Hawaii at Wyoming

[ragtimejoe1]

Most of those young guys had a lot of experience and turned out to be good players when put in a spot to succeed.

Stanard sucked. Vigen has had a bottom 20 offense for 5 of 6 years. Cockhill was another terrible coordinator.

Let's put this another way. You could plug almost anyone into our OC position and not get much (if any) worse offensive production. When you can make that statement, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of how that person is doing at their job.

I like Bohl, and heck I like how Vigen conducts himself. He seems like a genuinely good guy who has the interest of the student athlete in mind. I actually really like the guy in those regards. I just don't think the OC position is his strength, but I do think he adds to the program in other areas.

 

[307bball]

Most of those young guys had a lot of experience and turned out to be good players when put in a spot to succeed.

Stanard sucked. Vigen has had a bottom 20 offense for 5 of 6 years. Cockhill was another terrible coordinator.

Let's put this another way. You could plug almost anyone into our OC position and not get much (if any) worse offensive production. When you can make that statement, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of how that person is doing at their job.

I like Bohl, and heck I like how Vigen conducts himself. He seems like a genuinely good guy who has the interest of the student athlete in mind. I actually really like the guy in those regards. I just don't think the OC position is his strength, but I do think he adds to the program in other areas.

Interesting....my memory is failing me, but your comment about players being put into a position to succeed got me thinking. Did things change from a defensive scheme standpoint when stanard left? If not, then the failures of the defense would seem to be more about coaching guys up and technique.

The corollary with the Vigen would be whether the failings are schematic in nature. If the scheme is just bad...then I think we are stuck regardless of OC because I don't think Bohl would go for a very different scheme. If it is a matter of coaching guys up and Vigen has just lost the ability to connect with his guys then a change could yield results.

 

[fromolwyoming]

Most of those young guys had a lot of experience and turned out to be good players when put in a spot to succeed.

Stanard sucked. Vigen has had a bottom 20 offense for 5 of 6 years. Cockhill was another terrible coordinator.

Let's put this another way. You could plug almost anyone into our OC position and not get much (if any) worse offensive production. When you can make that statement, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of how that person is doing at their job.

I like Bohl, and heck I like how Vigen conducts himself. He seems like a genuinely good guy who has the interest of the student athlete in mind. I actually really like the guy in those regards. I just don't think the OC position is his strength, but I do think he adds to the program in other areas.

Interesting....my memory is failing me, but your comment about players being put into a position to succeed got me thinking. Did things change from a defensive scheme standpoint when stanard left? If not, then the failures of the defense would seem to be more about coaching guys up and technique.

The corollary with the Vigen would be whether the failings are schematic in nature. If the scheme is just bad...then I think we are stuck regardless of OC because I don't think Bohl would go for a very different scheme. If it is a matter of coaching guys up and Vigen has just lost the ability to connect with his guys then a change could yield results.

Stanard kept things very vanilla with barely any blitzing and a passive defense. After he left, we saw almost immediate improvement across the board on defense. It was like night and day difference.