It wasn't the loss that disappointed me...

[LanderPoke]

IT's time for mass changes on defense. We need a new scheme or we need to get creative. I'm no coach, but I can tell what we have right now is garbage. Why the hell do we give up 5+ running plays of 30 yds every game? We need to blitz and at least try to create havoc. What we have right now is certainly not working. And if Stanard sucks so bad which all indications point to him sucking then we need to start looking around.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

IT's time for mass changes on defense. We need a new scheme or we need to get creative. I'm no coach, but I can tell what we have right now is garbage. Why the hell do we give up 5+ running plays of 30 yds every game? We need to blitz and at least try to create havoc. What we have right now is certainly not working. And if Stanard sucks so bad which all indications point to him sucking then we need to start looking around.

Blitzing out of T2 is very difficult because everyone has their assignments and leaving those leaves gaping holes. That is why the T2 is only a package for most teams, not the entire defensive scheme. In other words, a lot of teams will run a 4-3 and on occasion drop the MLB into a T2-like D. They will also us man, cover 2, cover 1, etc.

If we are going a 4 man front, I like TCU's approach much better.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

All in all, this year, IMO, should accelerate Bohl's timeline. This 5 more year crap is for the birds. If this is truly an investment, then it better pay off in the next year or two otherwise blowing up this program was stupid.

Not to be too crabby, sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense. If you blow up a program, play a ton of youth, and claim that it will pay off as they get experience, then logic dictates that success should come with their experience. Next year should be much better. The following year should be damn good. You have a ton of players with 2-3 years playing experience.

Otherwise, blowing up the program was a stupid approach.

 

[kansasCowboy]

I agree that the lack of improvement is disappointing. I'm not sure if it really is lack of improvement or simply quality of opponent (i.e. WSU is just that bad). Here are my thoughts:

Bohl doesn't walk on water. I think he and his staff bought into their own self generated hype and are now experiencing a reality check. I don't give a damn about brick by brick and all that other crap. It is unusual, borderline unacceptable, and not a good sign to see a program demolished to this state. In fact, it is perfectly fair for this to be concerning. Bohl, for me, has transitioned from "I know he is the right man for the job" to "I think he is the right man for the job". We'll see how this progresses, and I think it will be fine, but it sure as hell is not a guarantee to be fine.

The T2 sucks. It is great if you have better players than the other team and the other team runs a west-coast style O. The spread and the option can wreak havoc on this D. It will work if we consistently have beasts along the line, good corners who can force things inside, and LBs that can cover. I don't know. Again, we'll see.

My concern when Bohl was hired was the viability of his O at WYO. I can say that after a few games, I can see how it will work. I'm much less concerned about the style of O than before. The play calling, on the other hand.

Stanard and Vigen should have a pretty short leash.

All in all, this year, IMO, should accelerate Bohl's timeline. This 5 more year crap is for the birds. If this is truly an investment, then it better pay off in the next year or two otherwise blowing up this program was stupid.

You are why we lose coaches too early. Plain and simple.


You through this year so far:

Week1:
"We should be decent this year. At least 5-6 wins and progressing from there."
Me and others: " You might want to slow your jets. We are still rebuilding and we're really young."
Back to you: "We should be in a lower tier bowl this year and seeing vast improvement."

We LOSE to ND.

You and a few others: "Oh woe is , we!!! Haw did it come to this! How did it get so bad? We're falling apart as a program!"

Me and others: "Told you so. We are extremely young in a vast amount of important areas. Seriously, after year one we said it would take at least 3-5 years to get this back on track. Trust in Bohl."

You and others: "Shut up you Sunshine Pumpers! Always having to ruin a wonderful bad mood...Bohl better be concerned! That's all I have to say about this. No way we go to bowl this year!"

Week 2: Lose to EMU

You and others: "Oh my God! Bohl might just need to go now! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Heads need to roll for this travesty!"

