Bohl needs to....

[Wyokie]

Stoops is out as OUs DC. Hope Bohl is taking note and realizing it is alright to get rid of a OC.

Just saw that...wow.

People here are thrilled!!!!!!

 

[LanderPoke]

Landerpoke, honest question, besides Nico who on our team would be a starter on another MW team. What is this talent you’re seeing? Sorry, but we have a low-FCS offense from both talent and coaching.

When the defense sucked you could at least still identify individually talented players, Granderson, Wingard, Wilson, Ghaifan, etc. I do not see that on offense. What is the talent you’re seeing?

My point is you can't really draw any conclusions about the offense whatsoever because of the scheme, playcalling and coaching. To answer your question, though, I think MAyfield, Fort, a couple OL and WRs could be good enough to start for other MW teams. I can't really point to anything to substantiate it, but I would bet that other MWC run of the mill starter WRs and OLs would looks just as helpless and crappy if asked to run the plays we run, the routes we run and block the blocks we set our selves up to block. They are asked to do the impossible.

yes. running up the middle against a stacked box, throwing short so much especially when receiver isnt moving (hitches), no rb in the passing game, just terribly set up, we run way too many plays that had zero chance of gaining 4 yds....

The idea that coaching matters more in football = coaching matters most just does not fly. Yes, coaching does matter more in football but the effects of talent and physical ability will still dwarf the effects of coaching. Great players make average coaches great. Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine a universe where every player on wyoming's roster is now playing at Alabama for Nick Saban and vise-versa. In that instant the Bohl/Vigen System becomes unstoppable (especially in the MW) while Alabama becomes the worst P5 team. Now this is an extreme example but it illustrates how heavily player talent influences how we view coaches. In my mind great college football coaches do not distinguish themselves by being superior with x's and o's, but by building a program through long term efforts at elevating a culture of winning and competing. This palaver about scheme/play-calling is such a red herring....it distracts from what is really going on at UW (and schools like UW), namely a lack of REAL commitment ($$$) that seperates the college football elite from the rest.

I'm not quite sure what your example illustrates but, the 2016 WYO arguably had close to as much talent on offense as Alabama, probably not as much, but in the same stratosphere. We had a top 10 QB, an NFL RB, an NFL caliber WR, a starting NFL center, an NFL TE and another really good WR in Mulhardt. And Vigen could only conjure like the 50th best offense in the country in terms of yardage! Coaching does matter! X and Os matter tremendously especially at the "G5" level where talent is more evenly distributed (my opinion). This staff has a proven ability to make people worse. I would bet that we have an average amount of talent for a G5 team on offense, but they've been coached down to a point where they look inferior

 

[LanderPoke]

I still do not buy that we don't have talent.
Rocket Junior left TCU because of academic ineligibility but was a three star guy.
Scott was a 3 star with offers from teams like Western Michigan
Coldon was a 3 star with 10 different offers, including rival New Mexico
CJ Johnson was a 3 star with offers from 7 different teams, also including Western Michigan
Okwoli was a 3 star with offers from CU and 3 non-Wyoming MWC teams, including Boise
Austin Conway was 3 star with offers from CU and Nebraska among others, but obviously chose Basketball at Wyoming.

Those are just our Wide Receivers - and more than enough to fill ALL the WR slots. How is that "worse than the average FCS team in talent?"
Answer: IT DAMN WELL ISN'T!

Bingo. pretty much every single player at Wyoming had other D-1 offers. This isn't Glenn where half the recruits had no offers. We have adequate talent to be a contender with good coaching. We have good D coaching, and we would be contending for the division if we have an even mediocre O coaching

 

[bladerunnr]

Lander poke, I'm not going to copy that entire post. In 8 regular season conference games (excluding the conference championship game), we averaged 40 points a game. We never scored less than 30. If we ranked 50th in yards, we must have been much higher ranked in scoring. I never once thought our offense was deficient once the conference started. It was the defense that hurt us. I don't recall anyone complaining about the play calling either. If Josh threw it, we were good. And if Hill ran it, we were good. We lost 4 games by 3 points in 2016. If anything, I think everyone was calling for the D coordinators head.

