Vigen has to go

[LanderPoke]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

 

[SheepSlayer]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

If we scored 30 points every game we’d be 11-1 and playing for a potential NY6 this weekend. 12-0 if you kept defensive scores.

30 might be asking too much with our style of play and might’ve also hurt our defense, but what if our offense just scored 21 every game and we kept our defensive scores? We’d have two losses to SDSU and Tulsa and would’ve taken Mizzou to OT. I think it’s fair to ask for an offense that can score 21 points in a game

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

If we scored 30 points every game we’d be 11-1 and playing for a potential NY6 this weekend. 12-0 if you kept defensive scores.

30 might be asking too much with our style of play and might’ve also hurt our defense, but what if our offense just scored 21 every game and we kept our defensive scores? We’d have two losses to SDSU and Tulsa and would’ve taken Mizzou to OT. I think it’s fair to ask for an offense that can score 21 points in a game

What if we did score 21 every game but turned the ball over 5-8 more times? Are we 5-7 or 4-8?

 

[SheepSlayer]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

If we scored 30 points every game we’d be 11-1 and playing for a potential NY6 this weekend. 12-0 if you kept defensive scores.

30 might be asking too much with our style of play and might’ve also hurt our defense, but what if our offense just scored 21 every game and we kept our defensive scores? We’d have two losses to SDSU and Tulsa and would’ve taken Mizzou to OT. I think it’s fair to ask for an offense that can score 21 points in a game

What if we did score 21 every game but turned the ball over 5-8 more times? Are we 5-7 or 4-8?

Good point, running dive right dive left and averaging 15 points a game on offense against divisional opponents is totally worth it since it means we won't turn the ball over (still turned it over 7 times in our 3 division losses). In fact, the safest play on offense to not turn it over is QB kneel so I think we should start throwing that into our 1st and 2nd down rotations.

 

[SheepSlayer]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

If we scored 30 points every game we’d be 11-1 and playing for a potential NY6 this weekend. 12-0 if you kept defensive scores.

30 might be asking too much with our style of play and might’ve also hurt our defense, but what if our offense just scored 21 every game and we kept our defensive scores? We’d have two losses to SDSU and Tulsa and would’ve taken Mizzou to OT. I think it’s fair to ask for an offense that can score 21 points in a game

What if we did score 21 every game but turned the ball over 5-8 more times? Are we 5-7 or 4-8?

Good point, running dive right dive left and averaging 15 points a game on offense against divisional opponents is totally worth it since it means we won't turn the ball over (still turned it over 7 times in our 3 division losses). In fact, the safest play on offense to not turn it over is QB kneel so I think we should start throwing that into our 1st and 2nd down rotations.

Of course we want to limit turnovers, but it is completely unreasonable to think we can't score 21 without a significant increase in turnovers. To put it into perspective, we averaged 15.4 points per game on offense against teams in our division. In the 2019 regular season, only two teams averaged fewer points per game, Rutgers and 0-12 Akron. We can do better than that.

Also, Hawaii has the most turnovers in college football this year and they're playing this weekend...

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

If we scored 30 points every game we’d be 11-1 and playing for a potential NY6 this weekend. 12-0 if you kept defensive scores.

30 might be asking too much with our style of play and might’ve also hurt our defense, but what if our offense just scored 21 every game and we kept our defensive scores? We’d have two losses to SDSU and Tulsa and would’ve taken Mizzou to OT. I think it’s fair to ask for an offense that can score 21 points in a game

What if we did score 21 every game but turned the ball over 5-8 more times? Are we 5-7 or 4-8?

Good point, running dive right dive left and averaging 15 points a game on offense against divisional opponents is totally worth it since it means we won't turn the ball over (still turned it over 7 times in our 3 division losses). In fact, the safest play on offense to not turn it over is QB kneel so I think we should start throwing that into our 1st and 2nd down rotations.

Those turnovers happened when we tried to air it out. Things don't work in a vacuum man. You have to take the bad with the good. You tell Chambers and TVW to air it out with our current set of receivers and you are guaranteed turnovers and probably a few pick 6s. One thing that doesn't get attention is for all the carries we have over the past few years, we don't fumble at a high percentage. Ball security is absolutely coached. Don't be ridiculous with 'QB kneel'.

Now...Levi Williams appears to be more accurate and I'd like to see what he has in the bowl game. We could have a lethal one-two punch with Chambers/Williams next year with the ability to throw the ball.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Of course we want to limit turnovers, but it is completely unreasonable to think we can't score 21 without a significant increase in turnovers. To put it into perspective, we averaged 15.4 points per game on offense against teams in our division. In the 2019 regular season, only two teams averaged fewer points per game, Rutgers and 0-12 Akron. We can do better than that.