Me and others: "Yes, it sucks to lose, but we are seeing progress. Nowhere to go but up. You fire Bohl and you make this losing last even longer. Let me give you coaches as examples..."

You and others: "I'm sick of hearing you're logic! It should only take a year or two to turn things around! We've lost long enough!"

Me and others: "Agreed! We have lost long enough, so let's change the typical par for the course and stop getting rid of coaches too soon. Let's see how we progress from week to week first."

You and others: "this next week is gonna be a blood bath..."

Week 3: Lose to WSU

You and others:" I was surprised to actually see some try out there! But we. Still lost. I guess we better fire Bohl,fire Burman, why don't we have a kicker? I guess we should go FCS at this point..."

Me and others: "Impressed with the young guys really stepping in to their roles. But they still lack the size to be really competitive. Give these guys a few years a several are going to be beasts that will lead this team. Again this is a week to week progression and growth and a year to year success. And we still need at least 3-4 years of progress. Seriously you guys need to calm down. FCS??? Be realistic..."

You and others: "Okay, maybe he needs a few years. I guess I can see that,
but how long do you give him? 7 years? What if there's no progress?

Me and other: "Wait! What!? Now you want to give him time? Well, okay then. The time is based on progress. If he has the time but we continually get worse then it's time to go. But I'm sure we will see progress. Look at what his young recruiting talent is doing now? Freshman lineman starting! Freshman leading the team in tackles! RS freshman with our only int! Soph RB leading the team in rushing! Soph lineman taking a leadership role on the OL! We have a good foundation to build off of."

You: "I guess I can see that. Well hopefully we win this next week... It may be our only win..."

Me and other: "I hope that we win. I think we have a good chance, but, I still wouldn't be surprised if we lose this one."

Others: "Fire Burman! FCS! FCS!"

Week 4: lose to UNM

Me and other: " Disappointed in some of the play. Even though the score was closer than last week it seemed like we too a step back this week. But I still saw some positives."

Others:" Coordinators suck they need to have their names in the mix with the others! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Vigen head is close to the chopping block! Stanard is pathetic and needs to go! Our D sucks anyway!"

Me and others:" So now we need to just find others to lay the blame on? Are we just adding to the list week by week?"

You: " Your own quote above!" " This five year crap is for the birds!"

Me: "You and your mood swings from week to week are worse then an all girls college with their PMS cycles in sync with one another... Just complain and be done! I give up on you. You and others like you are why we will always be no better than mediocre and will generally lose! Foundations take time to build but you don't have the patience to wait about 3-4 more seasons. You can barely manage week to week. For that if your thought process wins out look for more losing well beyond Bohl. We are at 16 years of losing now. Keep it up and it will be, 'We've sucked for 16 years.... 25 years.... 40 years... Till I'm dead!'"

Have it however you want it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Your hypersensitive interpretation and misrepresentation of opinions is comical to say the least. Speaking of high school girls, well, let's just say that they are typically hypersensitive as well.

I think most predictions were about 5-6 wins because the MWC is terrible, which it is, but anywhere from 3-7 wins wouldn't be surprising.

You can't have it both ways. If the approach is to blow up the program and play youth as an investment, then logic dictates that with experience comes success. In 2 years, our roster will be or should be predominantly players who have 2 to 4 years playing experience which is average to above average in the nation.

If this year is an investment, it should pay off perhaps not fully next year then certainly the following year which is year 4 for Bohl.

If not, then blowing up the program was stupid. However, continue on with your hypersensitive, hyper-dramatic, incredulous self.

 

[WYCowboy]

The fact is, we don't have the personnel on defense. The DEs, LBs, and some of the DBs are playing at a weight level about equal to many high school teams. That could be on the coach (since it is his team), but reality is that he has only had 1 & 1/2 recruiting classes and we are throwing up to 18 freshmen & RSF into the fire now. I don't know what the problem is with the DL. Most of them are big and strong enough (Uso), and have experience, but are not getting the job done. Poor tackling is probably poor motivation due to being underweight, being out of position, and not getting off their blocks. Poor tackling is a problem that has been going on for much longer than Bohl has been here. Much of that is on the coaches IMO.