 

[LanderPoke]

Lander poke, I'm not going to copy that entire post. In 8 regular season conference games (excluding the conference championship game), we averaged 40 points a game. We never scored less than 30. If we ranked 50th in yards, we must have been much higher ranked in scoring. I never once thought our offense was deficient once the conference started. It was the defense that hurt us. I don't recall anyone complaining about the play calling either. If Josh threw it, we were good. And if Hill ran it, we were good. We lost 4 games by 3 points in 2016. If anything, I think everyone was calling for the D coordinators head.

All true. We were money in the red zone I remember. Like best in the country in converting those opportunities into TDs. But yes, we fired the D coordinator (didn't change scheme mind you) and our D turned a corner because coaching matters... a lot. same players, different coach, different results.

 

[laxwyo]

Lander poke, I'm not going to copy that entire post. In 8 regular season conference games (excluding the conference championship game), we averaged 40 points a game. We never scored less than 30. If we ranked 50th in yards, we must have been much higher ranked in scoring. I never once thought our offense was deficient once the conference started. It was the defense that hurt us. I don't recall anyone complaining about the play calling either. If Josh threw it, we were good. And if Hill ran it, we were good. We lost 4 games by 3 points in 2016. If anything, I think everyone was calling for the D coordinators head.

All true. We were money in the red zone I remember. Like best in the country in converting those opportunities into TDs. But yes, we fired the D coordinator (didn't change scheme mind you) and our D turned a corner because coaching matters... a lot. same players, different coach, different results.

I’m not disagreeing that the coaching change didn’t help, but the whole D was sophomores that year whereas they were almost all freshmen the 2-10 year. I think a lot of the improvement was age.

 

[NDPokes]

We are trying to run a ball control, power run game offense. To me, it boils down to offensive line play. It seems we don't have the OL players to make this work. So yeah, it's a talent issue, but not with the talent everyone here is blaming. IMO, we seem to have talent at the skill positions to a certain degree, but don't have the OL to allow us to run the ball and control the clock. Honestly, we don't know if the skill positions are all that talented either, because we don't run an offense that features them, or one that even tries to get the ball down field. In the end, I just don't think this offense can work unless you get top of the line offensive linemen. And that isn't happening at UW. If this means getting rid of Vigen and changing direction, then get rid of Vigen and change direction. I just don't know if Bohl has a desire to run an up tempo, pass first offense. I'm of the opinion that this is what Wyoming football should be about.

 

[bladerunnr]

Lander poke, I'm not going to copy that entire post. In 8 regular season conference games (excluding the conference championship game), we averaged 40 points a game. We never scored less than 30. If we ranked 50th in yards, we must have been much higher ranked in scoring. I never once thought our offense was deficient once the conference started. It was the defense that hurt us. I don't recall anyone complaining about the play calling either. If Josh threw it, we were good. And if Hill ran it, we were good. We lost 4 games by 3 points in 2016. If anything, I think everyone was calling for the D coordinators head.

All true. We were money in the red zone I remember. Like best in the country in converting those opportunities into TDs. But yes, we fired the D coordinator (didn't change scheme mind you) and our D turned a corner because coaching matters... a lot. same players, different coach, different results.

Not quite the same players. Our defense took a huge hit when Granderson went down in the Air force game and Appleby got hurt also. I'm not defending Stanard - no excuse for giving up 69 to UNLV. But we were a different defense without those 2.

 

[cowpoke pride]

Landerpoke, honest question, besides Nico who on our team would be a starter on another MW team. What is this talent you’re seeing? Sorry, but we have a low-FCS offense from both talent and coaching.

When the defense sucked you could at least still identify individually talented players, Granderson, Wingard, Wilson, Ghaifan, etc. I do not see that on offense. What is the talent you’re seeing?

My point is you can't really draw any conclusions about the offense whatsoever because of the scheme, playcalling and coaching. To answer your question, though, I think MAyfield, Fort, a couple OL and WRs could be good enough to start for other MW teams. I can't really point to anything to substantiate it, but I would bet that other MWC run of the mill starter WRs and OLs would looks just as helpless and crappy if asked to run the plays we run, the routes we run and block the blocks we set our selves up to block. They are asked to do the impossible.

yes. running up the middle against a stacked box, throwing short so much especially when receiver isnt moving (hitches), no rb in the passing game, just terribly set up, we run way too many plays that had zero chance of gaining 4 yds....

