Vigen has to go

[SheepSlayer]

I mean, we can all scratch our heads about some play calls but to say play calling is suspect, like any of us know anything, is asinine. I also believe those people are wankers. If the jet sweep scored a td, we all whoop and holler for catching them off guard by not running up the gut. Frankly, it’s all about Ws and we’ve dropped two extremely close games.

Fans questioning play calling would be asinine IF it were just an isolated incident or two. However when we’re chronically “scratching our heads” it’s a little bigger of a problem. It doesn’t take a football expert to see that he’s not one. The jet sweep as designed had no chance of working. They had extra guys on that side and we provided no misdirection to even try to pull them away. The play calling issue goes way back, even the year our offense was great. Anyone else recall running QB power twice in a row on 3rd and 4th down to lose the MW championship game when we had a NFL running back and WRs and TE and QB. Running it once was fine and a good call, but lining up in the exact same formation and the exact same play call after it getting stuffed the play before was just plain stupid. None of us on this message board can coach a D1 offense, but sadly the guy hired to do so can’t either

 

[calpoke25]

You can say it’s silly to argue play calls because if it works we would all be happy, but you can’t argue with the cold hard stats at the end of the season that indicate something is terribly wrong with our offense.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If Mizzou holds, this will be the second year the current staff beat a team in the top 50 (maybe it was 75). I'd have to go back and look at my post but I think 3 total wins and all in the year we had a functional offense.

The current offense is fine to compete with and beat sub-75 teams and perhaps a few in the 50 to 75 range. Above 50 (it might even be 75) and data is pretty clear. O wins (depending on this year) when offense is sub 100...5 of 6 years.

The offense in 5 of 6 years is insufficient to legitimately and consistently challenge for the conference. Ball control is reflected by TOP and frankly, we aren't ranked that high there either...especially considering the weak schedule. I haven't had time but I'll bet TOP against teams in top 50 or 75 is even worse.

There is 0 chance Bohl thinks the O is ok despite what he says on TV. We've never been better than 3rd in the Mtn division with a sub 100 offense. It baffles me that people think it's fine or somehow out of bounds to question or criticize the O.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

I've seen literally no one say that Bohl shouldn't be subject to criticism.

I've seen multiple posters say that personnel decisions should be left to Bohl and no one else should dictate who he chooses for his staff.

Believe it to be nonsense but the moment Bohl is micromanaged he is gone.

Haha.... Thats ridiculous. Bohl does not come off as that thin skinned.

And more importantly, how is someone like Tom Burman telling Bohl his offense is putrid and wholly unacceptable micromanaging? It's the truth.

There's a big difference between being thin-skinned and having pride in running your program the way you see fit without being micromanaged.

No one should have a problem with Bohl being criticized. I'm just saying that if Burman starts dictating Bohl's staff, Bohl will NOT be ok with that.

I don't understand how potentially addressing the issue of Bohl-led UW teams consistently having AWFUL offenses is micromanaging, but if it is than micromanage away. There is no excuse for being one of the worst offensive teams in the country in year 5. Anyone defending this offense or running interference for Bohl claiming he shouldn't be held responsible or have to answer for this offense and his insistence on deflecting blame from Vigen is crazy to me.

The amount of posters on this board who are excited for another bowl of "Good Enough" is scary. I love the Cowboys but casual mediocrity is not something I am interested in. The whole argument of "well look where we were 5 years ago blah blah blah" seems so strange to me. This team is SO close to being special but are being sabotaged from within. To claim anything else is Bohl/Vigen homerism and not being objective to the situation.

No one here is saying it's ok for the offense to stay the way it is. I think EVERYONE would agree that something needs to change. Whether that is in philosophy, personnel, staff, whatever...

What we ARE trying to say is that the answer is NOT having the AD or admin force Bohl to fire someone. There are plenty of ways to change things up, but forcing the matter may lead to something that no one wants.

So does the AD not have the cause to fire Edwards? Or is that also micromanaging? At what point of something not working does it become the smart move versus micromanaging? Gimme a break. Bohl and Vigen and Dickert and everyone else on that sideline are employees. They can be fired. Its not micromanaging. Bohl and Vigens friendship is not bigger than the University. If Burman wants a change it'll happen. If Bohl can't see the change was necessary for the team and that it wasn't an attack on him or Vigen, then he probably shouldn't be a head coach.

