New coach press conference.....

[Old-Bull]

This has me excited.

One thing you'll notice is the difference in passion between Polasek and Vigen. This guy gets you pumped. He talks about attacking the entire 53 yard width of the field. Sounds good to me.

The only year I can remember Bohl talking about the team contending for a title was 2016, when he said the cavalry is coming. Not to raise expectations but Bohl is talking about kicking the door down to the conference title. Bohl doesn't talk like this unless he knows its possible.

We have to avoid injuries, suspensions and pandemics but this could be a good year. We need some luck.....

Here you go, this has me pumped.

https://youtu.be/4QDNMlW0OFI

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Polasek on Chambers "he has it" comparing Chambers to Carson Wentz, Josh Allen and Jordan Lynch (Northern Illinois).

I've always thought the same thing. Chambers brings a passion to the game and is the ultimate competitor (similar to Allen). Although I've always compared Chambers to Tim Tebow in terms of skillset and competitiveness. This appears to foreshadow who may be the starting QB. And I certainly hope so.

 

[Old-Bull]

Polasek on Chambers "he has it" comparing Chambers to Carson Wentz, Josh Allen and Jordan Lynch (Northern Illinois).

I've always thought the same thing. Chambers brings a passion to the game and is the ultimate competitor (similar to Allen). Although I've always compared Chambers to Tim Tebow in terms of skillset and competitiveness. This appears to foreshadow who may be the starting QB. And I certainly hope so.

Qb and wr are about the only positions on the field I'm worried about.

I like the guys we have at both positions and I'm more comfortable with the wrs, because we haven't even really tried to use them.

At qb I'm not sure if we recruited guys that can't throw or if they were just used really poorly. Since Allens best year here was about 55 percent completions it makes me feel like it was a coaching issue and that competent coaching can fix it.

It will be interesting to see what happens. We don't need a guy that can throw like Josh but we do need a guy that can hit an open receiver from play action and a coach that can make that work. We'll see I guess. Maybe the long term answer at qb is one of the guys thats already here.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Polasek on Chambers "he has it" comparing Chambers to Carson Wentz, Josh Allen and Jordan Lynch (Northern Illinois).

I've always thought the same thing. Chambers brings a passion to the game and is the ultimate competitor (similar to Allen). Although I've always compared Chambers to Tim Tebow in terms of skillset and competitiveness. This appears to foreshadow who may be the starting QB. And I certainly hope so.

Qb and wr are about the only positions on the field I'm worried about.

I like the guys we have at both positions and I'm more comfortable with the wrs, because we haven't even really tried to use them.

At qb I'm not sure if we recruited guys that can't throw or if they were just used really poorly. Since Allens best year here was about 55 percent completions it makes me feel like it was a coaching issue and that competent coaching can fix it.

It will be interesting to see what happens. We don't need a guy that can throw like Josh but we do need a guy that can hit an open receiver from play action and a coach that can make that work. We'll see I guess. Maybe the long term answer at qb is one of the guys thats already here.

Neyor is the most physically gifted receiver we have had since Josh Doctson. I also am interested to see what he can do in more of a competent passing offense.

 

[HR_Poke]

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like much is changing offensively.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like much is changing offensively.

Polasek made it a strong point that the team will be using all 53 yards side to side. Wyoming's offense under Vigen did not typically pull defenders away from the line of scrimmage, and, rarely moved the ball outside of the hashes. My take is that Polasek will be looking to create more space with run plays designed to the outside and perhaps more quick screens/slants to the receivers and tight ends.

 

[Old-Bull]

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like much is changing offensively.

If you were expecting us to abandon a run offense for a spread offense that wasn't very realistic.

I think the goal was to find someone that can operate a power run offense(Bohls philosophy) and pass the ball effectively.

If you remember some of the old Fischer Deberry offenses, they would pass the ball 15 times a game and complete 13 of them because it was always a surprise when they did throw.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Love the enthusiasm and the concept of utilizing more of the field in the offense. I think the change in demeanor will be good. I don't think Vigen was a Cockhill or anything, but his offense was always so tight and appeared afraid to play offense. That is what I think will change the most. The fear of playing offense will leave and the players will make plays.