The idea that coaching matters more in football = coaching matters most just does not fly. Yes, coaching does matter more in football but the effects of talent and physical ability will still dwarf the effects of coaching. Great players make average coaches great. Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine a universe where every player on wyoming's roster is now playing at Alabama for Nick Saban and vise-versa. In that instant the Bohl/Vigen System becomes unstoppable (especially in the MW) while Alabama becomes the worst P5 team. Now this is an extreme example but it illustrates how heavily player talent influences how we view coaches. In my mind great college football coaches do not distinguish themselves by being superior with x's and o's, but by building a program through long term efforts at elevating a culture of winning and competing. This palaver about scheme/play-calling is such a red herring....it distracts from what is really going on at UW (and schools like UW), namely a lack of REAL commitment ($$$) that seperates the college football elite from the rest.

I'm not quite sure what your example illustrates but, the 2016 WYO arguably had close to as much talent on offense as Alabama, probably not as much, but in the same stratosphere. We had a top 10 QB, an NFL RB, an NFL caliber WR, a starting NFL center, an NFL TE and another really good WR in Mulhardt. And Vigen could only conjure like the 50th best offense in the country in terms of yardage! Coaching does matter! X and Os matter tremendously especially at the "G5" level where talent is more evenly distributed (my opinion). This staff has a proven ability to make people worse. I would bet that we have an average amount of talent for a G5 team on offense, but they've been coached down to a point where they look inferior

We were never in the same stratosphere as Alabama in anything.

 

[LanderPoke]

Landerpoke, honest question, besides Nico who on our team would be a starter on another MW team. What is this talent you’re seeing? Sorry, but we have a low-FCS offense from both talent and coaching.

When the defense sucked you could at least still identify individually talented players, Granderson, Wingard, Wilson, Ghaifan, etc. I do not see that on offense. What is the talent you’re seeing?

My point is you can't really draw any conclusions about the offense whatsoever because of the scheme, playcalling and coaching. To answer your question, though, I think MAyfield, Fort, a couple OL and WRs could be good enough to start for other MW teams. I can't really point to anything to substantiate it, but I would bet that other MWC run of the mill starter WRs and OLs would looks just as helpless and crappy if asked to run the plays we run, the routes we run and block the blocks we set our selves up to block. They are asked to do the impossible.

yes. running up the middle against a stacked box, throwing short so much especially when receiver isnt moving (hitches), no rb in the passing game, just terribly set up, we run way too many plays that had zero chance of gaining 4 yds....

The idea that coaching matters more in football = coaching matters most just does not fly. Yes, coaching does matter more in football but the effects of talent and physical ability will still dwarf the effects of coaching. Great players make average coaches great. Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine a universe where every player on wyoming's roster is now playing at Alabama for Nick Saban and vise-versa. In that instant the Bohl/Vigen System becomes unstoppable (especially in the MW) while Alabama becomes the worst P5 team. Now this is an extreme example but it illustrates how heavily player talent influences how we view coaches. In my mind great college football coaches do not distinguish themselves by being superior with x's and o's, but by building a program through long term efforts at elevating a culture of winning and competing. This palaver about scheme/play-calling is such a red herring....it distracts from what is really going on at UW (and schools like UW), namely a lack of REAL commitment ($$$) that seperates the college football elite from the rest.

I'm not quite sure what your example illustrates but, the 2016 WYO arguably had close to as much talent on offense as Alabama, probably not as much, but in the same stratosphere. We had a top 10 QB, an NFL RB, an NFL caliber WR, a starting NFL center, an NFL TE and another really good WR in Mulhardt. And Vigen could only conjure like the 50th best offense in the country in terms of yardage! Coaching does matter! X and Os matter tremendously especially at the "G5" level where talent is more evenly distributed (my opinion). This staff has a proven ability to make people worse. I would bet that we have an average amount of talent for a G5 team on offense, but they've been coached down to a point where they look inferior

We were never in the same stratosphere as Alabama in anything.