Also, Hawaii has the most turnovers in college football this year and they're playing this weekend...

Wyoming would have beat Hawaii this year IMO. I've watched just about all of their games this year including the really late Army game this past weekend. Hawaii is playing this weekend because the West is a weak division, don't fool yourself. The best two teams in the conference are Boise State and Air Force.

 

[307bball]

Of course we want to limit turnovers, but it is completely unreasonable to think we can't score 21 without a significant increase in turnovers. To put it into perspective, we averaged 15.4 points per game on offense against teams in our division. In the 2019 regular season, only two teams averaged fewer points per game, Rutgers and 0-12 Akron. We can do better than that.

Also, Hawaii has the most turnovers in college football this year and they're playing this weekend...

Wyoming would have beat Hawaii this year IMO. I've watched just about all of their games this year including the really late Army game this past weekend. Hawaii is playing this weekend because the West is a weak division, don't fool yourself. The best two teams in the conference are Boise State and Air Force.

Agree w/that...seemed like one of AFA's better squads.

 

[307bball]

Christensens 9 win team means nothing, even though that's the highest win total weve had since the mid 90s.

In the past 30 years, Wyoming has won more than 8 games twice. 1990 and 1996. I must've fell through a wormhole or something when DC did it.

Yep! He must be referring to Christensen's 9 loss season. What a great and memorable season that was. Wish we could go back to those glory days...

Yep, I was wrong. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Others should try it, instead a doubling down and making ridiculous arguments to support what they've said in this past In fact, if we keep Vigen and we ever win a conference championship or have an offense that isn't terrible, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'll be happy to do so.

Christensen had an 8 win season in 5 years coaching. In 5 years Bohl has won 8 twice (with one being in a 14 game season.) He has the chance to repeat an 8 win season this year, though I'd be surprised if we did considering our abysmal record outside the war and against teams with a pulse.

As far as the straw man statement goes that's hilarious. I literally compiled the Vigen defenders arguments that I've heard over the past several years, and gave the reasons I think they were wrong. The only thing I added that I haven't heard directly on this board is that some of them are his buddies. That was half joking, but the way some of you defend him and try to promote him, literally saying he should be our next coach despite his performance as a coordinator, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it weren't true.

Besides, it's all in good fun, and we all just want this to get better. What else are we gonna talk about, our basketball team? No thanks!

As one of the members of this board that has been called out by name as supporting Vigen in very inappropriate terms....You definitely did not characterize my "support" of Vigen in any way that was even close to accurate...hence "straw man". Your first flaw was in thinking I have any loyalty to Vigen at all. I don't .... I don't hate the guy either. Just because somebody does not blindly agree w/you and points out other things that are objective truths...(as you did..I acknowledge that when you make claims about the offense that you are right on), doesn't make them a Vigen supporter. There are a lot of factors to W's and L's ... I reject a simplistic "Wyoming without Vigen is amazing" argument. I happen to believe that good teams are just that....TEAMS. You can't just slot Bohl's defense with DC's offense (although at times that offense was no good)...there has to be a "fit".

Finally...as far as excuses are concerned. I don't play college football...I assume that you don't either. If I was on the team and the guy ahead of me on the depth chart went down and we lost...the last thing I would say is "well if the starter hadn't been hurt we would have won". That is an excuse, pure and simple. Players and coaches must internalize the reasons that a game is won or lost and not make excuses. As fans/observers/commentators we get to speculate on the REASONS for under or over performance. I think ESPN.com had an article today looking at the reasons why Alabama fell out of the CFP this year. It was very interesting....talked a lot about a bunch of stuff from injuries to LSU finding a new gear on offense. It's all stuff that no self-respecting Alabama player or coach would ever use as an excuse but it's sure as heck not false!

As I mentioned before...I felt "bad" about the Win over Idaho because I expected to mop the floor w/them...I felt "good" about the loss to BSU because I did not expect Wyoming to contend in that game. Was it "bad" that we beat Idaho? or "good" that we lost to BSU? ...I don't think it is ever that simple.

Good lord. You felt good losing to BSU, that’s disgusting. Thank god you’re not involved with or directly connected to the football team. Moral victories are for pee wee teams and CSU fans. The ugliest win is always better than the prettiest loss. It’s funny you mention Alabama having excuses for dropping and one of them being their opponents offense found another gear. Imagine our record this year if our offense had any gears...