I also like Chambers, but I don't think he throws a great ball most of the time. They need to get his touch, velocity, and accuracy under control. The WR core also has to have more than 1 threat. With that said, I felt there were a lot of pass plays that could/should have worked last season. The players didn't make the plays. It goes back to the point above. It seemed the players were afraid to play offense. When Vigen dialed up a pass play and the players didn't make the play, it seemed the fear snowballed for both Vigen and the players.

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

 

[Old-Bull]

I loved Polasek's quote about how every offense needs elements of the spread, elements of option....

One way to guarantee there aren't eight men in the box is to put 4 wrs out wide.

He seemed to notice that we need to attack the full width of the field as well. This board has been asking why we never ran sweeps or options. Maybe that's some of the option elements he's talking about. We have the personnel to be very successful with student body left or triple options.

We've got the size in our tight end and receiver groups that we can run routes that trap the defender out of the catch radius of a guy that's 6'3" to 6'7". I'm hoping we see more of that. It doesnt matter if you're open if the defender has to come through the body of a guy 7 inches taller than him.

I agree about the negative vibe the offense had. A fresh start is exactly what the offense needs.

 

[LanderPoke]

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like much is changing offensively.

I am hopeful, but I understand your sentiment.

Polasec said some good things. Bohl tried to say some good thing, but always qualified it by saying "now, we're not going to get too crazy...", Grant said some good things.

My hope is that Vigen was so incompetent and worthless that just not having him around will do wonders for the team. I am hoping the QBs will markedly improve. I honestly believe Vigen doesn't know jack shit about being a QB or coaching them. It was obvious.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

This is make believe. I really dislike arguments that make up facts in an attempt to bolster one's own argument. They certainly do not impress judges, I can tell you that.

Not a single poster that I can recall praised Vigen's offensive coaching and play calling ability (outside of a series or two in various games where the play calls appeared to work out). The praise Vigen did get was mostly related to some of the players he was able to help recruit over the years. However, many posters (myself included) consistently stated that the offensive coordinator and the offense quite simply is Bohl's decision...and ultimately it is wrong to micromanage the head coach. If a change was never made and the team continued to struggle, then Bohl and Vigen would both be gone.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

This is make believe. I really dislike arguments that make up facts in an attempt to bolster one's own argument. They certainly do not impress judges, I can tell you that.

Not a single poster that I can recall praised Vigen's offensive coaching and play calling ability (outside of a series or two in various games where the play calls appeared to work out). The praise Vigen did get was mostly related to some of the players he was able to help recruit over the years. However, many posters (myself included) consistently stated that the offensive coordinator and the offense quite simply is Bohl's decision...and ultimately it is wrong to micromanage the head coach. If a change was never made and the team continued to struggle, then Bohl and Vigen would both be gone.

I'd hedge my bet too. We're about to find out if it is Bohl's fault or Vigen's.

 

[307bball]

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

This is make believe. I really dislike arguments that make up facts in an attempt to bolster one's own argument. They certainly do not impress judges, I can tell you that.

Not a single poster that I can recall praised Vigen's offensive coaching and play calling ability (outside of a series or two in various games where the play calls appeared to work out). The praise Vigen did get was mostly related to some of the players he was able to help recruit over the years. However, many posters (myself included) consistently stated that the offensive coordinator and the offense quite simply is Bohl's decision...and ultimately it is wrong to micromanage the head coach. If a change was never made and the team continued to struggle, then Bohl and Vigen would both be gone.

I'd hedge my bet too. We're about to find out if it is Bohl's fault or Vigen's.

One of two things will happen:

1. The offense continues to sputter...Offensive production for the last few years is Bohl's fault.
2. The offense improves...Offensive production for the last few years is still Bohl's fault.

In outcome #2...that will mean that Bohl stuck with a really bad OC for waaaaaay to long. I'm not even sure he deserves credit for finally moving on from Vigen, he defended him for far to long and if Montana had not come calling....he's probably still at the helm. Our offense was far too bad for far too long to be anybody's fault but the HC. I know that there are theories out there about CB giving out ultimatums behind the scenes...pure speculation IMO. I'm hoping for outcome number 2 but I'm not sure Bohl gets much credit for any offensive uptick this year. That is a weird place to be in where a HC gets blamed for bad performance but not the credit when the performance goes up, but CB created this situation by staying with Vigen when he should not have.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Meh. Just because you define it that way doesn't make it so.