 

[Bryoming]

So does the AD not have the cause to fire Edwards? Or is that also micromanaging? At what point of something not working does it become the smart move versus micromanaging? Gimme a break. Bohl and Vigen and Dickert and everyone else on that sideline are employees. They can be fired. Its not micromanaging. Bohl and Vigens friendship is not bigger than the University. If Burman wants a change it'll happen. If Bohl can't see the change was necessary for the team and that it wasn't an attack on him or Vigen, then he probably shouldn't be a head coach.

Think of the athletic department as a corporate structure. Each each coach manages their product line. The CEO is the athletic director. Each Head Coach is the manager of their product. The coordinators are department heads. The assistant coaches are the engineers designing the final product, which the players build.

In the corporate world, the CEO really doesn't know what the day-to-day is on each individual product. He's got 17 different products to look after, and he has to boil it down to a handful of metrics. He doesn't much care about how each individual department contributes to the product, just the product overall. When the whole product is failing, the CEO gets involved. If one department within the product is struggling, the manager gets with the department head to figure out a solution.

You'll never see a good CEO micro-manage a product. They have too many products to worry about to focus on one. When they do that every other product suffers. You'll DEFINITELY never see them micromanage a department. You think Warren Buffett has any idea what goes into balancing the menu at Dairy Queen? (Berkshire Hathaway owns DQ) No. All he cares about is how DQ is performing as a whole. Same thing here. Burman knows that the offense is struggling, but he's not in charge of making any changes there. He's got Craig Bohl for that. If he starts making changes he basically tells his head coach that he doesn't get to control the product anymore, and the head coach will peace out and take a job where he can.

 

[SheepSlayer]

So does the AD not have the cause to fire Edwards? Or is that also micromanaging? At what point of something not working does it become the smart move versus micromanaging? Gimme a break. Bohl and Vigen and Dickert and everyone else on that sideline are employees. They can be fired. Its not micromanaging. Bohl and Vigens friendship is not bigger than the University. If Burman wants a change it'll happen. If Bohl can't see the change was necessary for the team and that it wasn't an attack on him or Vigen, then he probably shouldn't be a head coach.

Think of the athletic department as a corporate structure. Each each coach manages their product line. The CEO is the athletic director. Each Head Coach is the manager of their product. The coordinators are department heads. The assistant coaches are the engineers designing the final product, which the players build.

In the corporate world, the CEO really doesn't know what the day-to-day is on each individual product. He's got 17 different products to look after, and he has to boil it down to a handful of metrics. He doesn't much care about how each individual department contributes to the product, just the product overall. When the whole product is failing, the CEO gets involved. If one department within the product is struggling, the manager gets with the department head to figure out a solution.

You'll never see a good CEO micro-manage a product. They have too many products to worry about to focus on one. When they do that every other product suffers. You'll DEFINITELY never see them micromanage a department. You think Warren Buffett has any idea what goes into balancing the menu at Dairy Queen? (Berkshire Hathaway owns DQ) No. All he cares about is how DQ is performing as a whole. Same thing here. Burman knows that the offense is struggling, but he's not in charge of making any changes there. He's got Craig Bohl for that. If he starts making changes he basically tells his head coach that he doesn't get to control the product anymore, and the head coach will peace out and take a job where he can.

Except that this is the CEOs most public and profitable product so he likely pays more attention to this particular product than any other. So if Amazon has a fantastic product and business plan and every part is working smoothly, but the website is consistently crashing and costing the company boatloads of money that they would otherwise be raking in, I would 100% expect that Jeff Bezos would be all over the head of that department/product and if six years later there was no improvement, there is no doubt the guy in charge of the website would be out on the street.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Under no circumstance should an AD dictate coaching staff decisions. The decision is keep the HC or not. In this case, it better be keep the HC.

If possible, I would like to see Burman offer support to fund a new position of QB coach/passing game advisor/coordinator if funding were doable and Bohl thought it could help.

 

[LanderPoke]

You can say it’s silly to argue play calls because if it works we would all be happy, but you can’t argue with the cold hard stats at the end of the season that indicate something is terribly wrong with our offense.

Well said

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

So does the AD not have the cause to fire Edwards? Or is that also micromanaging? At what point of something not working does it become the smart move versus micromanaging? Gimme a break. Bohl and Vigen and Dickert and everyone else on that sideline are employees. They can be fired. Its not micromanaging. Bohl and Vigens friendship is not bigger than the University. If Burman wants a change it'll happen. If Bohl can't see the change was necessary for the team and that it wasn't an attack on him or Vigen, then he probably shouldn't be a head coach.