 

[kansasCowboy]

Your hypersensitive interpretation and misrepresentation of opinions is comical to say the least. Speaking of high school girls, well, let's just say that they are typically hypersensitive as well.

I think most predictions were about 5-6 wins because the MWC is terrible, which it is, but anywhere from 3-7 wins wouldn't be surprising.

You can't have it both ways. If the approach is to blow up the program and play youth as an investment, then logic dictates that with experience comes success. In 2 years, our roster will be or should be predominantly players who have 2 to 4 years playing experience which is average to above average in the nation.

If this year is an investment, it should pay off perhaps not fully next year then certainly the following year which is year 4 for Bohl.

If not, then blowing up the program was stupid. However, continue on with your hypersensitive, hyper-dramatic, incredulous self.

Hypersensitive? Misrepresenting? Who said anything about High School girls?
In a sense I do agree that logic dictates that these youngsters we are playing now
Will be better in 2 years. We will see more success. Will it take four years? Probably. These underclassmen will be the leaders by then. But like I've said before these guys are the "Foundation". If we allow the time to continue for Bohl hopefully this years class and next years class will carry on the success and we should see progression overall. Depth, recruiting, size, talent, and even wins.
But if we get stupid and cut this thing short like we did with Koenning ...? He had a senior heavy team coming back from a 2-10 squad that lost six or seven games by a td or less. We give him his year four with His seniors and I'm saying he has better success than Glenn did with Koennings seniors. But we cut him lose at year three.
Maybe we go 0-12 this year. Maybe we go 3-9 next year. Buy then these guys would all be upperclassmen and should have this system down. If we have 5-7 wins it's a success, if it's below that, that's when you question. But with the young talent I'm seeing, I don't think we will need to be questioning.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Your hypersensitive interpretation and misrepresentation of opinions is comical to say the least. Speaking of high school girls, well, let's just say that they are typically hypersensitive as well.

I think most predictions were about 5-6 wins because the MWC is terrible, which it is, but anywhere from 3-7 wins wouldn't be surprising.

You can't have it both ways. If the approach is to blow up the program and play youth as an investment, then logic dictates that with experience comes success. In 2 years, our roster will be or should be predominantly players who have 2 to 4 years playing experience which is average to above average in the nation.

If this year is an investment, it should pay off perhaps not fully next year then certainly the following year which is year 4 for Bohl.

If not, then blowing up the program was stupid. However, continue on with your hypersensitive, hyper-dramatic, incredulous self.

Hypersensitive? Misrepresenting? Who said anything about High School girls?
In a sense I do agree that logic dictates that these youngsters we are playing now
Will be better in 2 years. We will see more success. Will it take four years? Probably. These underclassmen will be the leaders by then. But like I've said before these guys are the "Foundation". If we allow the time to continue for Bohl hopefully this years class and next years class will carry on the success and we should see progression overall. Depth, recruiting, size, talent, and even wins.
But if we get stupid and cut this thing short like we did with Koenning ...? He had a senior heavy team coming back from a 2-10 squad that lost six or seven games by a td or less. We give him his year four with His seniors and I'm saying he has better success than Glenn did with Koennings seniors. But we cut him lose at year three.
Maybe we go 0-12 this year. Maybe we go 3-9 next year. Buy then these guys would all be upperclassmen and should have this system down. If we have 5-7 wins it's a success, if it's below that, that's when you question. But with the young talent I'm seeing, I don't think we will need to be questioning.

The only part I really disagree on is your year 4 assessment unless the conference takes a big step forward. If the MWC is similar or only slightly better than now, anything short of 6 wins will be a disappointment and make Bohl's seat pretty warm for the following season.

I would also hope (stress hope) that we are better than 3-9 next year. At the very least, we sure as hell better not be blown out of 9 games like we are this year. If we are 3-9 next year with 7+ blowout losses, then I'll be pretty concerned. I wouldn't be calling for Bohl's firing, but damn sure concerned.