If replacing Vigen proves to substantially improve the offense, it will be obvious that Vigen was the problem.

You can trace that to whomever you want but that doesn't make it so. Bohl for sticking with Vigen, AD for sticking with Bohl, Pesident for sticking with AD, Board of Regents for sticking with president, Governor for sticking with Board of Regents, WYO people for sticking with governor, ... maybe that's it. It's the voters' fault Vigen failed.

 

[laxwyo]

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

This is make believe. I really dislike arguments that make up facts in an attempt to bolster one's own argument. They certainly do not impress judges, I can tell you that.

Not a single poster that I can recall praised Vigen's offensive coaching and play calling ability (outside of a series or two in various games where the play calls appeared to work out). The praise Vigen did get was mostly related to some of the players he was able to help recruit over the years. However, many posters (myself included) consistently stated that the offensive coordinator and the offense quite simply is Bohl's decision...and ultimately it is wrong to micromanage the head coach. If a change was never made and the team continued to struggle, then Bohl and Vigen would both be gone.

Agreed. I was more of a “if you think in game play calling is the reason we lost, you’re a moron” kind of guy which was oddly confused as being a Vigen apologist. It’s not like they scribble new plays in the grass if they’re playbook isn’t working.

 

[307bball]

Meh. Just because you define it that way doesn't make it so.

If replacing Vigen proves to substantially improve the offense, it will be obvious that Vigen was the problem.

You can trace that to whomever you want but that doesn't make it so. Bohl for sticking with Vigen, AD for sticking with Bohl, Pesident for sticking with AD, Board of Regents for sticking with president, Governor for sticking with Board of Regents, WYO people for sticking with governor, ... maybe that's it. It's the voters' fault Vigen failed.

I'm confused... Is there any doubt that Vigen was not a good OC? I'll go on the record right now and say that Vigen was the problem.... Doesn't absolve CB from never seeing it.... Again... If montana didn't take him off out hands, he's still here.

It's not like we had one or two years of bad offense. Bohl has been the head coach of a perennially terrible offensive team. I do think he ultimately bears that responsibility.

 

[307bball]

We'll see if the Vigen fanboys are right or those of us who questioned his ability as OC are right. I like Vigen as a person and as a coach just not an OC. The offense had a weird vibe under him and I think the offense will improve drastically by eliminating that vibe--not eliminating the playbook.

This is make believe. I really dislike arguments that make up facts in an attempt to bolster one's own argument. They certainly do not impress judges, I can tell you that.

Not a single poster that I can recall praised Vigen's offensive coaching and play calling ability (outside of a series or two in various games where the play calls appeared to work out). The praise Vigen did get was mostly related to some of the players he was able to help recruit over the years. However, many posters (myself included) consistently stated that the offensive coordinator and the offense quite simply is Bohl's decision...and ultimately it is wrong to micromanage the head coach. If a change was never made and the team continued to struggle, then Bohl and Vigen would both be gone.

Agreed. I was more of a “if you think in game play calling is the reason we lost, you’re a moron” kind of guy which was oddly confused as being a Vigen apologist. It’s not like they scribble new plays in the grass if they’re playbook isn’t working.

Right on...I think the Vigen fan boy club has one member in it and he's living in montana now. :lol:

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Hmm, I remember things a little different. Sure there was the common phrase of implicating Bohl saying Bohl was responsible for the offense and the plays that were called...we'll see on that. If play calling and player performance changes, we can safely say that was a lie other than Bohl sticking with Vigen which of course we can then convict the AD at minimum.

I also remember BALL CONTROL; you pansies would have run Tiller out of town; we don't need to score lots of points; Vigen is good enough to compete with any team on the schedule, Stanard is a not a good example of what a change at coordinator can do because Stanard just had young teams--the coaching change credit is overblown, a change at coordinator won't do much because it is Bohl's system and Bohl's playbook, yada yada yada.

