BSU Game

[PokesArePeopleToo]

So let me get this straight. For the past several seasons, the board has demanded that we fire Coach Bohl because offensive play-calling is too predictable since we almost always run on first down. Now this board is demanding that he be fired because he failed to run on first down and tried to be unpredictable with a first down pass at a time in the game when the clock was the real enemy and we were desperate for a touchdown and the only reason to run plays in that situation was to get a touchdown?

I sometimes think this board would want to fire coach if we beat Alabama because of how it happened and that there wouldn't be enough style or that the stats weren't right.

Sorry, but this is a terrible take. One that screams "I know nothing about football and also didn't watch this game".

Firstly, wanting the offense as a whole to be more aggressive overall is not the same thing as being reckless with the game on the line. Don't be disingenuous; it's not a good look.

Secondly: We had a 1st and 10 on the BSU 21 with over a minute left and a timeout in our back pocket. We have one of the best backs in the conference (who also happens to be having a career day), and we have possibly the best kicker in the entire nation (who just tied the single-season school FG record by booting his third 50+ yarder of the season).

Telling an inexperienced QB (who you clearly haven't been able to develop) who was at that point 3 for 15 for what, 30ish yards with two picks (including one on his previous play) to throw deep is some wildly inexcusable and reckless Sh#t.

Are you sure you're not that guy who used to do that terrific Pokes radio show? You are terrific my friend. You also wouldn't be welcomed anywhere near the War press box with the way you think! Great post!

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Are you sure you're not that guy who used to do that terrific Pokes radio show? You are terrific my friend. You also wouldn't be welcomed anywhere near the War press box with the way you think! Great post!

Lol thanks, but nope; just a numbers and strategy guy who's passionate about college football in general.

I bleed brown and gold...and love this town with all my heart...but numbers don't lie and strategy needs to be unemotional and unbiased. Success is built on critical thinking and analysis, not to mention the ability and willingness to adjust based on new information or situational awareness.

 

[PokesArePeopleToo]

But I think that Burman finds himself in a tough spot here right? What I mean by that is if he is thinking about replacing Bohl (I don't believe he is) then he also needs to think about how the next coach will fare. Perhaps even Burman is not pleased and expected a team that competed for championships in the conference. He hasn't received that, but what he has received is a program that under Bohl can be counted on to win 6-7 games each year and go to some irrelevant bowl game right? He knows he at least has that, something Wyoming has not had in a long-long time. If he gets a new captain to steer the ship he doesn't know what he'll get and if the choice is wrong he may end up getting a pink slip himself.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Such is the burden of an AD in general, but especially one at a program like Wyoming.

As I've mentioned, an AD at a program like Wyoming has to look at a few key metrics: Ticket sales (and within that, season ticket sales), merch sales, sponsorship/advertising revenue, tv viewership, and booster club/alumni revenue and donations.

If those are all sustainable and/or on an upward trajectory (which they have been), actual win/loss record and all that comes with that (recruiting, etc.) is of secondary consideration.

I know most on here loathe Burman, but he's in a very unenviable position. Burman answers to the Board and the school at large, and he's giving them what they need to see. And yes, going after someone else is a gigantic risk that gets ADs huge raises/extensions...or gets them fired....all the time.

 

[cowpoke pride]

Generally speaking, I totally get taking a shot on first down. Still plenty of time, still have a time out, still well within FG range for the tie.....
BUT.....in that game, given how the passing game had gone all night, you just can't take a chance like that then, after being gifted new life.

This one is going to hurt for a while.

Less than zero interest in another bowl game against a 6 or 7 win, 4th place MAC team though.

 

[bladerunnr]

Generally speaking, I totally get taking a shot on first down. Still plenty of time, still have a time out, still well within FG range for the tie.....
BUT.....in that game, given how the passing game had gone all night, you just can't take a chance like that then, after being gifted new life.

This one is going to hurt for a while.

Less than zero interest in another bowl game against a 6 or 7 win, 4th place MAC team though.