 

[kansasCowboy]

And I would say you should be, because that is not progress. 3-9 is okay, I'm going based off what I know of our OOC and our division is still pretty tough. We may be better than that. Just throwing out an example.

Glad we can come to terms. :thumb:

 

[TSpoke]

The concerns I have are with game day coaching. There are 2 decisions that really stood out to me and I think cost us a chance to win.
the first was not attempting a FG on 4th and 11. What are the chances of picking up the first down there? I would say a lot less than the chance Bailey makes the FG. If he is missing 75-80% of 35 yd fgs in practice we probably should get someone else in there.(I say that cuz I am putting the chances of picking up the first down at 25%). They have mentioned it is a head issue with Bailey so he needs to make a FG to break out of it. We can't go the whole year not kicking fg's.
Then in the 3rd quarter we had the ball at midfield and it was 4th and inches and we punted it. Our offense was moving the ball well and our defense wasn't getting many stops so we should have gone for it to keep our offense on the field. We need to start taking some more risks on 4th and short have some "cowboy tough" play calling. Along with not going for it at WSU with 8 minutes left are showing me "cowboy tough" is just a studpid PR slogan and nothing more.

Interesting we are willing to go for it on 4th and 11 but not 4th and inches.

 

[LanderPoke]

The concerns I have are with game day coaching. There are 2 decisions that really stood out to me and I think cost us a chance to win.
the first was not attempting a FG on 4th and 11. What are the chances of picking up the first down there? I would say a lot less than the chance Bailey makes the FG. If he is missing 75-80% of 35 yd fgs in practice we probably should get someone else in there.(I say that cuz I am putting the chances of picking up the first down at 25%). They have mentioned it is a head issue with Bailey so he needs to make a FG to break out of it. We can't go the whole year not kicking fg's.
Then in the 3rd quarter we had the ball at midfield and it was 4th and inches and we punted it. Our offense was moving the ball well and our defense wasn't getting many stops so we should have gone for it to keep our offense on the field. We need to start taking some more risks on 4th and short have some "cowboy tough" play calling. Along with not going for it at WSU with 8 minutes left are showing me "cowboy tough" is just a studpid PR slogan and nothing more.

Interesting we are willing to go for it on 4th and 11 but not 4th and inches.

Totally agree. I knew our goose was cooked when we pussed out and punted. I mean our d was totally dominating them at that point, right?

 

[TSpoke]

The concerns I have are with game day coaching. There are 2 decisions that really stood out to me and I think cost us a chance to win.
the first was not attempting a FG on 4th and 11. What are the chances of picking up the first down there? I would say a lot less than the chance Bailey makes the FG. If he is missing 75-80% of 35 yd fgs in practice we probably should get someone else in there.(I say that cuz I am putting the chances of picking up the first down at 25%). They have mentioned it is a head issue with Bailey so he needs to make a FG to break out of it. We can't go the whole year not kicking fg's.
Then in the 3rd quarter we had the ball at midfield and it was 4th and inches and we punted it. Our offense was moving the ball well and our defense wasn't getting many stops so we should have gone for it to keep our offense on the field. We need to start taking some more risks on 4th and short have some "cowboy tough" play calling. Along with not going for it at WSU with 8 minutes left are showing me "cowboy tough" is just a studpid PR slogan and nothing more.

Interesting we are willing to go for it on 4th and 11 but not 4th and inches.

Totally agree. I knew our goose was cooked when we pussed out and punted. I mean our d was totally dominating them at that point, right?

Exactly and if we could have continued that drive and got a TD we would have been right back in the game within a score. that would have changed the momentum and who knows what would have happened. But instead we punt and our D gives up another score.

