How can Bohl be OK with the offense, get new offensive coaches to save the program

[Asmodeanreborn]

We're a TOP team and make our living wearing other teams out at the line of scrimmage.

So what does it say when arguably the worst offensive team in the nation who struggles to even have strength and conditioning this season, using their 5th string QB out-possesses us 35-25?
Yes, losing Chad Muma on a BS targeting play hurt our defense, without a doubt. So did numerous mistakes on offense... but seriously?

 

[WyomingAgJ]

I think there is 0 chance Bohl fires Vigen this year (and likely never). He hasn't parted ways with Vigen any of the past several years while the offense has been horrible. There is no way he is going to do it on covid year with cancelled games, players opting out, injured qb, etc. Vigen will be here for another year that is for sure.

 

[LawPoke]

Our best and most consistent offensive production is currently from a walk-on placekicker who fell into their lap when the starter got injured. Let that sink in. God Bless Boyland, but really? Thanks Brent. Thanks Craig. $750k per win. Well done boys.

Signed,
An actual little league coach (assistant...like Brent)
Sub .500 record (like Bohl)

 

[LawPoke]

We're a TOP team and make our living wearing other teams out at the line of scrimmage.

So what does it say when arguably the worst offensive team in the nation who struggles to even have strength and conditioning this season, using their 5th string QB out-possesses us 35-25?
Yes, losing Chad Muma on a BS targeting play hurt our defense, without a doubt. So did numerous mistakes on offense... but seriously?

While we weight train in a facility that costs millions, they lift weights that they likely bought second-hand at a Fitness One in the ballroom of a dilapidated casino...and wipe the floor with us physically. Great investment on our part.

While we are nestled all snug in our beds and awake to a sprawling spread at our first-class training table, they hit a cheap casino buffet after sleeping in a 2nd class Vegas flop house and beat us like a drum.

Rocky Long's lips had to be chapped before the game from licking his chops awaiting Brent's hapless 11.

 

[LanderPoke]

Coach bohl really coming off like a jackass about the offense. I think he’s clueless or an idiot. You can’t win when you can’t pass. If you can’t pass then you better have a rushing attack like one of the academies. We have neither. We just suck

 

[WestWYOPoke]

We're a TOP team and make our living wearing other teams out at the line of scrimmage.

So what does it say when arguably the worst offensive team in the nation who struggles to even have strength and conditioning this season, using their 5th string QB out-possesses us 35-25?
Yes, losing Chad Muma on a BS targeting play hurt our defense, without a doubt. So did numerous mistakes on offense... but seriously?

While we weight train in a facility that costs millions, they lift weights that they likely bought second-hand at a Fitness One in the ballroom of a dilapidated casino...and wipe the floor with us physically. Great investment on our part.

While we are nestled all snug in our beds and awake to a sprawling spread at our first-class training table, they hit a cheap casino buffet after sleeping in a 2nd class Vegas flop house and beat us like a drum.

Rocky Long's lips had to be chapped before the game from licking his chops awaiting Brent's hapless 11.

I wouldn't exactly call the Hilton a 2nd class Vegas flop house, but I agree with your points. UW had almost everything in their favor.

 

[stymeman]

Still blows my mind.

He basically blamed the loss on the defense as he is prone to do after the offense craps the bed.

Bohl cut bait with DC Stannard and it bore tremendous fruit. We've had a good defense since. WHY THE HELL won't he do that with OC Brnt Vigen? It's going to sink his career here at Wyoming and ruin his legacy. Is that really worth keeping a friend around for? :willybs:

Bohl is basically Joe Glenn 2.0 He won't fire Vigen.

It's gotta be a FCS thing. Glenn and Bohl, titles, recruiting, coaching staffs, eerily similar....but when it's time to make changes GET IT DONE

 

[LawPoke]

We're a TOP team and make our living wearing other teams out at the line of scrimmage.

So what does it say when arguably the worst offensive team in the nation who struggles to even have strength and conditioning this season, using their 5th string QB out-possesses us 35-25?
Yes, losing Chad Muma on a BS targeting play hurt our defense, without a doubt. So did numerous mistakes on offense... but seriously?

While we weight train in a facility that costs millions, they lift weights that they likely bought second-hand at a Fitness One in the ballroom of a dilapidated casino...and wipe the floor with us physically. Great investment on our part.

While we are nestled all snug in our beds and awake to a sprawling spread at our first-class training table, they hit a cheap casino buffet after sleeping in a 2nd class Vegas flop house and beat us like a drum.

Rocky Long's lips had to be chapped before the game from licking his chops awaiting Brent's hapless 11.

I wouldn't exactly call the Hilton a 2nd class Vegas flop house, but I agree with your points. UW had almost everything in their favor.

