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

Bsu game thread

bladerunnr said:
Anderson is never going to be that athletic. But he has great pocket presence. He gets rid of the ball quickly. These are things Svoboda will never have. If he has to scramble, ok. But designed runs for a guy who has a bad knee and only weighs 190 lbs. seems stupid to me. Anderson had 3 runs in the first half. That's just asking for disaster. Plus, they know we have nothing behind him. Maybe less than nothing.
Click to expand...
I see where we are not understanding each other. You are referring specifically about Wyoming's asking Anderson to take off on designated runs as part of the game plan. I agree that is not smart. I was talking more about having someone who plays the position having the ability to run if needed.. It seems we agree on how badly Wyoming has used Anderson and how starting the year with Svoboda was a mistake
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Huh? What did you think we were running under Christensen?

If Wyoming wants to be successful- Wyoming has to run something different than the majority of teams because we aren’t going to attract the best players for an offense everyone else runs and practices against.

If anything, we should be looking at pure smash mouth or option/wishbone/flexbone/etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah. the 70’s called. They want their offense back. Not a fan, especially when the team running those types of offense gets behind in the score. Mike Leach would have been perfect for Wyoming. Not only because he was a Wyoming native, but he knew how to put points on the board.
 
doreno5 said:
It was a surprise that they said Anderson was injured, I did not notice anything wrong with him in the first half.
Click to expand...
He was in concussion protocol and didn’t come out of the locker room to start the second half. I’m not sure if he ever returned to the sideline
 
LawPoke said:
It may not be overly fun to watch, but slowing the game down and keeping the defense fresh is what almost allowed us to beat Boise. Bohl ball, for all of its warts, keeps you in most games.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% ok with this strategy. The biggest thing we needed to fix was to be able to complete a short-medium range pass. Anderson gives us that. We can still be 60/40 run/pass, but without the threat of a competent passing game it's really easy to stack the box and shut down a running game.
 
LawPoke said:
It may not be overly fun to watch, but slowing the game down and keeping the defense fresh is what almost allowed us to beat Boise. Bohl ball, for all of its warts, keeps you in most games.
Click to expand...
Yep! It’s the key to success at Wyoming. We will never be a deep team. We have to keep the defense fresh. Bohl knew it and that’s why he ran the offense the way he did for the past decade.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Yep! It’s the key to success at Wyoming. We will never be a deep team. We have to keep the defense fresh. Bohl knew it and that’s why he ran the offense the way he did for the past decade.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of success? Wyoming has never won a MWC football championship. Continuing to do the same things over and over again and expecting different results is going to end in disappointment. If Wyoming cannot compete with BCS schools at a competitive level, they should seriously consider moving down to FCS. I’m not buying that a knowledgeable coaching staff and good recruiting cannot win in Laramie.
 
LawPoke said:
It may not be overly fun to watch, but slowing the game down and keeping the defense fresh is what almost allowed us to beat Boise. Bohl ball, for all of its warts, keeps you in most games.
Click to expand...
OrediggerPoke said:
Yep! It’s the key to success at Wyoming. We will never be a deep team. We have to keep the defense fresh. Bohl knew it and that’s why he ran the offense the way he did for the past decade.
Click to expand...
Good points that explain the struggles to finish as good as 5-3 in conference.

But, Bohl ball didn’t master scoring points while playing who is the best snail in the trenches ball.

Is there any set rule that says you have to be ineffective at scoring points if you play defense. Not saying you have to score in 3 minutes, but staying in games versus winning the tough games is the difference between finishing 3rd to 6th versus 1st or 2nd.

Bohl had a great record versus sub .500 teams but had almost the reverse against teams that finished above .500.

Championships mean you can find a way to beat anyone not just beat the weaker half and hang with the better half. A 24-21 loss counts the same as a 48-7 loss. A 28-24 win counts the same as a 48-14 win. The objective is to out score the opponent more than 4-5 times out of 8 tries for a championship chance.
 
After watching decades of this stuff, I personally think it's a culture issue. The right culture with a spread will work better than the wrong culture with whatever o you want to put out there. This O with Anderson leading and Bohl as hc would win quite a few games even if the scheme didn't change.
 
