In relation to Cam Coffman...and some other stuff

[Cornpoke]

I am less concerned with the offense than I am with the Tampa 2 defense.

Oh boy, you had to remind me. The old Tampa 2. Now tell me if that will ever work here.

Maybe you have heard the term "Its not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmies and Joes"

You say we can't run Bohl's offensive stye. Let me just say this: EVERY play in football is designed to score if executed properly. Any system can work if executed properly. We were not any better off with the spread. I do believe in the long term we will see more continued success with Bohl's system.

 

[mwc fan]

I am less concerned with the offense than I am with the Tampa 2 defense.

Oh boy, you had to remind me. The old Tampa 2. Now tell me if that will ever work here.

Maybe you have heard the term "Its not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmies and Joes"

You say we can't run Bohl's offensive stye. Let me just say this: EVERY play in football is designed to score if executed properly. Any system can work if executed properly. We were not any better off with the spread. I do believe in the long term we will see more continued success with Bohl's system.

According to points scored and the statistics differential, the spread was far more successful at UW.

 

[JimmyDimes]

I am less concerned with the offense than I am with the Tampa 2 defense.

Oh boy, you had to remind me. The old Tampa 2. Now tell me if that will ever work here.

Maybe you have heard the term "Its not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmies and Joes"

You say we can't run Bohl's offensive stye. Let me just say this: EVERY play in football is designed to score if executed properly. Any system can work if executed properly. We were not any better off with the spread. I do believe in the long term we will see more continued success with Bohl's system.

According to points scored and the statistics differential, the spread was far more successful at UW.

That makes sense considering Bohl just switched to a pro style last year and didn't have the depth to run more effectively. He had a spread QB last year and a spread QB this year. Let' see how this offense runs when we have more than one or two healthy receivers, a more mobile QB (Allen) and an offensive line that doesn't include two true freshman who saw considerable PT weighing less than 280 each.

 

[SDPokeFan]

It looks like we offered at least 3 JUCO middle linebackers last year. We also lost Lark to attrition and Muhammed to injury. Saying he chose to ignore the position is false. But, what's new.

There is a big difference on between offering and signing. Bohl either chose to or could not sign a player that could contribute at linebacker this year. That is a fact. 2-10 is a fact. That's on Bohl. Next year when we under 4 wins and under 20k attendance is on Bohl and Burman.

So you are predicting an under 4 win season next year? Ill take that bet.

Just curious what you saw this year that makes you think the team will win next year? Save for the two wins, the team was literally blown out in every other game it played, many of those blowouts by truly horrid teams. I'm sure you look at the non-conference schedule, and except for the Nebraska game, think, "well there's three wins." But I'm willing to bet you thought the same thing this year. And is it good or bad that most the players return from a two win team? Time will tell. I would hold off on printing championship shirts for now.

 

[WyoBrandX]

There is an interesting point to be made here. Why didn't Burman find a coach with Spread experience and some defensive minded assistants and make a continuation of the program in the way DC was taking it, except with focus on building a complete team.

Looking back at it, DC focused on the QB, RB, and WR positions. The rest of the team he didn't care about and would fill with whoever he recruit. We had terrible lines as a result. He would rob the best players from the defense and use them on offense when he could.

On the flip side, if all we have is a few skilled players at the offensive positions, there is no reason to blow up the team and bring in someone to build a team from scratch, using a system that has worked for him over his coaching career, at both the FBS and FCS levels.

I see the point, but I'm also happy to let the Bohl era play out. I see some promise all across the board. 12 games a year makes progress feel like an eternity.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

There is an interesting point to be made here. Why didn't Burman find a coach with Spread experience and some defensive minded assistants and make a continuation of the program in the way DC was taking it, except with focus on building a complete team.

I see the point, but I'm also happy to let the Bohl era play out. I see some promise all across the board. 12 games a year makes progress feel like an eternity.

Agreed all the way around and certainly one of my complaints with Burman. His very obvious lack of vision was on full display in his two FB hiring decisions. When DC was hired, he went so far to say that we needed a unique system because of our limitations in recruiting. We couldn't have a power team and yadda yadda yadda.

He fires DC and says we need power and cowboy tough and yadda yadda yadda.

I'm also on board with letting the Bohl thing play out and I do think he will succeed. I think the next year or 2 are the best indicators of the future.

Nonetheless, Burman's decision to go this route is intriguing.