I was so angry at the point in the game that they were talking about where UNM was staying and working out that I only saw an empty room in a hotel with weights in it. I thought I heard some reference to them working out/eating/training/staying in a recently mothballed casino or convention center. Either way, you got my point...we had every advantage and peed down our legs. We were told that the HAPC would be transformational. I guess it was...just not the right way. Perhaps the Taj Mahal-like surrounds of the HAPC are making us weak. Spending too much time in the nail salon annex or prancing through the wading pools isn't what the doctor ordered. That or our offense is as predictable as Old Faithful and our QB coaching is as developmental as an earthquake...

Losing Chad was a huge hit and was a large factor in the go ahead TD they scored. But is should have never been that close.

 

[Wyovanian]

Anyone else see the tweet under #firevigen that had, among its likes, Vanderwal? Someone showed it to me, but it appears to have been taken down.

 

[LanderPoke]

Anyone else see the tweet under #firevigen that had, among its likes, Vanderwal? Someone showed it to me, but it appears to have been taken down.

Wouldn't surprise me. I think with good coaching, Vanderwaal could have been serviceable at the D-1 level.

Coaching is so important, but we lack offensive coaching! in spades

 

[307bball]

Anyone else see the tweet under #firevigen that had, among its likes, Vanderwal? Someone showed it to me, but it appears to have been taken down.

Wouldn't surprise me. I think with good coaching, Vanderwaal could have been serviceable at the D-1 level.

Coaching is so important, but we lack offensive coaching! in spades

I think it's an attentional issue...Not only is Bohl not really known as a gifted offensive mind..he spends most of his time focusing on and thinking about the defense. If that is the attitude of the top man, your going to end up in a situation where it will affect the product on the field. I don't really think this necessarily a bad thing...you have to hang your hat on something when you are creating a team identity. I think Bohl's focus on defense has definitely yielded results....we perennially have above average defenses. The problem, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is that no matter how good our defense gets...we can't seem to score points.

At this point...does anybody believe Bohl will take any of his attention away from his defense to promote a more dynamic offense?...Remember, this is year 7 of pretty much the same thing.

 

[LanderPoke]

Anyone else see the tweet under #firevigen that had, among its likes, Vanderwal? Someone showed it to me, but it appears to have been taken down.

Wouldn't surprise me. I think with good coaching, Vanderwaal could have been serviceable at the D-1 level.

Coaching is so important, but we lack offensive coaching! in spades

I think it's an attentional issue...Not only is Bohl not really known as a gifted offensive mind..he spends most of his time focusing on and thinking about the defense. If that is the attitude of the top man, your going to end up in a situation where it will affect the product on the field. I don't really think this necessarily a bad thing...you have to hang your hat on something when you are creating a team identity. I think Bohl's focus on defense has definitely yielded results....we perennially have above average defenses. The problem, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is that no matter how good our defense gets...we can't seem to score points.

At this point...does anybody believe Bohl will take any of his attention away from his defense to promote a more dynamic offense?...Remember, this is year 7 of pretty much the same thing.

Yes, Bohl is a self-proclaimed defense guy. We have good defenses. There would be no shame in admitting his mistakes and making the necessary changes to get a good offense. It's mind blowing.

 

[307bball]

Anyone else see the tweet under #firevigen that had, among its likes, Vanderwal? Someone showed it to me, but it appears to have been taken down.

Wouldn't surprise me. I think with good coaching, Vanderwaal could have been serviceable at the D-1 level.

Coaching is so important, but we lack offensive coaching! in spades

I think it's an attentional issue...Not only is Bohl not really known as a gifted offensive mind..he spends most of his time focusing on and thinking about the defense. If that is the attitude of the top man, your going to end up in a situation where it will affect the product on the field. I don't really think this necessarily a bad thing...you have to hang your hat on something when you are creating a team identity. I think Bohl's focus on defense has definitely yielded results....we perennially have above average defenses. The problem, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, is that no matter how good our defense gets...we can't seem to score points.

At this point...does anybody believe Bohl will take any of his attention away from his defense to promote a more dynamic offense?...Remember, this is year 7 of pretty much the same thing.

Yes, Bohl is a self-proclaimed defense guy. We have good defenses. There would be no shame in admitting his mistakes and making the necessary changes to get a good offense. It's mind blowing.

I agree that it appears mind-blowingly simple to address this and become the dominant team we all think could happen if only the Offense would get more effective with no drop off in defensive prowess.

I mean...maybe it is simple ...maybe Bohl is just a terrible coach. That would explain it. If something simple is keeping you from success then, if your not an idiot, success can be yours. In this case...it is simple to add a good offense with no drop in defensive results so Bohl must be a bad coach since this has not happened....this line of thinking makes sense, and If you agree that adding a functional (i'm not asking for top 10 here) offense is simple then he is obviously a bad coach.