At the end of the day, we're about to find out if Vigen was holding this team back no matter how much blame you place on Bohl for sticking with his buddy or Burman for sticking with Bohl or.....

 

[307bball]

Hmm, I remember things a little different. Sure there was the common phrase of implicating Bohl saying Bohl was responsible for the offense and the plays that were called...we'll see on that. If play calling and player performance changes, we can safely say that was a lie other than Bohl sticking with Vigen which of course we can then convict the AD at minimum.

I also remember BALL CONTROL; you pansies would have run Tiller out of town; we don't need to score lots of points; Vigen is good enough to compete with any team on the schedule, Stanard is a not a good example of what a change at coordinator can do because Stanard just had young teams--the coaching change credit is overblown, a change at coordinator won't do much because it is Bohl's system and Bohl's playbook, yada yada yada.

At the end of the day, we're about to find out if Vigen was holding this team back no matter how much blame you place on Bohl for sticking with his buddy or Burman for sticking with Bohl or.....

I will let you speak for yourself...It seems that you are insulating Bohl from Vigen's failures...I am not.

The whole "going up the chain" argument is not one I'm making. It's a dumb argument that nobody is making but it is convenient to argue with...I'll give you that. The amount of staw-man arguments made on message boards is mind-boggling. (I have even made a few myself )

My opinion is that Bohl felt like what Vigen brought to the table gave the cowboys the best chance to excel...I do not let him off the hook for that. He was wrong. And if Montana had not hired Vigen we would still be in that position. I think the verdict is in that Vigen's ability to implement what Bohl wanted definitely held the team back. I would be shocked if our offense is not better next year, AND I hold Bohl accountable to how bad the offense has been the last few years.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Hmm, I remember things a little different. Sure there was the common phrase of implicating Bohl saying Bohl was responsible for the offense and the plays that were called...we'll see on that. If play calling and player performance changes, we can safely say that was a lie other than Bohl sticking with Vigen which of course we can then convict the AD at minimum.

I also remember BALL CONTROL; you pansies would have run Tiller out of town; we don't need to score lots of points; Vigen is good enough to compete with any team on the schedule, Stanard is a not a good example of what a change at coordinator can do because Stanard just had young teams--the coaching change credit is overblown, a change at coordinator won't do much because it is Bohl's system and Bohl's playbook, yada yada yada.

At the end of the day, we're about to find out if Vigen was holding this team back no matter how much blame you place on Bohl for sticking with his buddy or Burman for sticking with Bohl or.....

I will let you speak for yourself...It seems that you are insulating Bohl from Vigen's failures...I am not.

The whole "going up the chain" argument is not one I'm making. It's a dumb argument that nobody is making but it is convenient to argue with...I'll give you that. The amount of staw-man arguments made on message boards is mind-boggling. (I have even made a few myself )

My opinion is that Bohl felt like what Vigen brought to the table gave the cowboys the best chance to excel...I do not let him off the hook for that. He was wrong. And if Montana had not hired Vigen we would still be in that position. I think the verdict is in that Vigen's ability to implement what Bohl wanted definitely held the team back. I would be shocked if our offense is not better next year, AND I hold Bohl accountable to how bad the offense has been the last few years.

I don't think ANYONE would argue that Bohl stuck with Vigen WAAAAY too long and that is Bohl's fault. I also am not sure your assumption that Vigen was going to be here in the OC role if MSU didn't hire him is correct. We'll have to leave that one at speculation both ways.

However, some of the past sentiments about Bohl being responsible for the day-to-day operation of the offense is what's on trial. Blaming Bohl for the play calling is asinine. Vigen ran the offense and Bohl is guilty of sticking with him too long just like Glenn did with Cockhill (again, that point is without question and mind boggling). However, all those who said things like "this is Bohl's playbook and he effectively calls the plays; changing Vigen won't change the offense like changing Stanard did because it is Bohl's system and what he wants; Bohl tells Vigen what to run; etc. etc.".

It will still be Bohl's offense and Bohl's playbook, so we'll see if it is accurate to convict Bohl of his involvement in the offense beyond sticking with Vigen too long. It is also not a strawman to blame at minimum the AD for the failures of the football team. After all, the AD extended Bohl which would be an endorsement of Bohl's team...including the offense.