Glenn vs DC vs Bohl by Sagarin

[Pokes fan 24-7]

Interesting stats to mull over, moral of the story, we are Wyoming home of medocrity, always has always will

Unfortunately true...no matter how you slice it..if the you widen your window past a single year result, Wyoming football really regresses to a slightly below winning team with the exeption being the tail ends of the 80s and 90s.

And the late 2010s aka the present.

 

[307bball]

Interesting stats to mull over, moral of the story, we are Wyoming home of medocrity, always has always will

Unfortunately true...no matter how you slice it..if the you widen your window past a single year result, Wyoming football really regresses to a slightly below winning team with the exeption being the tail ends of the 80s and 90s.

And the late 2010s aka the present.

Ha! Your right! Maybe its just a decade long cycle.

 

[HR_Poke]

Bohl is average at best and deserves harsh criticism for his inability to improve the weak areas of his program. He knows what needs to change and doesn't have the courage to do it. We are never going to win the division or conference under Bohl.

Not again. Not as currently constructed. We need a change on the offensive side of the ball. Being around the 100 mark or worse will not get it done. Bohl has shown, when he can get the offense to good (if not VERY good) we can compete with the best in the conference. I cannot imagine next season we will have a team with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+ NFL players like we did in 2016 so we will have to make up the difference through play calling and execution. If Bohl refuses to change Vigen or play calling, why not simplify the scheme? We keep hearing how difficult the scheme is, how complex it is. Why? Who is it fooling? The defenses know to load the box, clog the A gap, and the Pokes offense stops. Why not simplify the scheme? Maybe cull the play book. Instead of 76 different variations of the dive, have say, 3 versions of the dive. Have 3 versions of the blast. Have 3 different screens. Slants, outs, sweeps etc. Why are we running this incredibly complex scheme if the only team its confusing is us?

Exactly, you do not need to air it out deep every play to improve the offense. Having a few misdirection runs and quick passes will go a long way. Shoot, Chambers could be a fantastic RPO quarterback. The only thing I disagree with is that if we do get our offense to good, we won't just compete, we will dominate this conference. We just need to get it to bad to mediocre to compete for a championship.

This is what frustrates me, you don't have to change much to make the offense more productive. Just don't call an effin HB Dive every first down, and 50% of the 2nd downs. It's one thing if you are just dominating the LOS but when you are getting 1 or 2 yards most people would think to try something new. Maybe a run to the outside, a screen, slants or crossing routes, anything to back the opposing LBs up a bit.....

If you look at last year, we were 2-6 when Chambers got his first start. We definitely played lesser competition the last 4 games but regardless the offense caught fire. Chambers ran out of the shotgun and we ran a lot of misdirection. We didn't air it out and we still were based on a power run game, but we gave the defense a little to think about. So what do we do in the offseason? We put Chambers back under center and reinstated dive left dive right. Don't get me wrong, I love getting under center (I was appalled under DC when we would have 2 inches to gain and would still be in shotgun to run up the middle) and playing power football but the LBs should at least have to make a read to plug the hole rather than knowing exactly which hole to plug prior to the play.

Preaching to the choir. I thought it was embarrassing when Harsin told the press they knew exactly what play we were going to run on 4th and 1.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Bohl is average at best and deserves harsh criticism for his inability to improve the weak areas of his program. He knows what needs to change and doesn't have the courage to do it. We are never going to win the division or conference under Bohl.

Not again. Not as currently constructed. We need a change on the offensive side of the ball. Being around the 100 mark or worse will not get it done. Bohl has shown, when he can get the offense to good (if not VERY good) we can compete with the best in the conference. I cannot imagine next season we will have a team with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+ NFL players like we did in 2016 so we will have to make up the difference through play calling and execution. If Bohl refuses to change Vigen or play calling, why not simplify the scheme? We keep hearing how difficult the scheme is, how complex it is. Why? Who is it fooling? The defenses know to load the box, clog the A gap, and the Pokes offense stops. Why not simplify the scheme? Maybe cull the play book. Instead of 76 different variations of the dive, have say, 3 versions of the dive. Have 3 versions of the blast. Have 3 different screens. Slants, outs, sweeps etc. Why are we running this incredibly complex scheme if the only team its confusing is us?