Where I differ from some here, is that I disagree that making large improvements in something like a football offense, in the absence of any evidence that there is the ability or will to do so, is simple. If this were year three I would feel differently. Just like if this goes on for 3 more years I will be even more certain that Bohl is unwilling or unable to change the offense. How much evidence do we need to be convinced that Bohl will sink or swim with this system? As I've mentioned before...Bohl probably has lists of 100 or more mistakes that his offense has made in the last few games that, in his mind, is the reason that the offense is under-performing. He wants to correct those mistakes. He believes that if his plan is executed perfectly it will be the best chance his team has to succeed. Now you and I may disagree with that ... but I would imagine that he shares that belief with the majority of coaches everywhere.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

As I've mentioned before...Bohl probably has lists of 100 or more mistakes that his offense has made in the last few games that, in his mind, is the reason that the offense is under-performing. He wants to correct those mistakes. He believes that if his plan is executed perfectly it will be the best chance his team has to succeed. Now you and I may disagree with that ... but I would imagine that he shares that belief with the majority of coaches everywhere.

I think you are right on this. The question is why the mistakes are made? I don't think the offensive philosophy overall is bad. I don't think the plays available in the offense are bad. I think Bohl's comment in the tweet about "what we are able to do" is exactly right. They aren't able to execute certain aspects of the offense. Why?

It seems they are so focused on control and not screwing up (i.e. game management) that the players lose the ability to just play. Very reminiscent of Cockhill screwing up QBs and the offense due to his temper and berating players when they were ineffective. I don't think this staff does what Cockhill did, but the end result is very similar--the kids seem tight and afraid to just play.

The other issue may be unnecessary complexity. Are the blocking schemes so complex and so much variation that players are spending more time thinking and remembering what they should do rather than just playing.

It shouldn't be this hard to field a competent offense that can sustain a few drives a quarter especially when the run game is largely functional to good.

 

[307bball]

As I've mentioned before...Bohl probably has lists of 100 or more mistakes that his offense has made in the last few games that, in his mind, is the reason that the offense is under-performing. He wants to correct those mistakes. He believes that if his plan is executed perfectly it will be the best chance his team has to succeed. Now you and I may disagree with that ... but I would imagine that he shares that belief with the majority of coaches everywhere.

I think you are right on this. The question is why the mistakes are made? I don't think the offensive philosophy overall is bad. I don't think the plays available in the offense are bad. I think Bohl's comment in the tweet about "what we are able to do" is exactly right. They aren't able to execute certain aspects of the offense. Why?

It seems they are so focused on control and not screwing up (i.e. game management) that the players lose the ability to just play. Very reminiscent of Cockhill screwing up QBs and the offense due to his temper and berating players when they were ineffective. I don't think this staff does what Cockhill did, but the end result is very similar--the kids seem tight and afraid to just play.

The other issue may be unnecessary complexity. Are the blocking schemes so complex and so much variation that players are spending more time thinking and remembering what they should do rather than just playing.

It shouldn't be this hard to field a competent offense that can sustain a few drives a quarter especially when the run game is largely functional to good.

ragtime...you are right on. How to effectively ride the line of structured complexity vs a more instinctive spontaneous system is a hard balance to strike. I think that, in general, as your overall talent level goes up, you get greater gains by relying on guys getting into thieve groove and trusting their ability. On the flip side...with decreasing talent ... you would need to rely more on strict adherence to a scheme. This actually makes sense intuitively...imagine a team that was confident that in every position matchup, they had a small ability advantage. That team would just run a system that created one on one matchups at every level. Now the alternative is the team that thinks they have a slight disadvantage at every position....then the strategy shifts towards trying to out-scheme to create some other sort of advantage since in the one on one battle they would lose. Both directions have their pluses and minuses. For the talented team, you could eventually find yourself facing a team that can match you in talent and be forced to try and find a schematic advantage on the fly...or you could have injury-related depletion of the talent. For the less-advantaged team, you have the tall task of teaching what would have to be a more complex system where everybody has to be on the same page for it to work....and if the opposing team begins to figure out what you are trying to do...it goes downhill fast.

Obviously teams are always trying to do both at the same time...be more talented AND have a better strategy. Even given that, you can see how teams tend to go one way or another...the obvious example would be the service academies and really low level teams that rely on more gimmick offenses. For the school's with obviously better talent it is a little tough to tell sometimes. I really don't think the Clemson's and Ohio States of the world run strategically complex offenses...it just looks really impressive when you can line up with borderline NFL talent at every position and run away from people.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

ragtime...you are right on. How to effectively ride the line of structured complexity vs a more instinctive spontaneous system is a hard balance to strike. I think that, in general, as your overall talent level goes up, you get greater gains by relying on guys getting into thieve groove and trusting their ability. On the flip side...with decreasing talent ... you would need to rely more on strict adherence to a scheme. This actually makes sense intuitively...imagine a team that was confident that in every position matchup, they had a small ability advantage. That team would just run a system that created one on one matchups at every level. Now the alternative is the team that thinks they have a slight disadvantage at every position....then the strategy shifts towards trying to out-scheme to create some other sort of advantage since in the one on one battle they would lose. Both directions have their pluses and minuses. For the talented team, you could eventually find yourself facing a team that can match you in talent and be forced to try and find a schematic advantage on the fly...or you could have injury-related depletion of the talent. For the less-advantaged team, you have the tall task of teaching what would have to be a more complex system where everybody has to be on the same page for it to work....and if the opposing team begins to figure out what you are trying to do...it goes downhill fast.