I understand this take. It's totally reasonable. The only reason for the throw is this: Their defense suddenly has to come back on the field after an unexpected turnover. Maybe we catch them flat footed expecting the usual first down run? The coaches will never say it, but I think they did not want the game to go into overtime. I'm also guessing that the pass was supposed to be thrown sooner, to a receiver in one on one coverage. But for whatever reason, the play took too long and the safety was right there.

 

[doreno5]

Generally speaking, I totally get taking a shot on first down. Still plenty of time, still have a time out, still well within FG range for the tie.....
BUT.....in that game, given how the passing game had gone all night, you just can't take a chance like that then, after being gifted new life.

This one is going to hurt for a while.

Less than zero interest in another bowl game against a 6 or 7 win, 4th place MAC team though.

I understand this take. It's totally reasonable. The only reason for the throw is this: Their defense suddenly has to come back on the field after an unexpected turnover. Maybe we catch them flat footed expecting the usual first down run? The coaches will never say it, but I think they did not want the game to go into overtime. I'm also guessing that the pass was supposed to be thrown sooner, to a receiver in one on one coverage. But for whatever reason, the play took too long and the safety was right there.

The problem is with the coaching. Clemons was basically trained that when that play is called and it seems like the defense is in certain coverage before the ball is snapped to throw the ball to that spot. He was not able to read the defense correctly and stared down the intended receiver without looking at the rest of receivers to see if they were uncovered or should throw it into the cheap seats.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Staring down receivers is a problem multiple QBs over the years here have had.

TVW was bad about it. Chambers was probably the most egregious about it. Clemons isn't far behind Chambers. Williams did it on occasion, but cleaned it up quite a bit towards the end of last season.

I think Peasley is the only one we've seen since JA17 that actually knows how to "look off" the secondary, actually go through reads, and, as a side note, actually sells fake handoffs well.

We can't develop QBs for shit.

 

[johnywyo]

So let me get this straight. For the past several seasons, the board has demanded that we fire Coach Bohl because offensive play-calling is too predictable since we almost always run on first down. Now this board is demanding that he be fired because he failed to run on first down and tried to be unpredictable with a first down pass at a time in the game when the clock was the real enemy and we were desperate for a touchdown and the only reason to run plays in that situation was to get a touchdown?

I sometimes think this board would want to fire coach if we beat Alabama because of how it happened and that there wouldn't be enough style or that the stats weren't right.

Sorry, but this is a terrible take. One that screams "I know nothing about football and also didn't watch this game".

Firstly, wanting the offense as a whole to be more aggressive overall is not the same thing as being reckless with the game on the line. Don't be disingenuous; it's not a good look.

Secondly: We had a 1st and 10 on the BSU 21 with over a minute left and a timeout in our back pocket. We have one of the best backs in the conference (who also happens to be having a career day), and we have possibly the best kicker in the entire nation (who just tied the single-season school FG record by booting his third 50+ yarder of the season).

Telling an inexperienced QB (who you clearly haven't been able to develop) who was at that point 3 for 15 for what, 30ish yards with two picks (including one on his previous play) to throw deep is some wildly inexcusable and reckless Sh#t.

There is a reason everybody and their f##k[#] uncle has criticized that playcall since last night. It's all over social media, CFB boards, news articles....it's not just "this board", my man. It's literally everyone who knows anything about football.

It was incomprehensible that Polasek was “green-lighted” by the bald wunderkind. Clemons was trying to do what he was requested. This team deserved a better fate, kids played their collective asses off. I’m sure Bohl is questioning himself, but it’s obvious from his post game comments, we as fans or press members have no rationale ever to question his unassailable experience or coaching knowledge. Tucker did a nice job of calling him out.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

I’m sure Bohl is questioning himself, but it’s obvious from his post game comments, we as fans or press members have no rationale ever to question his unassailable experience or coaching knowledge. Tucker did a nice job of calling him out.

That's part of why our beat writers actually rarely call him out. Either Bohl gets his feathers ruffled, or he dodges the question and goes on some bizarre ramble that doesn't actually answer the question. And they rarely press after that.

Credit to those who are starting to do it a bit more, but man, I wish our press guys had the balls to start pushing more instead of letting themselves get shut down. Save for a miraculous but also wildly disappointing 2016 season that also unraveled in the end....it's been nine years of this kind of shit.