Exactly, you do not need to air it out deep every play to improve the offense. Having a few misdirection runs and quick passes will go a long way. Shoot, Chambers could be a fantastic RPO quarterback. The only thing I disagree with is that if we do get our offense to good, we won't just compete, we will dominate this conference. We just need to get it to bad to mediocre to compete for a championship.

This is what frustrates me, you don't have to change much to make the offense more productive. Just don't call an effin HB Dive every first down, and 50% of the 2nd downs. It's one thing if you are just dominating the LOS but when you are getting 1 or 2 yards most people would think to try something new. Maybe a run to the outside, a screen, slants or crossing routes, anything to back the opposing LBs up a bit.....

If you look at last year, we were 2-6 when Chambers got his first start. We definitely played lesser competition the last 4 games but regardless the offense caught fire. Chambers ran out of the shotgun and we ran a lot of misdirection. We didn't air it out and we still were based on a power run game, but we gave the defense a little to think about. So what do we do in the offseason? We put Chambers back under center and reinstated dive left dive right. Don't get me wrong, I love getting under center (I was appalled under DC when we would have 2 inches to gain and would still be in shotgun to run up the middle) and playing power football but the LBs should at least have to make a read to plug the hole rather than knowing exactly which hole to plug prior to the play.

Preaching to the choir. I thought it was embarrassing when Harsin told the press they knew exactly what play we were going to run on 4th and 1.

My man. I watched the game with my wife and some couple-friends of ours. The other wife has very little interest in sporting events. She was just there to hang out. By halftime it became a game with her to see if she could predict the next play. By the end of the 3rd quarter she was "accurately" guessing Run vs Pass, and Left vs. Right at an almost 80% clip. It was incredible. Some of it was obviously luck but for someone with no business talking sports to be able to accurately say which play type was coming was astounding and one of the most damning signals that something needs to change. Anecdotal or not, I was sad.

 

[Brown and Gold]

We won't win the division or conference under Bohl. Yeah 2016....but never again. He is a conservative coward who can't pull the trigger in order to make his team better. The reason why we lose games is the thing he won't change. Nobody has said anything that proves this wrong. It's just a bunch of hope talk. Get used to 7-5 and wondering if we are going to squeeze into the Potato Bowl.

 

[Wyokie]

We won't win the division or conference under Bohl. Yeah 2016....but never again. He is a conservative coward who can't pull the trigger in order to make his team better. The reason why we lose games is the thing he won't change. Nobody has said anything that proves this wrong. It's just a bunch of hope talk. Get used to 7-5 and wondering if we are going to squeeze into the Potato Bowl.

Starting to agree. We'll never win the MW crown with Bohl unless he gets his head outta his ass!!!!!! :tickedoff:

 

[WyoBrandX]

Its not easy to build a tough team. But when you do, people remember that for a long time.

I don't think the players of 20 years ago are nearly as tough as the players as today. Our nutrition and weight lifting practices are a million times better than they were in the year 2000. Or 1980. I keep hearing SOS and all this yada. there is no way to ever put to teams together from the past and today and play them against each other

 

[bullbugle307]

Its true, but it's also true that a lot of teams have generally improved over that time frame with us. The useful comparison is us vs them then and us vs them now.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, more of a general thing. But I've noticed where a lot of people like to compare us now to us then while acting like every other program has been static in that time frame. I often hear that since we've improved on facilities, coaching pay, institutional support etc... we're automatically going to see better results, as if no one else has better training, better facilities, or higher pay also. The question will always be how do we stack up against our competition in those ways now and how has our competition changed since then, not how do we stack up against ourselves now vs 20 yrs ago.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Its true, but it's also true that a lot of teams have generally improved over that time frame with us. The useful comparison is us vs them then and us vs them now.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, more of a general thing. But I've noticed where a lot of people like to compare us now to us then while acting like every other program has been static in that time frame. I often hear that since we've improved on facilities, coaching pay, institutional support etc... we're automatically going to see better results, as if no one else has better training, better facilities, or higher pay also. The question will always be how do we stack up against our competition in those ways now and how has our competition changed since then, not how do we stack up against ourselves now vs 20 yrs ago.

