Missouri Game

[Asmodeanreborn]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

 

[LanderPoke]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

If you could combine DC's offense with Craig Bohls\'s defenses then you'd have a team. But DC had a "fly by night" offense according to Bohl, so Bohl would never go for that.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

The offense was not as good as it seemed on paper under DC. A lot of that production came in games that had long since been decided. Spread is very effective in moving the ball against a prevent.

 

[fromolwyoming]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

Not really, no. Against bad defenses, yeah. We would get into shoot outs. Against a defense with any sort of competence, we would be lucky to get 7 points. There was a LOT of quick 3 and outs. Even with Brett Smith.

 

[laxwyo]

Nice fucking ethics

 

[The Virginian]

I always wondered why it seemed like Christensen was so liked at Missouri. Quite frankly, he was a big jerk at Wyoming to players and boosters alike. I think having Chase Daniel, Jeremy Maclin and Chase Coffman had more to do with the success at Missouri than him. It was so strange when he was the Wyoming head coach and then was on the sideline for the Missouri bowl game, that never sat right with me.

I can't say I disagree. DC had some great offenses at Mizzou and he was kind of thought to be Gary Pinkel's likely successor. Pinkel's staff had a crazy lack of turnover, the entire coaching staff remained intact from the time he took the job in 2001 to when DC left in 2008. We thought he would do great things at Wyoming. But he had a much different personality than Don James/Gary Pinkel and he did not make a lot of friends. You all know more about that part than I do. He was a better offensive coordinator than head coach.

DC never understood the dynamics of a state with a population of just over 500,000. A place where if you don’t know someone you likely know someone that does. DC was too aloof and not very amicable, especially coming in after Joe Glenn, who was 180 degrees out from DC. And not winning didn’t help either didn’t help.

 

[ELKMT]

Well, Bohl coached his team in the FCS playoffs when he was hired as the head coach at Wyoming. So why would it matter if Christensen attended a Bowl?

 

[307bball]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

Not really, no. Against bad defenses, yeah. We would get into shoot outs. Against a defense with any sort of competence, we would be lucky to get 7 points. There was a LOT of quick 3 and outs. Even with Brett Smith.

Right on...I would have hated to play defense for Wyoming during those years...That teams defense was constantly against the wall with short fields and being on the field for most of the game. So much of Wyoming's stouter defense under Bohl comes from a protect the defense approach to Offense. Bit of a trade-off really. You probably score less if that is your focus but, if your good, you'll hold opponents to less as well.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Well, Bohl coached his team in the FCS playoffs when he was hired as the head coach at Wyoming. So why would it matter if Christensen attended a Bowl?

Bohl was the current NDSU coach going for a national championship. DC had been the coach at Wyoming for a year and was on Missouri’s sideline for a bowl acting like he was on Missouri’s staff or a Missouri volunteer. Not even comparable.

 

[LanderPoke]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

Not really, no. Against bad defenses, yeah. We would get into shoot outs. Against a defense with any sort of competence, we would be lucky to get 7 points. There was a LOT of quick 3 and outs. Even with Brett Smith.

Right on...I would have hated to play defense for Wyoming during those years...That teams defense was constantly against the wall with short fields and being on the field for most of the game. So much of Wyoming's stouter defense under Bohl comes from a protect the defense approach to Offense. Bit of a trade-off really. You probably score less if that is your focus but, if your good, you'll hold opponents to less as well.

not sure if serious..... this is what Bohl would like to accomplish but fails miserably at. We have just as many three and outs and punt just as much or more than any DC team. Can’t believe I’m defending DC. I’m starting to sound like beaverpoke

 

[fromolwyoming]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

Not really, no. Against bad defenses, yeah. We would get into shoot outs. Against a defense with any sort of competence, we would be lucky to get 7 points. There was a LOT of quick 3 and outs. Even with Brett Smith.

Right on...I would have hated to play defense for Wyoming during those years...That teams defense was constantly against the wall with short fields and being on the field for most of the game. So much of Wyoming's stouter defense under Bohl comes from a protect the defense approach to Offense. Bit of a trade-off really. You probably score less if that is your focus but, if your good, you'll hold opponents to less as well.

not sure if serious..... this is what Bohl would like to accomplish but fails miserably at. We have just as many three and outs and punt just as much or more than any DC team. Can’t believe I’m defending DC. I’m starting to sound like beaverpoke

Under DC, we would be 3 and out in about 15 seconds. And with a badly coached defense, they got gashed. If nothing else, and you're making me defend Vigen, his slower paced runs up the middle, combined with the huddle, at least amount to over a minute on his 3 and outs.

The only reason we MIGHT have more 3 and outs, is because the defense has actually improved overall and gets the ball back.

 

[LanderPoke]

We did have consistently good offensive production under DC, even when we sucked. The problem was our defense and special teams were atrociously bad.

Not really, no. Against bad defenses, yeah. We would get into shoot outs. Against a defense with any sort of competence, we would be lucky to get 7 points. There was a LOT of quick 3 and outs. Even with Brett Smith.

Right on...I would have hated to play defense for Wyoming during those years...That teams defense was constantly against the wall with short fields and being on the field for most of the game. So much of Wyoming's stouter defense under Bohl comes from a protect the defense approach to Offense. Bit of a trade-off really. You probably score less if that is your focus but, if your good, you'll hold opponents to less as well.

not sure if serious..... this is what Bohl would like to accomplish but fails miserably at. We have just as many three and outs and punt just as much or more than any DC team. Can’t believe I’m defending DC. I’m starting to sound like beaverpoke

Under DC, we would be 3 and out in about 15 seconds. And with a badly coached defense, they got gashed. If nothing else, and you're making me defend Vigen, his slower paced runs up the middle, combined with the huddle, at least amount to over a minute on his 3 and outs.

The only reason we MIGHT have more 3 and outs, is because the defense has actually improved overall and gets the ball back.

Fair points. Both offenses are/were far cries from "ball control" offenses. It would be nice to have one of those at Wyoming