The media in markets that actually take football seriously don't lay down like ours does. They ask the hardball questions, and they keep asking the hardball questions, when there are obvious coaching or strategy issues and things aren't going right. And you know what else? They're direct about it, too. So many times I've watched our beat writers confront an issue, but do it in such a roundabout, "don't piss coach off" way and it's pure chicken shit.

At this point I don't give a shit how pissed Bohl gets, how much he surrounds himself with yes men, how stubborn he is and how much he really, truly believes in his offensive systems. If he's gonna get that mad over people asking him questions about something that's obviously not working, then he's not as "Cowboy tough" and as good of a cultural fit as we thought.

Do you run the slight risk of getting the boot? Sure, but at this point it'd be a badge of honor and boy would it expose Bohl for what he really is. Which is the precise reason I don't think anyone would get credentials revoked for asking football questions, no matter how much Bohl doesn't like them: it's a bad look and something Bohl, Burman, and the school would want to avoid.

 

[WyoExpat]

So let me get this straight. For the past several seasons, the board has demanded that we fire Coach Bohl because offensive play-calling is too predictable since we almost always run on first down. Now this board is demanding that he be fired because he failed to run on first down and tried to be unpredictable with a first down pass at a time in the game when the clock was the real enemy and we were desperate for a touchdown and the only reason to run plays in that situation was to get a touchdown?

The real problem was that Clemons is not starting-quarterback ready and wasn't even 3rd string last year. Yet, here we are.

I sometimes think this board would want to fire coach if we beat Alabama because of how it happened and that there wouldn't be enough style or that the stats weren't right.

The Saturday before Thanksgiving, this team controlled its own destiny.

Lol. Were you watching the game? Clemons completed two passes. Swen was breaking long runs right and left.

Yes, I was watching the game. I was shocked too. But I have never been as critical of Coach Bohl's offensive philosophy and coordinators' play calling as most either.

I also note that, for the preceding week, I heard and read numerous people telling the world about how much better Clemons was as quarterback than Peasley was.

Mostly I am just sick and tired of people who want two, mutually exclusive things simultaneously: 1) Doing the safe, predictable thing and 2) doing the high-risk, high-reward unpredictable thing.

The interview I heard had Coach saying that he green-lighted taking one shot at the endzone and then, if that failed, he wanted the field goal. I believe it, but I don't think there is any other thing one would, or should say.

Unlike some, I have not reached the level of hopelessness that I was at during the Koening and Christensen years or the Schoyer, and Edwards years when I didn't care if I missed the game because I knew the outcome would be ineptitude in a loss to bad teams. In the end, we were within one play of hosting the conference championship game. We can't lose sight of the fact that we have reached that level.

 

[stymeman]

And at "the end of the day" its still a Big Fat Loss, something that seems to rear its ugly head around here far to often when we've got momentum going into a big game. Seems like a common theme year in and year out, kinda like a 6 or 7 win season(s)....

 

[doreno5]

I honestly was not as disappointed in the play call as at the end of the game as I was in the player development and coaching that went into its execution. Taking a shot did not require throwing into double coverage which Clemons was not properly coached to recognize. Nor was he coached to go through his progressions or simply throw the ball away if the defense had the receiver covered. That is player development and coaching. I do not like Bohl's philosophy of stubbornly running at least 70% of the time. We definitely need a more balanced attack as opposing teams consistently crowd the line to stop the run and Wyoming's passing attack is not good enough to force teams to back off. That comes down to coaching and player development. Bohl has done a good job developing defensive players but for whatever reason not as good on offense. .

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Bohl has done a good job developing defensive players but for whatever reason not as good on offense. .

This is for two reasons:

A) Bohl is a defensive/special teams coach. Always has been, always will be. That's his wheelhouse, and he's damned good at it.

B) Bohl came up on teams that run the old-school, pro-style offense. He defended against those kinds of offenses his whole career, he watched those kinds of offenses win championships at both the FBS and FCS level...it's literally all he's ever known.

He can't seem to understand as to why it doesn't work in the here and now, and seems genuinely (and to a point, understandably) flabbergasted by it.