Disagree. Budget and facilities relative to peers is a time independent comparison. Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach.

Also disagree about past schedules. If you think today's MWC is even close to Glenn's MWC, for example, well, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree. Glenn was facing 2 to 3 top 25 teams with 1 of those ny6 teams.

Bohl has an easier schedule and better resources (relative to conference mates) than previous coaches.

 

[SDPokeFan]

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches for the past 25 years based on results, competition and state of the program:
1) Tiller
2) Bohl
3) Dimel
4) Glenn
5) DC
6) Koenning

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches based on likability and pride of them representing the program for the past 25 years:
1) Glenn
2) Tiller
3) Bohl
4) Koenning
(big gap)
5) Dimel
6) DC

That seems about right. Who can forget, 'Power river, buckle up!' with glenn driving around some vintage car.....

Since I never actually met any of them, I can't comment on likability. But DC gets the nod over Glen. He took us to 2 bowl games and if Brett Smith hadn't turned pro, Bohl would have had a lot more to work with.
In terms of representing the program, Glenn made national news when he guaranteed a win over Utah and then showed the finger when Utah onside kicked when the score was 50-0. We were the laughing stock of college football for a day or so. Not so much for the finger but guaranteeing a win and then getting massacred. I'll never understand the love for Joe Glenn.

I used to love his comments. "We came out today to battle it out. Didn't realize we were snakebit. We'll get em next time. Powder river let'er buck!"

Joe Glenn was awesome to have around as a coach.

Speaking of this, why do people still do the Power River thing? Shouldn't that have died with Glenn's tenure?

I also liked his quote, "We both had the Midas touch. Everything they touched turned to gold. Everything we touched turned to mufflers."

 

[jessejames02]

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches for the past 25 years based on results, competition and state of the program:
1) Tiller
2) Bohl
3) Dimel
4) Glenn
5) DC
6) Koenning

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches based on likability and pride of them representing the program for the past 25 years:
1) Glenn
2) Tiller
3) Bohl
4) Koenning
(big gap)
5) Dimel
6) DC

That seems about right. Who can forget, 'Power river, buckle up!' with glenn driving around some vintage car.....

Since I never actually met any of them, I can't comment on likability. But DC gets the nod over Glen. He took us to 2 bowl games and if Brett Smith hadn't turned pro, Bohl would have had a lot more to work with.
In terms of representing the program, Glenn made national news when he guaranteed a win over Utah and then showed the finger when Utah onside kicked when the score was 50-0. We were the laughing stock of college football for a day or so. Not so much for the finger but guaranteeing a win and then getting massacred. I'll never understand the love for Joe Glenn.

I used to love his comments. "We came out today to battle it out. Didn't realize we were snakebit. We'll get em next time. Powder river let'er buck!"

Joe Glenn was awesome to have around as a coach.

Speaking of this, why do people still do the Power River thing? Shouldn't that have died with Glenn's tenure?

I also liked his quote, "We both had the Midas touch. Everything they touched turned to gold. Everything we touched turned to mufflers."

Powder River Will Never Die. So says every fan who attended UW during Glenn era.

 

[307bball]

Its true, but it's also true that a lot of teams have generally improved over that time frame with us. The useful comparison is us vs them then and us vs them now.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, more of a general thing. But I've noticed where a lot of people like to compare us now to us then while acting like every other program has been static in that time frame. I often hear that since we've improved on facilities, coaching pay, institutional support etc... we're automatically going to see better results, as if no one else has better training, better facilities, or higher pay also. The question will always be how do we stack up against our competition in those ways now and how has our competition changed since then, not how do we stack up against ourselves now vs 20 yrs ago.