 

[Yabadabadoo]

I agree that the lack of improvement is disappointing. I'm not sure if it really is lack of improvement or simply quality of opponent (i.e. WSU is just that bad). Here are my thoughts:

Bohl doesn't walk on water. I think he and his staff bought into their own self generated hype and are now experiencing a reality check. I don't give a damn about brick by brick and all that other crap. It is unusual, borderline unacceptable, and not a good sign to see a program demolished to this state. In fact, it is perfectly fair for this to be concerning. Bohl, for me, has transitioned from "I know he is the right man for the job" to "I think he is the right man for the job". We'll see how this progresses, and I think it will be fine, but it sure as hell is not a guarantee to be fine.

The T2 sucks. It is great if you have better players than the other team and the other team runs a west-coast style O. The spread and the option can wreak havoc on this D. It will work if we consistently have beasts along the line, good corners who can force things inside, and LBs that can cover. I don't know. Again, we'll see.

My concern when Bohl was hired was the viability of his O at WYO. I can say that after a few games, I can see how it will work. I'm much less concerned about the style of O than before. The play calling, on the other hand.

Stanard and Vigen should have a pretty short leash.

All in all, this year, IMO, should accelerate Bohl's timeline. This 5 more year crap is for the birds. If this is truly an investment, then it better pay off in the next year or two otherwise blowing up this program was stupid.

You are why we lose coaches too early. Plain and simple.


You through this year so far:

Week1:
"We should be decent this year. At least 5-6 wins and progressing from there."
Me and others: " You might want to slow your jets. We are still rebuilding and we're really young."
Back to you: "We should be in a lower tier bowl this year and seeing vast improvement."

We LOSE to ND.

You and a few others: "Oh woe is , we!!! Haw did it come to this! How did it get so bad? We're falling apart as a program!"

Me and others: "Told you so. We are extremely young in a vast amount of important areas. Seriously, after year one we said it would take at least 3-5 years to get this back on track. Trust in Bohl."

You and others: "Shut up you Sunshine Pumpers! Always having to ruin a wonderful bad mood...Bohl better be concerned! That's all I have to say about this. No way we go to bowl this year!"

Week 2: Lose to EMU

You and others: "Oh my God! Bohl might just need to go now! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Heads need to roll for this travesty!"

Me and others: "Yes, it sucks to lose, but we are seeing progress. Nowhere to go but up. You fire Bohl and you make this losing last even longer. Let me give you coaches as examples..."

You and others: "I'm sick of hearing you're logic! It should only take a year or two to turn things around! We've lost long enough!"

Me and others: "Agreed! We have lost long enough, so let's change the typical par for the course and stop getting rid of coaches too soon. Let's see how we progress from week to week first."

You and others: "this next week is gonna be a blood bath..."

Week 3: Lose to WSU

You and others:" I was surprised to actually see some try out there! But we. Still lost. I guess we better fire Bohl,fire Burman, why don't we have a kicker? I guess we should go FCS at this point..."

Me and others: "Impressed with the young guys really stepping in to their roles. But they still lack the size to be really competitive. Give these guys a few years a several are going to be beasts that will lead this team. Again this is a week to week progression and growth and a year to year success. And we still need at least 3-4 years of progress. Seriously you guys need to calm down. FCS??? Be realistic..."

You and others: "Okay, maybe he needs a few years. I guess I can see that,
but how long do you give him? 7 years? What if there's no progress?

Me and other: "Wait! What!? Now you want to give him time? Well, okay then. The time is based on progress. If he has the time but we continually get worse then it's time to go. But I'm sure we will see progress. Look at what his young recruiting talent is doing now? Freshman lineman starting! Freshman leading the team in tackles! RS freshman with our only int! Soph RB leading the team in rushing! Soph lineman taking a leadership role on the OL! We have a good foundation to build off of."

You: "I guess I can see that. Well hopefully we win this next week... It may be our only win..."

Me and other: "I hope that we win. I think we have a good chance, but, I still wouldn't be surprised if we lose this one."

Others: "Fire Burman! FCS! FCS!"