OK. go over Alabama's offense and tell me where they are at this point, NFL, practice squad, CFL, etc.. and let's compare

 

[ZapPoke]

So, to some on here the answer is $$$

Lots of money already thrown at facilities, mostly contributed.

Is there an expectation that the state is going to loosen the purse strings? Good luck with that. Only about 15% of the population has a college degree (one of the lowest in the nation). Most of the state are bandwagon fans and get excited when the Pokes are having a good season, but they aren’t going to support spending more to make it happen with consistency.

The only sure source of increased funding is the Cowboy Joe Club. The potential universe of donors is just too small.

The University of Texas athletics receives Zero funding from the state. Yet they are rolling in $$$. Perpetually sold out 100,000 seat stadium, product licensing, and wealthy donors. They graduate more people each year than Wyoming does in five or six. Some of the things that make UW a nice school are the same things that make it tough to compete in athletics.

You want the Athletics Dept to have more money? Get rich and donate it. The University of North Dakota has the nicest hockey arena in the country, pro or college. It was paid for by ONE donor ($50M) who was a goalie there in the 50’s. That’s what we need!

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

It was paid for by ONE donor ($50M) who was a goalie there in the 50’s. That’s what we need!

Wasn't that the Nazi casino guy? It's crazy how quickly people forgot about all that, but I suppose he also tried to clean up somewhat in later years?

 

[ZapPoke]

All I know is he owned the Westward Ho in Las Vegas. Nazi? Hmmm

 

[ZapPoke]

All I know is he owned the Westward Ho in Las Vegas. Nazi? Hmmm

I guess my knowledge is pretty slim. He owned the Imperial Palace and did have a Nazi controversy. Also, the arena named after him cost $104M!

 

[WyoBrandX]

Maybe we should start submitting some questions up here?
https://gowyo.com/sports/2016/8/15/_131476203899068592.aspx

Have you ever had a question that you would like answered by Wyoming head coaches Craig Bohl, Allen Edwards or Joe Legerski? Fans have a whole new way to personally ask those questions this season with the Wyoming Coaches Radio Shows. Fans can ask Bohl, Edwards or Legerski questions by submitting them or by tweeting to @wyoathletics. The broadcast of each coaches show is available live through Wyoming's radio affiliates on the Cowboy Sports Network and UW'slive audio page.

Coach Bohl Radio Show Presented by Laramie GM Auto Center:

Live on the air with Dave Walsh from 7-8 p.m. at Altitude Chophouse & Brewery

Wednesday, Aug. 30
Wednesday, Sept. 6
Wednesday, Sept. 13
Wednesday, Sept. 20
Wednesday, Sept. 27
Wednesday, Oct. 11
Wednesday, Oct. 18
Wednesday, Oct. 25
Wednesday, Nov. 1
Wednesday, Nov. 8
Wednesday, Nov. 15
Wednesday, Nov. 22

 

[Wyokie]

Sorry for hijacking the thread but.....

There's a huge rumor down here that one of the star defensive players for OU threaten to quit playing literally during halftime of the Texas game last Saturday if Mike Stoops wasn't gone ASAP. Similar to what happened to the one guy who retired during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game earlier this season so...take the rumor with a huge grain of salt.

 

[307bball]

Landerpoke, honest question, besides Nico who on our team would be a starter on another MW team. What is this talent you’re seeing? Sorry, but we have a low-FCS offense from both talent and coaching.

When the defense sucked you could at least still identify individually talented players, Granderson, Wingard, Wilson, Ghaifan, etc. I do not see that on offense. What is the talent you’re seeing?

My point is you can't really draw any conclusions about the offense whatsoever because of the scheme, playcalling and coaching. To answer your question, though, I think MAyfield, Fort, a couple OL and WRs could be good enough to start for other MW teams. I can't really point to anything to substantiate it, but I would bet that other MWC run of the mill starter WRs and OLs would looks just as helpless and crappy if asked to run the plays we run, the routes we run and block the blocks we set our selves up to block. They are asked to do the impossible.

yes. running up the middle against a stacked box, throwing short so much especially when receiver isnt moving (hitches), no rb in the passing game, just terribly set up, we run way too many plays that had zero chance of gaining 4 yds....