*Sigh*

Learn to interpret context...I realize you are a big man and cannot distinguish anything beyond "duh win equals good...lose equals bad". Putting a word in quotes signifies that it is being used in a manner that is not according to it's normal usage. This is not uncommon. When you see "good" or "bad" used in a context that is confusing to you, do yourself a favor and sit with that confusion... Challenge yourself to find the real meaning that the author was trying to impart. Don't get too down on yourself if it's not obvious at first. Heck... They taught a gorilla sign language!

As do teams that win consistently. You think Boise State cares about context? Or do they care about winning? You think Michigan cares they scored more this season against Ohio State than they did last season? You think Washington cares they beat the brakes off WSU again? Hell no. They're hella pissed they finished 7-5.

If not being satisfied by mediocrity is derpy to you, then I will take my crayons and will go derp it up. You can keep your "Good Enough" cool aid.

I guess if you cant tell the difference between getting ground to dust by quality teams and going toe to toe w/quality teams then we probably don't have much to talk about. Even if they are both losses, I actually prefer one to the other. If your choices are the 2014 home loss to BSU by almost 50 points or losing in overtime on the blue turf in OT...you really can't tell the difference? One means you don't belong on the field and the other means you are right on the cusp. Do you play for any of these teams?...Your "win or it's nothing" mindset makes sense from a player standpoint. Fans/observers can guage where teams are relative to the competition by how they compete in the games. Save yourself the time wasted watching if all you care about is who won.

I'm more familiar w/the basketball version of this....ever seen coaches that were satisfied with the effort of a team after a loss because the team played hard and together? Or a coach upset after a sloppy win?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Of course we want to limit turnovers, but it is completely unreasonable to think we can't score 21 without a significant increase in turnovers. To put it into perspective, we averaged 15.4 points per game on offense against teams in our division. In the 2019 regular season, only two teams averaged fewer points per game, Rutgers and 0-12 Akron. We can do better than that.

Also, Hawaii has the most turnovers in college football this year and they're playing this weekend...

Wyoming would have beat Hawaii this year IMO. I've watched just about all of their games this year including the really late Army game this past weekend. Hawaii is playing this weekend because the West is a weak division, don't fool yourself. The best two teams in the conference are Boise State and Air Force.

Agree w/that...seemed like one of AFA's better squads.

Air Force has 31 seniors and the majority of those seniors have had substantial playing experience over the years. Air Force was a very good team and one that I think could beat Boise now given another opportunity. I like Wyoming's chances against AF next year at home and with those 31 seniors gone.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Christensens 9 win team means nothing, even though that's the highest win total weve had since the mid 90s.

In the past 30 years, Wyoming has won more than 8 games twice. 1990 and 1996. I must've fell through a wormhole or something when DC did it.

Yep! He must be referring to Christensen's 9 loss season. What a great and memorable season that was. Wish we could go back to those glory days...

Yep, I was wrong. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Others should try it, instead a doubling down and making ridiculous arguments to support what they've said in this past In fact, if we keep Vigen and we ever win a conference championship or have an offense that isn't terrible, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'll be happy to do so.

Christensen had an 8 win season in 5 years coaching. In 5 years Bohl has won 8 twice (with one being in a 14 game season.) He has the chance to repeat an 8 win season this year, though I'd be surprised if we did considering our abysmal record outside the war and against teams with a pulse.

As far as the straw man statement goes that's hilarious. I literally compiled the Vigen defenders arguments that I've heard over the past several years, and gave the reasons I think they were wrong. The only thing I added that I haven't heard directly on this board is that some of them are his buddies. That was half joking, but the way some of you defend him and try to promote him, literally saying he should be our next coach despite his performance as a coordinator, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it weren't true.

Besides, it's all in good fun, and we all just want this to get better. What else are we gonna talk about, our basketball team? No thanks!

As one of the members of this board that has been called out by name as supporting Vigen in very inappropriate terms....You definitely did not characterize my "support" of Vigen in any way that was even close to accurate...hence "straw man". Your first flaw was in thinking I have any loyalty to Vigen at all. I don't .... I don't hate the guy either. Just because somebody does not blindly agree w/you and points out other things that are objective truths...(as you did..I acknowledge that when you make claims about the offense that you are right on), doesn't make them a Vigen supporter. There are a lot of factors to W's and L's ... I reject a simplistic "Wyoming without Vigen is amazing" argument. I happen to believe that good teams are just that....TEAMS. You can't just slot Bohl's defense with DC's offense (although at times that offense was no good)...there has to be a "fit".

Finally...as far as excuses are concerned. I don't play college football...I assume that you don't either. If I was on the team and the guy ahead of me on the depth chart went down and we lost...the last thing I would say is "well if the starter hadn't been hurt we would have won". That is an excuse, pure and simple. Players and coaches must internalize the reasons that a game is won or lost and not make excuses. As fans/observers/commentators we get to speculate on the REASONS for under or over performance. I think ESPN.com had an article today looking at the reasons why Alabama fell out of the CFP this year. It was very interesting....talked a lot about a bunch of stuff from injuries to LSU finding a new gear on offense. It's all stuff that no self-respecting Alabama player or coach would ever use as an excuse but it's sure as heck not false!