Bryoming said:
I'm 100% ok with this strategy. The biggest thing we needed to fix was to be able to complete a short-medium range pass. Anderson gives us that. We can still be 60/40 run/pass, but without the threat of a competent passing game it's really easy to stack the box and shut down a running game.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. 60/40 run/pass would probably be great. Maybe it's my imagination but I feel like many games with bohl were 75/25 or 80/20 or even more skewed for run because we could not complete any sort of short to medium range pass. Having a quarterback that can do that like Anderson combined with a more balanced approach that can still be run centric feels like what we have needed for a decade
 
doreno5 said:
I would be curious to know what the run/pass percentages were under Roach and Tiller. I seem to remember it as being more pass heavy but my memory is not always accurate.
Click to expand...
More pass heavy. They were innovators of many modern spread concepts. But they were running that ‘new spread offense’ in an era where most teams were playing smash mouth or running wishbone/veer/etc. They knew they had to do something different than the rest of the programs to provide Wyoming with an advantage.

Now the reverse is true - most college teams are running spread type offenses. Wyoming should run something that teams don’t see game in and game out and practice regularly.

Interesting history - Tiller’s base salary was $65,000 when he took over as head coach.
 
Wisconsin let go the offensive coordinator Phil Longo because, in part, they barely lost to #1 Oregon. The "air raid" apparently didn't jive with Wisconsin's ball control and clock management preference. Whatever...I hate the hometown Badgers. Couple thoughts here...amazing how some winning programs don't settle for mediocrity and second...I sure wouldn't mind seeing a dude like that taking the reigns at Wyoming. It might never happen but bringing back the Joe Tiller aerial threat would make me so happy. Gotta think that would work well at 7220!
 
You're probably looking at an AF-type of triple O, flexbone, or whatever you want to call it.

Speed to the block is really critical in those Os. The elimination of cut blocking 5 yards out is forcing changes at some of the places running that style of O. AF less so but definitely at the others.

The concepts are actually instilled in a lot of the modern offenses. A lot of spread Os use triple option out of the shotgun.

With rule changes, I'm not sure that is the direction you go unless you find someone that can coach a newer version of it to account for the cut block rule.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
You're probably looking at an AF-type of triple O, flexbone, or whatever you want to call it.

Speed to the block is really critical in those Os. The elimination of cut blocking 5 yards out is forcing changes at some of the places running that style of O. AF less so but definitely at the others.

The concepts are actually instilled in a lot of the modern offenses. A lot of spread Os use triple option out of the shotgun.

With rule changes, I'm not sure that is the direction you go unless you find someone that can coach a newer version of it to account for the cut block rule.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very good point. The rule changes related to cut blocks have hamstrung teams like AFA.
 
LawPoke said:
This is actually a very good point. The rule changes related to cut blocks have hamstrung teams like AFA.
Click to expand...
Air Force just had one of the biggest roster turnovers ever. They will be back to 8-9 win team next year.

Harding has absolutely destroyed every team over the last 2 years with the new cut block rules. Here is the film from last year’s championship game:


Army is 9-1 with their only loss to Notre Dame.

I’d call the demise of the flexbone and triple option offenses fake news.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Air Force just had one of the biggest roster turnovers ever. They will be back to 8-9 win team next year.

Harding has absolutely destroyed every team over the last 2 years with the new cut block rules. Here is the film from last year’s championship game:


Army is 9-1 with their only loss to Notre Dame.

I’d call the demise of the flexbone and triple option offenses fake news.
Click to expand...
Like usual, I'm sure you're unaware that Army made adjustments in 23 and 24 specifically citing the cut block rule. Hence, you need to find someone that can run a modified version for the new rules.

Your lack of basic football knowledge is comical at times.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Like usual, I'm sure you're unaware that Army made adjustments in 23 and 24 specifically citing the cut block rule. Hence, you need to find someone that can run a modified version for the new rules.

Your lack of basic football knowledge is comical at times.
Click to expand...
I’d suggest you watch the Harding tape before throwing more bullshit out.
 
A lot of adjustment to the new rule is put qb in the gun (looking at Army here) eerily similar to what UNM attempted prior to Bronco.

A lot of confirmational bias in this thread. UNM's venture in spread option, triple option, flexbone, might be another case study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top