 2s. The exception is obviously some of the defense.

Exactly...the fine point on this is that, outside of a few standouts, our 1's are generally pretty average (for MWC)...and right now maybe below average. And it's not just the backups to the best guys. There are 8 or 9 other guys on the field with the Brian Hill's, Josh Allen's, and Logan Wilson type players. If what you are getting from the other 8 or 9 guys drops off...it probably doesn't matter how good the top two guys are.

This offensive stuff is getting...well...offensive. I don't think that we have great talent on offense. But that is no reason to be as bad as we've been. I thought that Bohl had brought us to a place of competence with average talent and competing with the tops in the conference when some standouts come through but that seems to not be the case.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

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.

I get what you're saying about depth but our 1s aren't competing well in the MWC let alone our 2s. The exception is obviously some of the defense.

Exactly...the fine point on this is that, outside of a few standouts, our 1's are generally pretty average (for MWC)...and right now maybe below average. And it's not just the backups to the best guys. There are 8 or 9 other guys on the field with the Brian Hill's, Josh Allen's, and Logan Wilson type players. If what you are getting from the other 8 or 9 guys drops off...it probably doesn't matter how good the top two guys are.

This offensive stuff is getting...well...offensive. I don't think that we have great talent on offense. But that is no reason to be as bad as we've been. I thought that Bohl had brought us to a place of competence with average talent and competing with the tops in the conference when some standouts come through but that seems to not be the case.

Neyor is the most talented receiver I’ve watched at Wyoming. He doesn’t have the hands and route running ability of Marcus Harris but much more athletic. The closest comparison I can make is Malcom Floyd and I think Neyor is actually better.

 

[307bball]

Neyor is the most talented receiver I’ve watched at Wyoming. He doesn’t have the hands and route running ability of Marcus Harris but much more athletic. The closest comparison I can make is Malcom Floyd and I think Neyor is actually better.

Wow...high praise for that position. Especially since Harris and Yarborough are considered top 50 all timers in college football at that position. I do see a lot of talent there...I think Floyd is a good comparison. I wish we had a QB that could get in synch with him more.

 

[bullbugle307]

Biggest game of the season. I'm sure Bohl is feeling the pressure. A win tomorrow would ease a lot of the pressure on him, and a loss would send the criticism of Bohl to levels unseen in his tenure here.

I'm really hoping we've not seen the best of Williams yet. For some reason I have hope in him. I think we've seen enough of Chambers to know he's a fantastic person but he may not be the answer at QB. We desperately need Williams to step up and play well.
The O line, on the other hand, I have no faith in. I questioned the line everyone was parroting about how good they'd be pre season, and I was right. They're still the same players that weren't that good in past seasons, and were getting the same performance from them this year. I think my biggest criticism of Bohl has been his on his offensive lines. His system needs a good line and QB to work, and unfortunately we've had neither lately.