 

[Slow Hand]

This is one of the areas I have been ridiculed on. I believe that a Spread offense creates mismatches, or at the least, puts your best athletes in a position to make plays. "Put your best players in space on the field and let them work" has always been my philosophy. It allows you to hide sub par talent and gives you the potential for big plays. In the Mountain I believe that we need to run the spread to highlight the few top level recruits that we get. Theoretically Dom should have been a stud in his senior year but because of the change he was average at best. Why did he excel the three years prior and all of a sudden one of your most dynamic play-makers is average? It is because of the system. Take your best recruits put them in space on the field and design a system around them. Can you imagine the mismatch with Jake on the edge against a 5'8' Corner? The reason he can't get separation now is because we usually only have three receivers in any given set and one of them is a TE. So any zone coverage will bracket or double the best receiver. Spread the field get four receivers out there and if they want to double now they have to take a player out of the box......which is good news for Hill! Exploit the top level recruits that we are able to secure and forget about this 3 yards in a cloud of dust football.

So now that I have that out there maybe you can see why I was in DC's corner. It wasn't necessarily about the man himself but rather the philosophy he played with. I will say this.....had Dc been the OC under a head coach like Glenn we would have been incredible to watch!

 

[fromolwyoming]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

 

[Wyovanian]

I am less concerned with the offense than I am with the Tampa 2 defense.

Oh boy, you had to remind me. The old Tampa 2. Now tell me if that will ever work here.

Maybe you have heard the term "Its not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmies and Joes"

You say we can't run Bohl's offensive stye. Let me just say this: EVERY play in football is designed to score if executed properly. Any system can work if executed properly. We were not any better off with the spread. I do believe in the long term we will see more continued success with Bohl's system.

According to points scored and the statistics differential, the spread was far more successful at UW.

How about wins/ losses in proportion to strength-of-schedule? Don't confuse effort with results...

In just about any endeavor, trends come and go, while some things become timeless. The West Coast Offense vs. the Spread is one such example. Defense is far more malleable and fungible compared to offensive philosophies.

 

[Slow Hand]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

 

[Slow Hand]

I am less concerned with the offense than I am with the Tampa 2 defense.

Oh boy, you had to remind me. The old Tampa 2. Now tell me if that will ever work here.

Maybe you have heard the term "Its not about the X's and O's its about the Jimmies and Joes"

You say we can't run Bohl's offensive stye. Let me just say this: EVERY play in football is designed to score if executed properly. Any system can work if executed properly. We were not any better off with the spread. I do believe in the long term we will see more continued success with Bohl's system.

According to points scored and the statistics differential, the spread was far more successful at UW.

How about wins/ losses in proportion to strength-of-schedule? Don't confuse effort with results...

In just about any endeavor, trends come and go, while some things become timeless. The West Coast Offense vs. the Spread is one such example. Defense is far more malleable and fungible compared to offensive philosophies.

Aren't "results' really all that matter?

 

[fromolwyoming]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

Or was that more Gary Pinkel?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

After watching this season, I think we are striving for an Iowa-type team. They also run a 4-3 but more of a cover 2 than Tampa 2. Still, keep everything in front of them and try to make plays.

On the offensive side, they run a pro-style but an outside zone blocking scheme which doesn't need as big of linemen. I'm not sure if that is exactly where Bohl is going with this, but I'm guessing something along those lines. It is still run dominated and pro-style O but doesn't require the huge brutes that are necessary for the inside blocking game.

Interestingly, in the B1G, Iowa's recruiting classes the past 3 years were near bottom for 2 and middle of the pack for 1. In other words, they are getting that system to work without the huge horses (they probably average somewhere around 285-290 on the o-line). Still, they did get a lot of 4 star linemen, so not an apples to apples comparison, but I think Iowa is the epitome of what Bohl is trying to do here.

 

[kdwrightuwyo]

This is one of the areas I have been ridiculed on. I believe that a Spread offense creates mismatches, or at the least, puts your best athletes in a position to make plays. "Put your best players in space on the field and let them work" has always been my philosophy. It allows you to hide sub par talent and gives you the potential for big plays. In the Mountain I believe that we need to run the spread to highlight the few top level recruits that we get. Theoretically Dom should have been a stud in his senior year but because of the change he was average at best. Why did he excel the three years prior and all of a sudden one of your most dynamic play-makers is average? It is because of the system. Take your best recruits put them in space on the field and design a system around them. Can you imagine the mismatch with Jake on the edge against a 5'8' Corner? The reason he can't get separation now is because we usually only have three receivers in any given set and one of them is a TE. So any zone coverage will bracket or double the best receiver. Spread the field get four receivers out there and if they want to double now they have to take a player out of the box......which is good news for Hill! Exploit the top level recruits that we are able to secure and forget about this 3 yards in a cloud of dust football.

So now that I have that out there maybe you can see why I was in DC's corner. It wasn't necessarily about the man himself but rather the philosophy he played with. I will say this.....had Dc been the OC under a head coach like Glenn we would have been incredible to watch!

The spread is good if you can recruit above average athletes. DC got a few good athletes, but where he failed was in coaching. We won games because we were, on occasion, able to out athlete the other team. We got our asses handed to us by any team with better athletes. And then when he left, most of those better athletes either tried to go pro, quit, transferred, or graduated.