Week 4: lose to UNM

Me and other: " Disappointed in some of the play. Even though the score was closer than last week it seemed like we too a step back this week. But I still saw some positives."

Others:" Coordinators suck they need to have their names in the mix with the others! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Vigen head is close to the chopping block! Stanard is pathetic and needs to go! Our D sucks anyway!"

Me and others:" So now we need to just find others to lay the blame on? Are we just adding to the list week by week?"

You: " Your own quote above!" " This five year crap is for the birds!"

Me: "You and your mood swings from week to week are worse then an all girls college with their PMS cycles in sync with one another... Just complain and be done! I give up on you. You and others like you are why we will always be no better than mediocre and will generally lose! Foundations take time to build but you don't have the patience to wait about 3-4 more seasons. You can barely manage week to week. For that if your thought process wins out look for more losing well beyond Bohl. We are at 16 years of losing now. Keep it up and it will be, 'We've sucked for 16 years.... 25 years.... 40 years... Till I'm dead!'"

Have it however you want it.

KC, your post goes down as without a doubt as the most entertaining post of the year in my book - and there is a lot of truth to be found within the back-n-forth conversational scenario you list.

As I mentioned in my opening of this thread, its the defensive scheme that I am at odds with - recognizing we don't have the personnel currently to run it effectively. Even if we did I still am not a fan of it. I prefer an attacking and multi-dimensional defense that provides multiple looks and gives the offense a slew of things to think about with each snap of the ball.

 

[kansasCowboy]

I agree that the lack of improvement is disappointing. I'm not sure if it really is lack of improvement or simply quality of opponent (i.e. WSU is just that bad). Here are my thoughts:

Bohl doesn't walk on water. I think he and his staff bought into their own self generated hype and are now experiencing a reality check. I don't give a damn about brick by brick and all that other crap. It is unusual, borderline unacceptable, and not a good sign to see a program demolished to this state. In fact, it is perfectly fair for this to be concerning. Bohl, for me, has transitioned from "I know he is the right man for the job" to "I think he is the right man for the job". We'll see how this progresses, and I think it will be fine, but it sure as hell is not a guarantee to be fine.

The T2 sucks. It is great if you have better players than the other team and the other team runs a west-coast style O. The spread and the option can wreak havoc on this D. It will work if we consistently have beasts along the line, good corners who can force things inside, and LBs that can cover. I don't know. Again, we'll see.

My concern when Bohl was hired was the viability of his O at WYO. I can say that after a few games, I can see how it will work. I'm much less concerned about the style of O than before. The play calling, on the other hand.

Stanard and Vigen should have a pretty short leash.

All in all, this year, IMO, should accelerate Bohl's timeline. This 5 more year crap is for the birds. If this is truly an investment, then it better pay off in the next year or two otherwise blowing up this program was stupid.

You are why we lose coaches too early. Plain and simple.


You through this year so far:

Week1:
"We should be decent this year. At least 5-6 wins and progressing from there."
Me and others: " You might want to slow your jets. We are still rebuilding and we're really young."
Back to you: "We should be in a lower tier bowl this year and seeing vast improvement."

We LOSE to ND.

You and a few others: "Oh woe is , we!!! Haw did it come to this! How did it get so bad? We're falling apart as a program!"

Me and others: "Told you so. We are extremely young in a vast amount of important areas. Seriously, after year one we said it would take at least 3-5 years to get this back on track. Trust in Bohl."

You and others: "Shut up you Sunshine Pumpers! Always having to ruin a wonderful bad mood...Bohl better be concerned! That's all I have to say about this. No way we go to bowl this year!"

Week 2: Lose to EMU

You and others: "Oh my God! Bohl might just need to go now! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Heads need to roll for this travesty!"

Me and others: "Yes, it sucks to lose, but we are seeing progress. Nowhere to go but up. You fire Bohl and you make this losing last even longer. Let me give you coaches as examples..."

You and others: "I'm sick of hearing you're logic! It should only take a year or two to turn things around! We've lost long enough!"