As I mentioned before...I felt "bad" about the Win over Idaho because I expected to mop the floor w/them...I felt "good" about the loss to BSU because I did not expect Wyoming to contend in that game. Was it "bad" that we beat Idaho? or "good" that we lost to BSU? ...I don't think it is ever that simple.

Good lord. You felt good losing to BSU, that’s disgusting. Thank god you’re not involved with or directly connected to the football team. Moral victories are for pee wee teams and CSU fans. The ugliest win is always better than the prettiest loss. It’s funny you mention Alabama having excuses for dropping and one of them being their opponents offense found another gear. Imagine our record this year if our offense had any gears...

*Sigh*

Learn to interpret context...I realize you are a big man and cannot distinguish anything beyond "duh win equals good...lose equals bad". Putting a word in quotes signifies that it is being used in a manner that is not according to it's normal usage. This is not uncommon. When you see "good" or "bad" used in a context that is confusing to you, do yourself a favor and sit with that confusion... Challenge yourself to find the real meaning that the author was trying to impart. Don't get too down on yourself if it's not obvious at first. Heck... They taught a gorilla sign language!

As do teams that win consistently. You think Boise State cares about context? Or do they care about winning? You think Michigan cares they scored more this season against Ohio State than they did last season? You think Washington cares they beat the brakes off WSU again? Hell no. They're hella pissed they finished 7-5.

If not being satisfied by mediocrity is derpy to you, then I will take my crayons and will go derp it up. You can keep your "Good Enough" cool aid.

I guess if you cant tell the difference between getting ground to dust by quality teams and going toe to toe w/quality teams then we probably don't have much to talk about. Even if they are both losses, I actually prefer one to the other. If your choices are the 2014 home loss to BSU by almost 50 points or losing in overtime on the blue turf in OT...you really can't tell the difference? One means you don't belong on the field and the other means you are right on the cusp. Do you play for any of these teams?...Your "win or it's nothing" mindset makes sense from a player standpoint. Fans/observers can guage where teams are relative to the competition by how they compete in the games. Save yourself the time wasted watching if all you care about is who won.

I'm more familiar w/the basketball version of this....ever seen coaches that were satisfied with the effort of a team after a loss because the team played hard and together? Or a coach upset after a sloppy win?

I do see that there is a difference between being blown out by 50 and losing by 1. But they're both losses. One isn't better than the other to me. I don't snuggle up at night with the warm fuzzies of moral victories. I don't want Bohl or anyone else to either. It should piss people off that we are still losing to these teams consistently. I don't care if we such less than we did 5 years ago. It's time for this team to take that next step. By all means, you are entitled to your thoughts and preferences, but I prefer close wins to close losses. "Good Enough" isn't good enough anymore.

 

[307bball]

Christensens 9 win team means nothing, even though that's the highest win total weve had since the mid 90s.

In the past 30 years, Wyoming has won more than 8 games twice. 1990 and 1996. I must've fell through a wormhole or something when DC did it.

Yep! He must be referring to Christensen's 9 loss season. What a great and memorable season that was. Wish we could go back to those glory days...

Yep, I was wrong. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Others should try it, instead a doubling down and making ridiculous arguments to support what they've said in this past In fact, if we keep Vigen and we ever win a conference championship or have an offense that isn't terrible, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'll be happy to do so.

Christensen had an 8 win season in 5 years coaching. In 5 years Bohl has won 8 twice (with one being in a 14 game season.) He has the chance to repeat an 8 win season this year, though I'd be surprised if we did considering our abysmal record outside the war and against teams with a pulse.

As far as the straw man statement goes that's hilarious. I literally compiled the Vigen defenders arguments that I've heard over the past several years, and gave the reasons I think they were wrong. The only thing I added that I haven't heard directly on this board is that some of them are his buddies. That was half joking, but the way some of you defend him and try to promote him, literally saying he should be our next coach despite his performance as a coordinator, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it weren't true.

Besides, it's all in good fun, and we all just want this to get better. What else are we gonna talk about, our basketball team? No thanks!