Obviously teams are always trying to do both at the same time...be more talented AND have a better strategy. Even given that, you can see how teams tend to go one way or another...the obvious example would be the service academies and really low level teams that rely on more gimmick offenses. For the school's with obviously better talent it is a little tough to tell sometimes. I really don't think the Clemson's and Ohio States of the world run strategically complex offenses...it just looks really impressive when you can line up with borderline NFL talent at every position and run away from people.

What I find most perplexing is that they seem to have the hardest part of the offense down...highly effective run game. An even modest passing threat would make the run game that much better. I truly believe the passing inefficiencies are coaching. If we can operate a running game, the passing game shouldn't be this challenging. I say that because a lot of times, the QB has time, there is a receiver open, etc. Not every time, but a lot of time, the actual events on the field look like there should be the ability to make those plays.

I just don't believe the players are that bad. Why can't those plays be made? Did the QBs forget how to throw; receivers forget to catch; other? Not just 1 year but virtually every dang year.

 

[307bball]

ragtime...you are right on. How to effectively ride the line of structured complexity vs a more instinctive spontaneous system is a hard balance to strike. I think that, in general, as your overall talent level goes up, you get greater gains by relying on guys getting into thieve groove and trusting their ability. On the flip side...with decreasing talent ... you would need to rely more on strict adherence to a scheme. This actually makes sense intuitively...imagine a team that was confident that in every position matchup, they had a small ability advantage. That team would just run a system that created one on one matchups at every level. Now the alternative is the team that thinks they have a slight disadvantage at every position....then the strategy shifts towards trying to out-scheme to create some other sort of advantage since in the one on one battle they would lose. Both directions have their pluses and minuses. For the talented team, you could eventually find yourself facing a team that can match you in talent and be forced to try and find a schematic advantage on the fly...or you could have injury-related depletion of the talent. For the less-advantaged team, you have the tall task of teaching what would have to be a more complex system where everybody has to be on the same page for it to work....and if the opposing team begins to figure out what you are trying to do...it goes downhill fast.

Obviously teams are always trying to do both at the same time...be more talented AND have a better strategy. Even given that, you can see how teams tend to go one way or another...the obvious example would be the service academies and really low level teams that rely on more gimmick offenses. For the school's with obviously better talent it is a little tough to tell sometimes. I really don't think the Clemson's and Ohio States of the world run strategically complex offenses...it just looks really impressive when you can line up with borderline NFL talent at every position and run away from people.

What I find most perplexing is that they seem to have the hardest part of the offense down...highly effective run game. An even modest passing threat would make the run game that much better. I truly believe the passing inefficiencies are coaching. If we can operate a running game, the passing game shouldn't be this challenging. I say that because a lot of times, the QB has time, there is a receiver open, etc. Not every time, but a lot of time, the actual events on the field look like there should be the ability to make those plays.

I just don't believe the players are that bad. Why can't those plays be made? Did the QBs forget how to throw; receivers forget to catch; other? Not just 1 year but virtually every dang year.

Agreed...the players are not that bad. I do think they staff struggles to implement a passing game. The one caveat that I will put forth is the talent at WR. I know the system does not do them any favors but the WR pool of talent at WYO during Bohl's tenure is not good. Does anybody think any of the Bohl era recievers measure up with guys like McGuffey, Boughknight, Floydd, and others? Those guys would not still be incredibly effective in this system.

 

[LawPoke]

At a minimum, Grant has to go as the WR coach. We actually have some talent that - if developed properly - could help our QBs.

I still think Vigen has to go too - and I strongly object to treating this year as a throw-away in terms of evaluation. Bohl harps on how they are constantly evaluating every player and every facet of the program...why not Vigen? No other business is getting a pass in 2020 - despite some ugly and unfair conditions. Nope - they are shuttering, cutting salaries, cutting staff, etc. I'd argue that Vigen most certainly has not earned the right to have the highest salary of any assistant in the conference. The results and numbers speak for themselves. So does the recent SI article highlighting Josh Allen's plight to (1) get drafted as high as he did; and (2) shake off his poor/lacking coaching in college to actually become an NFL QB. So does the offense production gain that NDSU made after we inherited Brent.