Think of the athletic department as a corporate structure. Each each coach manages their product line. The CEO is the athletic director. Each Head Coach is the manager of their product. The coordinators are department heads. The assistant coaches are the engineers designing the final product, which the players build.

In the corporate world, the CEO really doesn't know what the day-to-day is on each individual product. He's got 17 different products to look after, and he has to boil it down to a handful of metrics. He doesn't much care about how each individual department contributes to the product, just the product overall. When the whole product is failing, the CEO gets involved. If one department within the product is struggling, the manager gets with the department head to figure out a solution.

You'll never see a good CEO micro-manage a product. They have too many products to worry about to focus on one. When they do that every other product suffers. You'll DEFINITELY never see them micromanage a department. You think Warren Buffett has any idea what goes into balancing the menu at Dairy Queen? (Berkshire Hathaway owns DQ) No. All he cares about is how DQ is performing as a whole. Same thing here. Burman knows that the offense is struggling, but he's not in charge of making any changes there. He's got Craig Bohl for that. If he starts making changes he basically tells his head coach that he doesn't get to control the product anymore, and the head coach will peace out and take a job where he can.

Its not micromanaging to tell the head of the Dairy Queen department that menu item 3: STEAMED SHIT SANDWICH isn't selling well, make a change. Its still leaving the details up to him while also letting him know that the performance of the STEAMED SHIT SANDWICH is not acceptable and that his department needs to find a solution.

 

[PokeNer]

So does the AD not have the cause to fire Edwards? Or is that also micromanaging? At what point of something not working does it become the smart move versus micromanaging? Gimme a break. Bohl and Vigen and Dickert and everyone else on that sideline are employees. They can be fired. Its not micromanaging. Bohl and Vigens friendship is not bigger than the University. If Burman wants a change it'll happen. If Bohl can't see the change was necessary for the team and that it wasn't an attack on him or Vigen, then he probably shouldn't be a head coach.

Think of the athletic department as a corporate structure. Each each coach manages their product line. The CEO is the athletic director. Each Head Coach is the manager of their product. The coordinators are department heads. The assistant coaches are the engineers designing the final product, which the players build.

In the corporate world, the CEO really doesn't know what the day-to-day is on each individual product. He's got 17 different products to look after, and he has to boil it down to a handful of metrics. He doesn't much care about how each individual department contributes to the product, just the product overall. When the whole product is failing, the CEO gets involved. If one department within the product is struggling, the manager gets with the department head to figure out a solution.

You'll never see a good CEO micro-manage a product. They have too many products to worry about to focus on one. When they do that every other product suffers. You'll DEFINITELY never see them micromanage a department. You think Warren Buffett has any idea what goes into balancing the menu at Dairy Queen? (Berkshire Hathaway owns DQ) No. All he cares about is how DQ is performing as a whole. Same thing here. Burman knows that the offense is struggling, but he's not in charge of making any changes there. He's got Craig Bohl for that. If he starts making changes he basically tells his head coach that he doesn't get to control the product anymore, and the head coach will peace out and take a job where he can.

Except that this is the CEOs most public and profitable product so he likely pays more attention to this particular product than any other. So if Amazon has a fantastic product and business plan and every part is working smoothly, but the website is consistently crashing and costing the company boatloads of money that they would otherwise be raking in, I would 100% expect that Jeff Bezos would be all over the head of that department/product and if six years later there was no improvement, there is no doubt the guy in charge of the website would be out on the street.

WYO1016's comparison doesn't hold up. You're comparing Vigen's level to the guy balancing a menu in a Berkshire-Hathaway conglomerate? Vigen is more like a VP level position in a Corporate world, and I can assure you, that in most Corporate world,s the CEO knows exactly how the VP is performing and would most definitely put a heavy-hand on the President to ax his VP if he's not up to snuff. ESPECIALLY, in a role where the President's judgement may be skewed due to a close friendship with the VP.

I don't care if Bohl independently makes the decision to relieve Vigen of his duties (not necessarily fire, he can move to another role), or Burman puts a heavy-hand on him to do so. Either way, a change needs to be made.

 

[307bball]

This comes down to how the change is viewed. If the change is at the head coach level, I think most of us are very much on the Bohl Bandwagon. I view a change at the head coach position right now would have a high likelihood of getting worse overall results based on the past 20 years of Wyoming football.