Me and others: "Agreed! We have lost long enough, so let's change the typical par for the course and stop getting rid of coaches too soon. Let's see how we progress from week to week first."

You and others: "this next week is gonna be a blood bath..."

Week 3: Lose to WSU

You and others:" I was surprised to actually see some try out there! But we. Still lost. I guess we better fire Bohl,fire Burman, why don't we have a kicker? I guess we should go FCS at this point..."

Me and others: "Impressed with the young guys really stepping in to their roles. But they still lack the size to be really competitive. Give these guys a few years a several are going to be beasts that will lead this team. Again this is a week to week progression and growth and a year to year success. And we still need at least 3-4 years of progress. Seriously you guys need to calm down. FCS??? Be realistic..."

You and others: "Okay, maybe he needs a few years. I guess I can see that,
but how long do you give him? 7 years? What if there's no progress?

Me and other: "Wait! What!? Now you want to give him time? Well, okay then. The time is based on progress. If he has the time but we continually get worse then it's time to go. But I'm sure we will see progress. Look at what his young recruiting talent is doing now? Freshman lineman starting! Freshman leading the team in tackles! RS freshman with our only int! Soph RB leading the team in rushing! Soph lineman taking a leadership role on the OL! We have a good foundation to build off of."

You: "I guess I can see that. Well hopefully we win this next week... It may be our only win..."

Me and other: "I hope that we win. I think we have a good chance, but, I still wouldn't be surprised if we lose this one."

Others: "Fire Burman! FCS! FCS!"

Week 4: lose to UNM

Me and other: " Disappointed in some of the play. Even though the score was closer than last week it seemed like we too a step back this week. But I still saw some positives."

Others:" Coordinators suck they need to have their names in the mix with the others! Fire Bohl! Fire Burman! Vigen head is close to the chopping block! Stanard is pathetic and needs to go! Our D sucks anyway!"

Me and others:" So now we need to just find others to lay the blame on? Are we just adding to the list week by week?"

You: " Your own quote above!" " This five year crap is for the birds!"

Me: "You and your mood swings from week to week are worse then an all girls college with their PMS cycles in sync with one another... Just complain and be done! I give up on you. You and others like you are why we will always be no better than mediocre and will generally lose! Foundations take time to build but you don't have the patience to wait about 3-4 more seasons. You can barely manage week to week. For that if your thought process wins out look for more losing well beyond Bohl. We are at 16 years of losing now. Keep it up and it will be, 'We've sucked for 16 years.... 25 years.... 40 years... Till I'm dead!'"

Have it however you want it.

KC, your post goes down as without a doubt as the most entertaining post of the year in my book - and there is a lot of truth to be found within the back-n-forth conversational scenario you list.

As I mentioned in my opening of this thread, its the defensive scheme that I am at odds with - recognizing we don't have the personnel currently to run it effectively. Even if we did I still am not a fan of it. I prefer an attacking and multi-dimensional defense that provides multiple looks and gives the offense a slew of things to think about with each snap of the ball.

Thanks, sometimes it's fun to write these things.

I understand being at odds with it, but like I said earlier, we may try to start in T2, I've seen it twice in four games, but we typically fall back into a regular 4-3 Cover. Which isn't bad.
In all honesty if I were the DC and I knew my LBS were going to be the struggle, I'd probably opt for a 4-2-5 and get another athletic guy like Pownell in there with Wingard. Let May and Wacha have the LB spots and cover runs and read coverage.

But, what do I know? I only sport a winning record where ever I've been and get paid a measly stipend...

 

[LawPoke]

Point3. I can see the potential for the Tampa 2 if run correctly. I've never coached against it, so I'm not super familiar with it. But what I have seen on it, when it is set with talent it can be pretty brutal. We are set with youth trying to put it all together right now. I do think in a few years a lot of these younger guys will make this scheme look pretty good.