Disagree. Budget and facilities relative to peers is a time independent comparison. Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach.

Also disagree about past schedules. If you think today's MWC is even close to Glenn's MWC, for example, well, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree. Glenn was facing 2 to 3 top 25 teams with 1 of those ny6 teams.

Bohl has an easier schedule and better resources (relative to conference mates) than previous coaches.

"Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach." I think that your tecnically accurate with this statement but it also applies to AFA, CSU, UNM,..., basically all of the teams in the conference that was left behind when TCU, Utah, and BYU left. Basically the conference took a competitive haircut so every program left over slid up the chain.

Also ... why is the relative strength of the MWC even a part of this discussion. We expected Glenn to compete for championships then, did we not? Anybody want to cut him any slack for how we never competed in conference then? Success in the conditions you happen to be playing in IS THE METRIC. Maybe it was tougher for Glen...tough...he still didn't get it done.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Its true, but it's also true that a lot of teams have generally improved over that time frame with us. The useful comparison is us vs them then and us vs them now.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, more of a general thing. But I've noticed where a lot of people like to compare us now to us then while acting like every other program has been static in that time frame. I often hear that since we've improved on facilities, coaching pay, institutional support etc... we're automatically going to see better results, as if no one else has better training, better facilities, or higher pay also. The question will always be how do we stack up against our competition in those ways now and how has our competition changed since then, not how do we stack up against ourselves now vs 20 yrs ago.

Disagree. Budget and facilities relative to peers is a time independent comparison. Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach.

Also disagree about past schedules. If you think today's MWC is even close to Glenn's MWC, for example, well, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree. Glenn was facing 2 to 3 top 25 teams with 1 of those ny6 teams.

Bohl has an easier schedule and better resources (relative to conference mates) than previous coaches.

"Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach." I think that your tecnically accurate with this statement but it also applies to AFA, CSU, UNM,..., basically all of the teams in the conference that was left behind when TCU, Utah, and BYU left. Basically the conference took a competitive haircut so every program left over slid up the chain.

Also ... why is the relative strength of the MWC even a part of this discussion. We expected Glenn to compete for championships then, did we not? Anybody want to cut him any slack for how we never competed in conference then? Success in the conditions you happen to be playing in IS THE METRIC. Maybe it was tougher for Glen...tough...he still didn't get it done.

A metric often thrown around is bowl eligibility which isn't a fair comparison. 6 or 7 wins in the current situation is closer to 4 or 5 previously.

 

[307bball]

Its true, but it's also true that a lot of teams have generally improved over that time frame with us. The useful comparison is us vs them then and us vs them now.

This isn't geared towards you specifically, more of a general thing. But I've noticed where a lot of people like to compare us now to us then while acting like every other program has been static in that time frame. I often hear that since we've improved on facilities, coaching pay, institutional support etc... we're automatically going to see better results, as if no one else has better training, better facilities, or higher pay also. The question will always be how do we stack up against our competition in those ways now and how has our competition changed since then, not how do we stack up against ourselves now vs 20 yrs ago.

Disagree. Budget and facilities relative to peers is a time independent comparison. Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach.

Also disagree about past schedules. If you think today's MWC is even close to Glenn's MWC, for example, well, I guess we'll have to politely agree to disagree. Glenn was facing 2 to 3 top 25 teams with 1 of those ny6 teams.

Bohl has an easier schedule and better resources (relative to conference mates) than previous coaches.

"Relative to conference peers, Bohl is better positioned than any previous coach." I think that your tecnically accurate with this statement but it also applies to AFA, CSU, UNM,..., basically all of the teams in the conference that was left behind when TCU, Utah, and BYU left. Basically the conference took a competitive haircut so every program left over slid up the chain.

Also ... why is the relative strength of the MWC even a part of this discussion. We expected Glenn to compete for championships then, did we not? Anybody want to cut him any slack for how we never competed in conference then? Success in the conditions you happen to be playing in IS THE METRIC. Maybe it was tougher for Glen...tough...he still didn't get it done.