 

[cowboyz]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

They were a middle of the pack offense, with two good years, while DC was there. However, I wish we were a middle of the pack offense with two good years while DC was here.

 

[Slow Hand]

This is one of the areas I have been ridiculed on. I believe that a Spread offense creates mismatches, or at the least, puts your best athletes in a position to make plays. "Put your best players in space on the field and let them work" has always been my philosophy. It allows you to hide sub par talent and gives you the potential for big plays. In the Mountain I believe that we need to run the spread to highlight the few top level recruits that we get. Theoretically Dom should have been a stud in his senior year but because of the change he was average at best. Why did he excel the three years prior and all of a sudden one of your most dynamic play-makers is average? It is because of the system. Take your best recruits put them in space on the field and design a system around them. Can you imagine the mismatch with Jake on the edge against a 5'8' Corner? The reason he can't get separation now is because we usually only have three receivers in any given set and one of them is a TE. So any zone coverage will bracket or double the best receiver. Spread the field get four receivers out there and if they want to double now they have to take a player out of the box......which is good news for Hill! Exploit the top level recruits that we are able to secure and forget about this 3 yards in a cloud of dust football.

So now that I have that out there maybe you can see why I was in DC's corner. It wasn't necessarily about the man himself but rather the philosophy he played with. I will say this.....had Dc been the OC under a head coach like Glenn we would have been incredible to watch!

The spread is good if you can recruit above average athletes. DC got a few good athletes, but where he failed was in coaching. We won games because we were, on occasion, able to out athlete the other team. We got our asses handed to us by any team with better athletes. And then when he left, most of those better athletes either tried to go pro, quit, transferred, or graduated.

See I disagree. I think the spread allows you to be successful with fewer elite athletes. You can put them in places where they can "out athlete" the opposing team. It gives a mediocre team the best chance at success. Of course if a team is better than you at every position they are going to beat you that is simple logic. However if you can find a few gems then you can put them in places to be successful. Now that being said you have to have an above average athlete in a few key positions. The QB being the most important. But think about this current team....if we could put Gentry and Maulhardt on opposite sides with Parker and another above average reliever out in the slots, with Hill at the single back would we be better or worse? We could get by with marginal line men because all they would have to do is zone block and trap now and then.

 

[Slow Hand]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

They were a middle of the pack offense, with two good years, while DC was there. However, I wish we were a middle of the pack offense with two good years while DC was here.

Weren't we? I haven't looked at the stats but I have a hard time believing many teams put up much more in terms of offensive yardage and points except when they played us. Which would indicate a dismal defense not so much an offense. So my point is offensively we were a much better team than we are now or were last year every year that Dave was here. Our Defense just sucked and continues to do so this year. Only difference is we can't score this year.

 

[fromolwyoming]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

They were a middle of the pack offense, with two good years, while DC was there. However, I wish we were a middle of the pack offense with two good years while DC was here.

Weren't we? I haven't looked at the stats but I have a hard time believing many teams put up much more in terms of offensive yardage and points except when they played us. Which would indicate a dismal defense not so much an offense. So my point is offensively we were a much better team than we are now or were last year every year that Dave was here. Our Defense just sucked and continues to do so this year. Only difference is we can't score this year.

Yeah, we would put up a lot of points, against teams like Idaho. Against teams that had a pulse, we were lucky to get 7 points and more than a couple hundred yards of offense.

 

[ELKMT]

From 2010 to 2013 DC had 6 games in which his teams failed to put up 7 points. 4 of those games were in 2010, and uw played # 5 ranked Texas, #3 ranked Boise, # 5 ranked TCU, & #11 ranked Utah. Another game was against a top 25 Utah state in 2013.If a DC team had a chance to play this schedule they would put up some offensive records. I understand why DC was let go, but couldn't have Burman found a coach that could of taken advantage of what talents where left?

 

[cowboyz]

I doubt that DC being an OC would have changed much, as DC showed he can never make adjustments. All too often, we would go "pass, pass, run, punt" and be lucky to get 7 points a game.

He seemed to do fine at Mizzo.

They were a middle of the pack offense, with two good years, while DC was there. However, I wish we were a middle of the pack offense with two good years while DC was here.

Weren't we? I haven't looked at the stats but I have a hard time believing many teams put up much more in terms of offensive yardage and points except when they played us. Which would indicate a dismal defense not so much an offense. So my point is offensively we were a much better team than we are now or were last year every year that Dave was here. Our Defense just sucked and continues to do so this year. Only difference is we can't score this year.

In the DC era we averaged 75th in total offense and 81st in scoring offense. Yes, offensively we were much better. My point was that DC at Missouri wasn't as magical as we might remember, but average, with a couple of good seasons.