What if we could have a change in some aspect of the offense?...whatever form that takes. Unless I miss my guess...most of us would sign up for that because some kind of change would most likely yield better results than we are getting now.

Now...what if those two questions are linked? If you KNEW (and i don't believe any of us KNOW), that the change you wanted to see on offense would only come about with a change of head coach...would you still want that change? For me that answer is no (for right now)...reasonable people could have a different answer to this. I understand that this is a simplified way of viewing this, but it is salient to the discussion we are having.

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

This brings up an interesting conundrum then. As we have seen in the past, when Bohl does see issues, he fixes them. Stanard is the best example I can think of. SO, based on what we've seen with Bohl's behavior and the fact that in his time here, Bohl's offenses have abysmal, to be kind, it leaves only two rational conclusions for me to gravitate towards. Either this above statement is true, and Bohl doesn't think the system is broken/needs addressed/etc. OR this isn't true and Bohl IS valuing his relationship with Vigen over results on the field. Both are unacceptable if we truly believe we are on an upward trajectory towards program relevance and sustainability.

Which would we rather have?

 

[PokeNer]

This comes down to how the change is viewed. If the change is at the head coach level, I think most of us are very much on the Bohl Bandwagon. I view a change at the head coach position right now would have a high likelihood of getting worse overall results based on the past 20 years of Wyoming football.

What if we could have a change in some aspect of the offense?...whatever form that takes. Unless I miss my guess...most of us would sign up for that because some kind of change would most likely yield better results than we are getting now.

Now...what if those two questions are linked? If you KNEW (and i don't believe any of us KNOW), that the change you wanted to see on offense would only come about with a change of head coach...would you still want that change? For me that answer is no (for right now)...reasonable people could have a different answer to this. I understand that this is a simplified way of viewing this, but it is salient to the discussion we are having.

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

I haven't seen any "personal" attacks. This is strictly business. The offense isn't performing for shit.
Essentially, us as fans are all shareholders in this ride. If the product sucks, we leave and the money will dry up. I didn't donate to CJC this year as Bohl didn't make a change on O and it was apparent we would still have the same shitty O product on the field; I will venture to guess that others will do the same. I'm not going to contribute money to someone that doesn't appear motivated to get us to the next level in the MWC. He's not backing up his promises that he came here to win championships.

I don't want Bohl gone; I do think he is the right fit. However, if he ultimately is too stubborn to make some sort of change on offense, then maybe it's his time.

Look at Coach O at LSU. He's very much cut from the same cloth as Bohl. He's a smash mouth football guy and loves to run the ball, control the clock, be physical... He realized that he can't get over the top without a change, so he completely overhauled the offense. They got more creative and started putting up points. If he continued to play second fiddle to Georgia, Bama, and the rest of the SEC, he knew he'd lose his job.

I know we're nowhere near the level of LSU or the SEC and I know we don't have a Joe Burrows at the helm, but it's the same scenario. If we want to get to the top of the MWC, something has to change. Play calling needs to be more creative, and less predictable. We need to execute plays when everything is on the line. After 6 years of Vigen, it's apparent to a large contingent of the fanbase that he can't deliver.

 

[307bball]

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

This brings up an interesting conundrum then. As we have seen in the past, when Bohl does see issues, he fixes them. Stanard is the best example I can think of. SO, based on what we've seen with Bohl's behavior and the fact that in his time here, Bohl's offenses have abysmal, to be kind, it leaves only two rational conclusions for me to gravitate towards. Either this above statement is true, and Bohl doesn't think the system is broken/needs addressed/etc. OR this isn't true and Bohl IS valuing his relationship with Vigen over results on the field. Both are unacceptable if we truly believe we are on an upward trajectory towards program relevance and sustainability.

Which would we rather have?

Surely he knows the offense needs addressed. Knowing something needs work and actually making the changes needed to fix it are very much different. I'd go out on a limb and say even "bad" coaches know when something is not working.....probably they even know what it would take to fix it. The diference is in motivational/leadership skills. There are a lot of brilliant x's and o's guys who get elevated to HC and fail. The straw that stirs the drink is that blend of leadership/knowledge that gets guys to buy in.

I guess if you have a terrible program (like wyoming has had) and at some point you have a good program...what does that middle point look like? I don't think it was obvious before (or after) the Fiesta Bowl win for BSU long ago that they would be the powerhouse that they are in 2019. How do you know you are on the wrong path? or right path?