A metric often thrown around is bowl eligibility which isn't a fair comparison. 6 or 7 wins in the current situation is closer to 4 or 5 previously.

Conference championships.... Or at least competing for them ... Same then as now.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Well, Bohl and Glenn have the same number of conference championships and the hurdle to win a or compete for a championship is much lower for Bohl because of his resources relative to peers and the MUCH weaker conference. Bohl has really only competed 1 out of 6 years. 3rd in division is the best he's managed the others.

Again, I like Bohl, but the fact is, the WYO job has never been easier. It isn't like he's moved mountains so far. It'll be really interesting to see him stack up against Utah.

 

[307bball]

Well, Bohl and Glenn have the same number of conference championships and the hurdle to win a or compete for a championship is much lower for Bohl because of his resources relative to peers and the MUCH weaker conference. Bohl has really only competed 1 out of 6 years. 3rd in division is the best he's managed the others.

Again, I like Bohl, but the fact is, the WYO job has never been easier. It isn't like he's moved mountains so far. It'll be really interesting to see him stack up against Utah.

This is interesting...then do you believe it was unrealistic for us as fans to feel like we should have been able to compete in the old MWC? Was the firing of Glenn based on unrealistic expectations?

It seems like folks are using degree of difficulty to selectively support or not support the current program leadership. Example...If you like Bohl, you say "Well...he beats all the teams that he is supposed to beat, and the games in which he's outgunned are really close and could go either way....and that is with a lot of injuries in key positions. I think he's got the program on the right track."....If you don't like Bohl, you say "It is put up or shut up time. No matter who the opponent is, or the injury situation, we expect excellence and conference championships. The only barrier to success at Wyoming is in the lack of commitment to excellence within the athletic department. We are seeing the Ceiling of Bohl-ball right now."

It is academic whether or not Glenn's teams could have run the table in the current MWC...or if Bohl would go 0-fer in the MWC featuring marquis teams like Utah and TCU. What matters is how Wyoming did then vs how Wyoming is doing now.....Glenn's last two years had bad in-conference numbers...3-13 with like 7 or 8 of those losses being super bad (also losing to CSU). Bohl last two years in conference is 8-8 with 1 or 2 of the losses being bad while beating CSU. That is the comparison....I believe that is why Glenn got fired.

Glenn's last two years in-conference:
Points for: 13.5, Points against: 30.1

Bohl's last two years in conference:
Points for: 22.5, Points against: 18.2

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Glenn was too loyal to Cockhill. He at least made a change and I think he should have had 1 more year to see if the O could improve. I'm just saying Bohl isn't really that far ahead of Glenn if at all. If Glenn were playing in the Sunbelt, he'd had equivalent or better success than Bohl is having.

I'm in no way advocating removal of Bohl. I like him and his program sans the offensive production. He's not above criticism, however; it's not like he's achieved levels never observed at WYO. He's a lot better than DC but a similar program as Glenn and Dimel just better positioned with resources and ease of schedule.

FCS coach too loyal to a failing OC? Yep, been there. I think giving Bohl another year or two to fix it is by far the best option. All teams deal with injuries. The offense has been miserable for 5 of 6 years; it isn't a single season problem...just like Glenn's teams. Which led to the Burman quote... do you remember what that was?

 

[307bball]

Glenn was too loyal to Cockhill. He at least made a change and I think he should have had 1 more year to see if the O could improve. I'm just saying Bohl isn't really that far ahead of Glenn if at all. If Glenn were playing in the Sunbelt, he'd had equivalent or better success than Bohl is having.

I was a huge Glenn fan....really thought he was the guy to get the program back to prominence. I died hard that last year. We were just so un-competitive in conference games.

I'm in no way advocating removal of Bohl. I like him and his program sans the offensive production. He's not above criticism,

Completely agree.

however; it's not like he's achieved levels never observed at WYO. He's a lot better than DC but a similar program as Glenn and Dimel just better positioned with resources and ease of schedule.