As one of the members of this board that has been called out by name as supporting Vigen in very inappropriate terms....You definitely did not characterize my "support" of Vigen in any way that was even close to accurate...hence "straw man". Your first flaw was in thinking I have any loyalty to Vigen at all. I don't .... I don't hate the guy either. Just because somebody does not blindly agree w/you and points out other things that are objective truths...(as you did..I acknowledge that when you make claims about the offense that you are right on), doesn't make them a Vigen supporter. There are a lot of factors to W's and L's ... I reject a simplistic "Wyoming without Vigen is amazing" argument. I happen to believe that good teams are just that....TEAMS. You can't just slot Bohl's defense with DC's offense (although at times that offense was no good)...there has to be a "fit".

Finally...as far as excuses are concerned. I don't play college football...I assume that you don't either. If I was on the team and the guy ahead of me on the depth chart went down and we lost...the last thing I would say is "well if the starter hadn't been hurt we would have won". That is an excuse, pure and simple. Players and coaches must internalize the reasons that a game is won or lost and not make excuses. As fans/observers/commentators we get to speculate on the REASONS for under or over performance. I think ESPN.com had an article today looking at the reasons why Alabama fell out of the CFP this year. It was very interesting....talked a lot about a bunch of stuff from injuries to LSU finding a new gear on offense. It's all stuff that no self-respecting Alabama player or coach would ever use as an excuse but it's sure as heck not false!

As I mentioned before...I felt "bad" about the Win over Idaho because I expected to mop the floor w/them...I felt "good" about the loss to BSU because I did not expect Wyoming to contend in that game. Was it "bad" that we beat Idaho? or "good" that we lost to BSU? ...I don't think it is ever that simple.

Good lord. You felt good losing to BSU, that’s disgusting. Thank god you’re not involved with or directly connected to the football team. Moral victories are for pee wee teams and CSU fans. The ugliest win is always better than the prettiest loss. It’s funny you mention Alabama having excuses for dropping and one of them being their opponents offense found another gear. Imagine our record this year if our offense had any gears...

*Sigh*

Learn to interpret context...I realize you are a big man and cannot distinguish anything beyond "duh win equals good...lose equals bad". Putting a word in quotes signifies that it is being used in a manner that is not according to it's normal usage. This is not uncommon. When you see "good" or "bad" used in a context that is confusing to you, do yourself a favor and sit with that confusion... Challenge yourself to find the real meaning that the author was trying to impart. Don't get too down on yourself if it's not obvious at first. Heck... They taught a gorilla sign language!

As do teams that win consistently. You think Boise State cares about context? Or do they care about winning? You think Michigan cares they scored more this season against Ohio State than they did last season? You think Washington cares they beat the brakes off WSU again? Hell no. They're hella pissed they finished 7-5.

If not being satisfied by mediocrity is derpy to you, then I will take my crayons and will go derp it up. You can keep your "Good Enough" cool aid.

I guess if you cant tell the difference between getting ground to dust by quality teams and going toe to toe w/quality teams then we probably don't have much to talk about. Even if they are both losses, I actually prefer one to the other. If your choices are the 2014 home loss to BSU by almost 50 points or losing in overtime on the blue turf in OT...you really can't tell the difference? One means you don't belong on the field and the other means you are right on the cusp. Do you play for any of these teams?...Your "win or it's nothing" mindset makes sense from a player standpoint. Fans/observers can guage where teams are relative to the competition by how they compete in the games. Save yourself the time wasted watching if all you care about is who won.

I'm more familiar w/the basketball version of this....ever seen coaches that were satisfied with the effort of a team after a loss because the team played hard and together? Or a coach upset after a sloppy win?

I do see that there is a difference between being blown out by 50 and losing by 1. But they're both losses. One isn't better than the other to me. I don't snuggle up at night with the warm fuzzies of moral victories. I don't want Bohl or anyone else to either. It should piss people off that we are still losing to these teams consistently. I don't care if we such less than we did 5 years ago. It's time for this team to take that next step. By all means, you are entitled to your thoughts and preferences, but I prefer close wins to close losses. "Good Enough" isn't good enough anymore.

Geez get it through your head that there is no "good enough" in seeing progress! EVERYBODY prefers wins to losses. Are you just being dense? I'm not "mad" or "pissed off" when it comes to sports. I get stoked when the pokes are doing well. Playing sloppy and pulling out a W against inferior competition should not give any player/coach comfort...However there is no shame in putting forth a clean effort and falling short due to excellent competition. Anything else is results-oriented thinking of the highest order. Good programs/organizations are built on process-oriented thinking. Keep doing the right things and the results will come....keep grinding.

Brad Stevens..coach of the Celtics has a phenomenal bit on this. It was after his Butler team had made it to the final four. He talked about "good" games and "bad" games....and guess what?...some of the losses were "good" and some of the wins are "bad". He talks about playing the right way and not focusing on outcomes...down by 12? Up by 12? Lost a close one? Won a blowout? doesn't matter...focus on the process and good things will come.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

Christensens 9 win team means nothing, even though that's the highest win total weve had since the mid 90s.