The idea that coaching matters more in football = coaching matters most just does not fly. Yes, coaching does matter more in football but the effects of talent and physical ability will still dwarf the effects of coaching. Great players make average coaches great. Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine a universe where every player on wyoming's roster is now playing at Alabama for Nick Saban and vise-versa. In that instant the Bohl/Vigen System becomes unstoppable (especially in the MW) while Alabama becomes the worst P5 team. Now this is an extreme example but it illustrates how heavily player talent influences how we view coaches. In my mind great college football coaches do not distinguish themselves by being superior with x's and o's, but by building a program through long term efforts at elevating a culture of winning and competing. This palaver about scheme/play-calling is such a red herring....it distracts from what is really going on at UW (and schools like UW), namely a lack of REAL commitment ($$$) that seperates the college football elite from the rest.

I'm not quite sure what your example illustrates but, the 2016 WYO arguably had close to as much talent on offense as Alabama, probably not as much, but in the same stratosphere. We had a top 10 QB, an NFL RB, an NFL caliber WR, a starting NFL center, an NFL TE and another really good WR in Mulhardt. And Vigen could only conjure like the 50th best offense in the country in terms of yardage! Coaching does matter! X and Os matter tremendously especially at the "G5" level where talent is more evenly distributed (my opinion). This staff has a proven ability to make people worse. I would bet that we have an average amount of talent for a G5 team on offense, but they've been coached down to a point where they look inferior

Arguably close to as much talent as Alabama!!!!..lol. You have a very different view of the talent distribution in college football than most. you seem quick to point to great individual cowboys, but great individuals do not make a great team/program. The third string guy at these football factory schools (outside of the obvious Josh Allen type exceptions) would easily start and even stand out at schools like Wyoming. Those teams are sooooo deep it's ridiculous...

 

[307bball]

So, to some on here the answer is $$$

Lots of money already thrown at facilities, mostly contributed.

Is there an expectation that the state is going to loosen the purse strings? Good luck with that. Only about 15% of the population has a college degree (one of the lowest in the nation). Most of the state are bandwagon fans and get excited when the Pokes are having a good season, but they aren’t going to support spending more to make it happen with consistency.

The only sure source of increased funding is the Cowboy Joe Club. The potential universe of donors is just too small.

The University of Texas athletics receives Zero funding from the state. Yet they are rolling in $$$. Perpetually sold out 100,000 seat stadium, product licensing, and wealthy donors. They graduate more people each year than Wyoming does in five or six. Some of the things that make UW a nice school are the same things that make it tough to compete in athletics.

You want the Athletics Dept to have more money? Get rich and donate it. The University of North Dakota has the nicest hockey arena in the country, pro or college. It was paid for by ONE donor ($50M) who was a goalie there in the 50’s. That’s what we need!

Bingo... The biggest predictor of college football success is the size of the coaches salary. I'm not the oldest cowboy fan but I go back to the roach days and I'm just getting a feeling that the hey-days of Wyoming football are in the rear view mirror (depressing).

*edit* I think it's more accurate to say that coach's salary correlates to on-field success. Tons of hidden variables here obviously. I wish that it was as simple as a contest where success was determined more by coaches and players ability and less by historical/systemic advantage but it is what it is.

 

[BJC]

Sorry for hijacking the thread but.....

There's a huge rumor down here that one of the star defensive players for OU threaten to quit playing literally during halftime of the Texas game last Saturday if Mike Stoops wasn't gone ASAP. Similar to what happened to the one guy who retired during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game earlier this season so...take the rumor with a huge grain of salt.

oh my

 

[Wyovanian]

Lander poke, I'm not going to copy that entire post. In 8 regular season conference games (excluding the conference championship game), we averaged 40 points a game. We never scored less than 30. If we ranked 50th in yards, we must have been much higher ranked in scoring. I never once thought our offense was deficient once the conference started. It was the defense that hurt us. I don't recall anyone complaining about the play calling either. If Josh threw it, we were good. And if Hill ran it, we were good. We lost 4 games by 3 points in 2016. If anything, I think everyone was calling for the D coordinators head.

Yep, and we got it. Hazelton was brought in and suddenly we had a defense.