I take issue with the program comparison between Glenn and Bohl...Glenn's teams really did not compete in conference the last two years. For Bohl...we are firmly above the cruddy teams and just behind the good teams. Is that "good enough"?...My answer is no, but I'll take that over our position in the MWC under Glenn.

FCS coach too loyal to a failing OC? Yep, been there. I think giving Bohl another year or two to fix it is by far the best option. All teams deal with injuries. The offense has been miserable for 5 of 6 years; it isn't a single season problem...just like Glenn's teams. Which led to the Burman quote... do you remember what that was?

Agreed...also..what was the burman quote?

 

[calpoke25]

Well, Bohl and Glenn have the same number of conference championships and the hurdle to win a or compete for a championship is much lower for Bohl because of his resources relative to peers and the MUCH weaker conference. Bohl has really only competed 1 out of 6 years. 3rd in division is the best he's managed the others.

Again, I like Bohl, but the fact is, the WYO job has never been easier. It isn't like he's moved mountains so far. It'll be really interesting to see him stack up against Utah.

This is interesting...then do you believe it was unrealistic for us as fans to feel like we should have been able to compete in the old MWC? Was the firing of Glenn based on unrealistic expectations?

It seems like folks are using degree of difficulty to selectively support or not support the current program leadership. Example...If you like Bohl, you say "Well...he beats all the teams that he is supposed to beat, and the games in which he's outgunned are really close and could go either way....and that is with a lot of injuries in key positions. I think he's got the program on the right track."....If you don't like Bohl, you say "It is put up or shut up time. No matter who the opponent is, or the injury situation, we expect excellence and conference championships. The only barrier to success at Wyoming is in the lack of commitment to excellence within the athletic department. We are seeing the Ceiling of Bohl-ball right now."

It is academic whether or not Glenn's teams could have run the table in the current MWC...or if Bohl would go 0-fer in the MWC featuring marquis teams like Utah and TCU. What matters is how Wyoming did then vs how Wyoming is doing now.....Glenn's last two years had bad in-conference numbers...3-13 with like 7 or 8 of those losses being super bad (also losing to CSU). Bohl last two years in conference is 8-8 with 1 or 2 of the losses being bad while beating CSU. That is the comparison....I believe that is why Glenn got fired.

Glenn's last two years in-conference:
Points for: 13.5, Points against: 30.1

Bohl's last two years in conference:
Points for: 22.5, Points against: 18.2

The point is that we are investing much higher football now than during the Glenn years. Bohl and his staff are among the highest paid coaching staffs in the conference. Bohl with his retention bonus this year is actually the highest paid coach kn the league. We have a brand new 50 million dollar training facility that is one of the tops in the conference. Our recruiting budget has been significantly increased. We are providing the staff with every resource they need. There literally isn’t anything Craig Bohl could say he is lacking. We are paying top dollar for football now, we are paying for championships.

Yes other schools have also built facilities in the meantime and paid their coaches more, but Joe Glenn was never amongst the highest paid in the conference, he never had arguably the nicest or second nicest facilities in the conference. He never had the kind of recruiting budget. So sure we fired him for failing to contend for championships but he also could legitimately say the program infrastructure was not at a level to contend ever. We weren’t funding football at a level then to honestly expect championships. Our AD recognized this and has since made an enormous investment in football. We fund football now at a championship level relative to our conference peers. We finished 4th in the division this year. Hence the frustration.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

For the life of me I can't figure out this competitive thing. This year, stars aligned to have one of our weakest schedules ever with bsu and Mizzou being down.
Look at last year, a 3 point W over freaking Woofford, a curb stomping by WSU, Mizzou, BSU, and a sizable beatdown by FSU. Hell, Glenn had at minimum 3 in conference teams better than the teams Bohl got stomped by. Then Glenn had OOC with BSU (btw was competitive in a few of those) and various P5 programs. Like I said, Bohl isn't moving mountains yet and is very similar to Glenn.

Burman's quote (paraphrased) was how a power offense will never work at WYO and that we need creativity.

Not saying I agree with that; just an interesting refresher of Burman's excuse, at least 1 of them, for firing Glenn.