In the past 30 years, Wyoming has won more than 8 games twice. 1990 and 1996. I must've fell through a wormhole or something when DC did it.

Yep! He must be referring to Christensen's 9 loss season. What a great and memorable season that was. Wish we could go back to those glory days...

Yep, I was wrong. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Others should try it, instead a doubling down and making ridiculous arguments to support what they've said in this past In fact, if we keep Vigen and we ever win a conference championship or have an offense that isn't terrible, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'll be happy to do so.

Christensen had an 8 win season in 5 years coaching. In 5 years Bohl has won 8 twice (with one being in a 14 game season.) He has the chance to repeat an 8 win season this year, though I'd be surprised if we did considering our abysmal record outside the war and against teams with a pulse.

As far as the straw man statement goes that's hilarious. I literally compiled the Vigen defenders arguments that I've heard over the past several years, and gave the reasons I think they were wrong. The only thing I added that I haven't heard directly on this board is that some of them are his buddies. That was half joking, but the way some of you defend him and try to promote him, literally saying he should be our next coach despite his performance as a coordinator, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it weren't true.

Besides, it's all in good fun, and we all just want this to get better. What else are we gonna talk about, our basketball team? No thanks!

As one of the members of this board that has been called out by name as supporting Vigen in very inappropriate terms....You definitely did not characterize my "support" of Vigen in any way that was even close to accurate...hence "straw man". Your first flaw was in thinking I have any loyalty to Vigen at all. I don't .... I don't hate the guy either. Just because somebody does not blindly agree w/you and points out other things that are objective truths...(as you did..I acknowledge that when you make claims about the offense that you are right on), doesn't make them a Vigen supporter. There are a lot of factors to W's and L's ... I reject a simplistic "Wyoming without Vigen is amazing" argument. I happen to believe that good teams are just that....TEAMS. You can't just slot Bohl's defense with DC's offense (although at times that offense was no good)...there has to be a "fit".

Finally...as far as excuses are concerned. I don't play college football...I assume that you don't either. If I was on the team and the guy ahead of me on the depth chart went down and we lost...the last thing I would say is "well if the starter hadn't been hurt we would have won". That is an excuse, pure and simple. Players and coaches must internalize the reasons that a game is won or lost and not make excuses. As fans/observers/commentators we get to speculate on the REASONS for under or over performance. I think ESPN.com had an article today looking at the reasons why Alabama fell out of the CFP this year. It was very interesting....talked a lot about a bunch of stuff from injuries to LSU finding a new gear on offense. It's all stuff that no self-respecting Alabama player or coach would ever use as an excuse but it's sure as heck not false!

As I mentioned before...I felt "bad" about the Win over Idaho because I expected to mop the floor w/them...I felt "good" about the loss to BSU because I did not expect Wyoming to contend in that game. Was it "bad" that we beat Idaho? or "good" that we lost to BSU? ...I don't think it is ever that simple.

Good lord. You felt good losing to BSU, that’s disgusting. Thank god you’re not involved with or directly connected to the football team. Moral victories are for pee wee teams and CSU fans. The ugliest win is always better than the prettiest loss. It’s funny you mention Alabama having excuses for dropping and one of them being their opponents offense found another gear. Imagine our record this year if our offense had any gears...

*Sigh*

Learn to interpret context...I realize you are a big man and cannot distinguish anything beyond "duh win equals good...lose equals bad". Putting a word in quotes signifies that it is being used in a manner that is not according to it's normal usage. This is not uncommon. When you see "good" or "bad" used in a context that is confusing to you, do yourself a favor and sit with that confusion... Challenge yourself to find the real meaning that the author was trying to impart. Don't get too down on yourself if it's not obvious at first. Heck... They taught a gorilla sign language!

As do teams that win consistently. You think Boise State cares about context? Or do they care about winning? You think Michigan cares they scored more this season against Ohio State than they did last season? You think Washington cares they beat the brakes off WSU again? Hell no. They're hella pissed they finished 7-5.

If not being satisfied by mediocrity is derpy to you, then I will take my crayons and will go derp it up. You can keep your "Good Enough" cool aid.

I guess if you cant tell the difference between getting ground to dust by quality teams and going toe to toe w/quality teams then we probably don't have much to talk about. Even if they are both losses, I actually prefer one to the other. If your choices are the 2014 home loss to BSU by almost 50 points or losing in overtime on the blue turf in OT...you really can't tell the difference? One means you don't belong on the field and the other means you are right on the cusp. Do you play for any of these teams?...Your "win or it's nothing" mindset makes sense from a player standpoint. Fans/observers can guage where teams are relative to the competition by how they compete in the games. Save yourself the time wasted watching if all you care about is who won.