Kansas...I am not a coach, so would love your insights on this statement. I always appreciate your informed view and very much want to hear more on this point. I seldom hear coaches mention that the Tampa 2 can be brutal. Absent big mad mean defensive linemen, which we seldom get, and significant upgrades at linebacker, I am not so sure. What do you see with the Tampa 2 that leads to a sense that it can be a tough defense? Also, what talent is needed to make it so?

As for Yarborough, I don't want to bag on the guy, but I thought he had one of his poorest games yesterday. He never sealed his end, took poor angles and struggled to get off blocks. Was he double teamed? Was I missing something?

From what I gather. You need a solid LB group. We don't have that. They don't need to be big but fast, we're getting there. The corners need to be solid at one on one coverage and jamming. We definitely don't have that yet. Preister and Wingard are our best at this and they need more time. The jamming and lbs dropping back in coverage is what is supposed to keep all offensive threats in front of us at all times. We have blunder on this in every game so far. When we do our coverage goes very soft and we basically fall out of a Tampa 2 and run a basic cover 2 or cover 3.
The DL and DE are critical in Tampa 2, and we do not have that ability yet. We seem to try to start a game in Tampa 2, but after we a blasted by long passes or big runs we tends to look more like a typical 4-3 zone read.
I agree with some of the things I've seen on Tampa 2, that if run correctly you are a bend but don't break D. Our best game was WSU. Other than a couple of long balls over our heads, our CBs and S's and LB's kept almost every play in front of them. Hence why Falk (taking out two long balls) had a average of 4.9 yards per pass catch. We made him look to quick out routes or quick inside slant hits. The D was doing its job and then one blown assignment and you had an 35 yard td pass.
In looking at it as an overall package (not wyoming D personally) if I had an average O at the college level I think I could come up with a Pistol package that would exploit the D. But it would have to take multiple sets and reads to confuse the D enough to get the D to bite on something for me to have the opportunity for a big play down field. If the T2 is run correctly it can definitely have the potential to be a headache for an Offense and an OC.

All that said, I hope I answered your question. If you want something a little more specific try me again. I'm running on 5 hrs of sleep in the last two days. I may have blundered, myself here.

Thanks for the thorough response. I appreciate your perspectives and analysis. At this point, there is a lot of emotion...none of it wrong really and to be expected (if we didn't get upset, we would be in a very very bad spot)...but it seems the anger and bile needs to be tinged with some sense of why Bohl and Stanard might be doing what they are doing. Thanks again.

 

[joshvanklomp]

I've always hated the 34 defense. Especially if you can't get the right guys for the system.

 

[wyokoke]

I've always hated the 34 defense. Especially if you can't get the right guys for the system.

Why's that?

 

[fromolwyoming]

Everyone has their own preferred defense and offense. And any of them can work, provided you have the players for the system. Each has their positives, and each their negatives. The 4-3 base defense is great at stopping power run oriented offenses and can get pressure without blitzing. The 3-4 defense can bring the 4th guy from almost any angle. The 3-3-5 is highly aggressive and can be a nightmare for blockers. The 4-2-5 is a great counter to the spread offense.

The negatives-
The 4-3 defense can have issues with the spread offense, as the linebackers generally are too big to keep up with 4 receivers.
The 3-4 has a similar problem, as well as opening a hole in coverage.
The 3-3-5 is highly susceptible to power run attacks and screens, making the defense pay for over aggressiveness.
The 4-2-5, while great at dealing with the spread, sacrifices the linebacker's size and strength for the DB's speed and agility, thus making it harder for them to deal with more power oriented teams.

 

[joshvanklomp]

The 4-3 defense can have issues with the spread offense, as the linebackers generally are too big to keep up with 4 receivers.

Aren't linebackers normally bigger in the 34?

 

[fromolwyoming]

The 4-3 defense can have issues with the spread offense, as the linebackers generally are too big to keep up with 4 receivers.

Aren't linebackers normally bigger in the 34?

Already covered this, if you had just read the line after that one, you would have see this.

The 3-4 has a similar problem, as well as opening a hole in coverage.