The offensive game has simply passed him by. This kind of offense only consistently works at a high level in two places: a) the FCS, where a slight recruiting advantage can allow you to run roughshod over lesser teams, and b) the B1G, where you can get the size and talent and recruiting pedigree to push your way around. (But even then, the B1G style of offense is dying and one only has to look at Iowa's struggles this year to see its downsides.)

Otherwise, it's an antiquated offense that's relatively easy to defend these days, and there's a reason the very few teams that still run it generally rank at the bottom of FBS in offensive efficiency and numerous other categories.

It simply doesn't work here, which ends up setting the kids up for failure and stunting their development right out of the gate.

 

[laxwyo]

Lol. Were you watching the game? Clemons completed two passes. Swen was breaking long runs right and left.

Yes, I was watching the game. I was shocked too. But I have never been as critical of Coach Bohl's offensive philosophy and coordinators' play calling as most either.

I also note that, for the preceding week, I heard and read numerous people telling the world about how much better Clemons was as quarterback than Peasley was.

Mostly I am just sick and tired of people who want two, mutually exclusive things simultaneously: 1) Doing the safe, predictable thing and 2) doing the high-risk, high-reward unpredictable thing.

The interview I heard had Coach saying that he green-lighted taking one shot at the endzone and then, if that failed, he wanted the field goal. I believe it, but I don't think there is any other thing one would, or should say.

Unlike some, I have not reached the level of hopelessness that I was at during the Koening and Christensen years or the Schoyer, and Edwards years when I didn't care if I missed the game because I knew the outcome would be ineptitude in a loss to bad teams. In the end, we were within one play of hosting the conference championship game. We can't lose sight of the fact that we have reached that level.

Peasley was 8-22, 10-21, 13-26, 7-15 last 4 games. He was 50% one times.

I do agree with you. People want unpredictable and aggressive calling but also want safe and predictable. I don’t actually hate the call. I hated the pass.

 

[doreno5]

Peasley was 8-22, 10-21, 13-26, 7-15 last 4 games. He was 50% one times.

I do agree with you. People want unpredictable and aggressive calling but also want safe and predictable. I don’t actually hate the call. I hated the pass.
[/quote]
Exactly. The play call was not horrible, the execution was. I believe a lot of the stats you cite point to poor coaching and development of player skills.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Mostly I am just sick and tired of people who want two, mutually exclusive things simultaneously: 1) Doing the safe, predictable thing and 2) doing the high-risk, high-reward unpredictable thing.

No matter how many times a couple of you repeat this, it doesn't make it true.

Wanting a more aggressive overall philosophy (not having every single run be an A- or B-gap run, not always punting on 4th and short, trying to push the passing game more, taking more deep shots throughout the game) is NOT the same thing as wanting the coach to call a play with a 90% chance of failure with the game and all hopes of a title appearance on the line. Insinuating as much is completely disingenuous.

"Aggressive" and "reckless" are not the same thing, and that playcall was the latter. And that is an opinion that was shared by 90% of the college football world who saw that play, so don't act like we're the whackos and unreasonable ones. Lmao. I swear, some of you live in a bubble.

Craig Bohl:

-Is inexplicably gifted the ball at the BSU 21 yard line, with plenty of time left and a timeout in his back pocket. Down by three.

-Has one of the conference's best rushers (who is also having a career day of over 200 yards); also has one of the nation's best kickers (who just tied the school single-season record for FGs on his third 50+ yarder of the season)

-Has a backup quarterback who so far in the game is an abysmal 3-15 for 30-ish yds and two INTs, including one on his very last play

-"Let's throw it deep against one of the best safeties in the conference"

-gets intercepted (again) by said safety (again)

-"Well, that's football"

Literally everyone else: That was probably the worst playcall I've ever seen in my entire life.

Three people on this board: [Unironically] "This is fine; y'all are the unreasonable ones."

Come on, dude.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that I never once claimed Clemons was or looked better than Peasley. I do know there are some who did, but I've always been consistent in my position that a) Peasley is the best QB on our roster, b) this offensive scheme and QB development will continue to hold even decent QBs back, and c) backup QBs quite often look better than they actually are for a short while simply because opposing teams have no tape on them.