I'm more familiar w/the basketball version of this....ever seen coaches that were satisfied with the effort of a team after a loss because the team played hard and together? Or a coach upset after a sloppy win?

I do see that there is a difference between being blown out by 50 and losing by 1. But they're both losses. One isn't better than the other to me. I don't snuggle up at night with the warm fuzzies of moral victories. I don't want Bohl or anyone else to either. It should piss people off that we are still losing to these teams consistently. I don't care if we such less than we did 5 years ago. It's time for this team to take that next step. By all means, you are entitled to your thoughts and preferences, but I prefer close wins to close losses. "Good Enough" isn't good enough anymore.

Geez get it through your head that there is no "good enough" in seeing progress! EVERYBODY prefers wins to losses. Are you just being dense? I'm not "mad" or "pissed off" when it comes to sports. I get stoked when the pokes are doing well. Playing sloppy and pulling out a W against inferior competition should not give any player/coach comfort...However there is no shame in putting forth a clean effort and falling short due to excellent competition. Anything else is results-oriented thinking of the highest order. Good programs/organizations are built on process-oriented thinking. Keep doing the right things and the results will come....keep grinding.

Brad Stevens..coach of the Celtics has a phenomenal bit on this. It was after his Butler team had made it to the final four. He talked about "good" games and "bad" games....and guess what?...some of the losses were "good" and some of the wins are "bad". He talks about playing the right way and not focusing on outcomes...down by 12? Up by 12? Lost a close one? Won a blowout? doesn't matter...focus on the process and good things will come.

Ignoring all the negatives in favor of "seeing progress" in every loss absolutely is "good enough". If you cannot see the deficiencies because we only lost by 5 instead of 50, you're part of the problem.

I am not clamoring for 13-0 every season. I understand losses are part of the game and no one is going to play perfect every single play of every single game. And yes, people can absolutely feel pride in rising to an occasion while still coming up short. But as an organization, it is dangerous and stupid to continually take moral victories from losses. It creates apathy. It creates comfort. It does not create a desire to improve. If you are happy with not being blown out, that's all you will ever get.

You tell me, has Vigen's offensive play calling scream a desire to get better? Or does it tell us he is happy enough to call a vanilla game and if we break a couple 75 yard touchdowns and win, great. If we dont and we lose a close game, great. There is nothing about our scheme that has markedly improved or advanced. Its just good enough.

Look bro, you can continue to insinuate I am slow or dumb or whatever it is to make your argument stronger. But I think Wyoming fans are waking up and this continuation of the "good enough" mentality surrounding UW athletics is getting tired. The state as a whole has made great contributions to the university with the promise that it will lead to better days yet were still wallowing in mediocrity.

 

[307bball]

Ignoring all the negatives in favor of "seeing progress" in every loss absolutely is "good enough". If you cannot see the deficiencies because we only lost by 5 instead of 50, you're part of the problem.

Nobody is ignoring any negatives...I've continually said this offense MUST improve.
Wyoming is an improved team based on how it is competing game in and game out - TRUE
Wyoming's offense is holding it back - TRUE

See how both can be true?

I am not clamoring for 13-0 every season. I understand losses are part of the game and no one is going to play perfect every single play of every single game. And yes, people can absolutely feel pride in rising to an occasion while still coming up short. But as an organization, it is dangerous and stupid to continually take moral victories from losses. It creates apathy. It creates comfort. It does not create a desire to improve. If you are happy with not being blown out, that's all you will ever get.

Perhaps this comment is not addressed at me directly. I don't think I ever advocated "settling" for average. Also you keep using phrases like "If you are happy with not being blown out..."...who are the people for whom the goal is just to not get blown out?...I literally have never seen that sentiment. If you get that from what I've written then I've been misunderstood.

You tell me, has Vigen's offensive play calling scream a desire to get better? Or does it tell us he is happy enough to call a vanilla game and if we break a couple 75 yard touchdowns and win, great. If we dont and we lose a close game, great. There is nothing about our scheme that has markedly improved or advanced. Its just good enough.

I really don't know what Vigen's playcalling signifies. If you know that he feels like its fine the way it is then you have every right to be upset, but you don't know that. I agree that the offense is holding the pokes back....i'm just skeptical that it is totally on Vigen's play-calling. There is at least as much evidence that below average receivers and QB play (in the passing game) is holding us back. That has more to do with recruiting/player development (still a coaches responsibility) than play calling. This particular topic is really open to opinion and interpretation. How much is the playbook limited when TVW and Chambers are banged up and the freshman has to try and run the offense?..I don't know...maybe you do? I'm sure the coaches wish that Levi had more reps than TVW at this point but you play the hand your dealt when you are in Colorado springs trying to come back in the fourth. If Vigen had made every right call, maybe we come back and win that game...or maybe limitations out of control of the coaching staff at that point in the season had more to do with it. It is at least debatable.