 

[fromolwyoming]

6 years of Vigen, and only 1 time did we have an above average offense. And all the key players from then are now in the pros. Aside from then, our offense has been consistently one of the worst, and has had to be bailed out by the defense, time and again. A few times, Vigen does open up the playbook, and low and behold, we can move the ball!

But, aside from really bad teams (Nevada schools and UNM), we haven't been able to power through.

QB play is another issue. Yes, the staff does tend to find big QBs with big arms, but their development, or lack thereof, really sets them back, developing a lot of bad habits in the process. Look at Josh Allen, he faced a LOT of criticism for his awful footwork, hero ball, lack of reading the defense, etc.

Cue year 2 in the NFL, and having an actual QB coach, Josh looks night and day different. He's even able to throw short passes without turning the ball into a missile!

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

This brings up an interesting conundrum then. As we have seen in the past, when Bohl does see issues, he fixes them. Stanard is the best example I can think of. SO, based on what we've seen with Bohl's behavior and the fact that in his time here, Bohl's offenses have abysmal, to be kind, it leaves only two rational conclusions for me to gravitate towards. Either this above statement is true, and Bohl doesn't think the system is broken/needs addressed/etc. OR this isn't true and Bohl IS valuing his relationship with Vigen over results on the field. Both are unacceptable if we truly believe we are on an upward trajectory towards program relevance and sustainability.

Which would we rather have?

OR Bohl knows the O needs work but doesn't believe Vigen is the problem. Perhaps Bohl views something else as the problem and it can't be addressed until the offseason.
I too think Vigen is in over his head, but I give Bohl the benefit of the doubt. If he thinks it's something else, let's see what he does to fix it.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

This brings up an interesting conundrum then. As we have seen in the past, when Bohl does see issues, he fixes them. Stanard is the best example I can think of. SO, based on what we've seen with Bohl's behavior and the fact that in his time here, Bohl's offenses have abysmal, to be kind, it leaves only two rational conclusions for me to gravitate towards. Either this above statement is true, and Bohl doesn't think the system is broken/needs addressed/etc. OR this isn't true and Bohl IS valuing his relationship with Vigen over results on the field. Both are unacceptable if we truly believe we are on an upward trajectory towards program relevance and sustainability.

Which would we rather have?

OR Bohl knows the O needs work but doesn't believe Vigen is the problem. Perhaps Bohl views something else as the problem and it can't be addressed until the offseason.
I too think Vigen is in over his head, but I give Bohl the benefit of the doubt. If he thinks it's something else, let's see what he does to fix it.

This will be his 6th offseason to address it.... Whats different this season from his first? I sure hope Bohl has finally seen enough...

 

[brownngold]

Here what i'm pretty certain of...The instant that Craig Bohl feels like he can get better results with a different system or different personnel he will make that change. There is no way that anybody on that staff is saying "Boy, we would be amazing if we had a different system/playcalls/OC, but because we value loyalty and old-school football we won't change". They are certain that what they are teaching/coaching gives the Wyoming football team the best chance that it has to win...and frankly as a fan I want the leaders at Wyoming to have that attitude...especially in the middle of the season. The personal attacks on Bohl/Vigen leave a bad taste in my mouth...

This brings up an interesting conundrum then. As we have seen in the past, when Bohl does see issues, he fixes them. Stanard is the best example I can think of. SO, based on what we've seen with Bohl's behavior and the fact that in his time here, Bohl's offenses have abysmal, to be kind, it leaves only two rational conclusions for me to gravitate towards. Either this above statement is true, and Bohl doesn't think the system is broken/needs addressed/etc. OR this isn't true and Bohl IS valuing his relationship with Vigen over results on the field. Both are unacceptable if we truly believe we are on an upward trajectory towards program relevance and sustainability.

Which would we rather have?

OR Bohl knows the O needs work but doesn't believe Vigen is the problem. Perhaps Bohl views something else as the problem and it can't be addressed until the offseason.
I too think Vigen is in over his head, but I give Bohl the benefit of the doubt. If he thinks it's something else, let's see what he does to fix it.

This will be his 6th offseason to address it.... Whats different this season from his first? I sure hope Bohl has finally seen enough...

What went wrong today?

 

[laxwyo]

I thought Vigen called a good game. They finally did something to kick start this offense just enough to extend a few drives and punch it in when we needed it. This game is always ugly and we won ugly

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

I didn't really mind the play calling today. Was certainly called much smarter than Bobo did.