Look bro, you can continue to insinuate I am slow or dumb or whatever it is to make your argument stronger. But I think Wyoming fans are waking up and this continuation of the "good enough" mentality surrounding UW athletics is getting tired. The state as a whole has made great contributions to the university with the promise that it will lead to better days yet were still wallowing in mediocrity.

I apologize for my comments directed at your intelligence. No reason for me to act like that.

I'm happy with the direction of the football program. I'm apoplectic at what is going on in basketball. I don't see a great deal of "good enough" mentality, but I don't travel in your circles. I promise you that I do not want the current level of success to be a plateau.

 

[WyoBrandX]

Herm Edwards from ASU fired hiss offensive coordinator today after a record of 7-5. I listened to his entire interview and couldn't help but think about our situation. He was saying in order to be successful in today's college football a team must score at least 30 points a game if they want to consistently win 9-10 games a year. Wish Bohl had this forward thinking. Edwards wasn't happy with above average. We shouldn't settle either.

This is how I feel. But Bohl doesn't want to play "grass basketball". I actually have come to like running it so much, but, my gosh, there has to be a better way of running a run-heavy pro style offense. ugh

I'd wish they would figure out a way to move the ball consistently - Air Force style. Use a full quarter to get down the field and score. Defense steps up and puts the other team out. Play like its 15 yards instead of 10 every play.

 

[WyoBrandX]

Christensens 9 win team means nothing, even though that's the highest win total weve had since the mid 90s.

In the past 30 years, Wyoming has won more than 8 games twice. 1990 and 1996. I must've fell through a wormhole or something when DC did it.

Yep! He must be referring to Christensen's 9 loss season. What a great and memorable season that was. Wish we could go back to those glory days...

Yep, I was wrong. I'll admit it when I'm wrong. Others should try it, instead a doubling down and making ridiculous arguments to support what they've said in this past In fact, if we keep Vigen and we ever win a conference championship or have an offense that isn't terrible, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'll be happy to do so.

Christensen had an 8 win season in 5 years coaching. In 5 years Bohl has won 8 twice (with one being in a 14 game season.) He has the chance to repeat an 8 win season this year, though I'd be surprised if we did considering our abysmal record outside the war and against teams with a pulse.

As far as the straw man statement goes that's hilarious. I literally compiled the Vigen defenders arguments that I've heard over the past several years, and gave the reasons I think they were wrong. The only thing I added that I haven't heard directly on this board is that some of them are his buddies. That was half joking, but the way some of you defend him and try to promote him, literally saying he should be our next coach despite his performance as a coordinator, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it weren't true.

Besides, it's all in good fun, and we all just want this to get better. What else are we gonna talk about, our basketball team? No thanks!

As one of the members of this board that has been called out by name as supporting Vigen in very inappropriate terms....You definitely did not characterize my "support" of Vigen in any way that was even close to accurate...hence "straw man". Your first flaw was in thinking I have any loyalty to Vigen at all. I don't .... I don't hate the guy either. Just because somebody does not blindly agree w/you and points out other things that are objective truths...(as you did..I acknowledge that when you make claims about the offense that you are right on), doesn't make them a Vigen supporter. There are a lot of factors to W's and L's ... I reject a simplistic "Wyoming without Vigen is amazing" argument. I happen to believe that good teams are just that....TEAMS. You can't just slot Bohl's defense with DC's offense (although at times that offense was no good)...there has to be a "fit".

Finally...as far as excuses are concerned. I don't play college football...I assume that you don't either. If I was on the team and the guy ahead of me on the depth chart went down and we lost...the last thing I would say is "well if the starter hadn't been hurt we would have won". That is an excuse, pure and simple. Players and coaches must internalize the reasons that a game is won or lost and not make excuses. As fans/observers/commentators we get to speculate on the REASONS for under or over performance. I think ESPN.com had an article today looking at the reasons why Alabama fell out of the CFP this year. It was very interesting....talked a lot about a bunch of stuff from injuries to LSU finding a new gear on offense. It's all stuff that no self-respecting Alabama player or coach would ever use as an excuse but it's sure as heck not false!

As I mentioned before...I felt "bad" about the Win over Idaho because I expected to mop the floor w/them...I felt "good" about the loss to BSU because I did not expect Wyoming to contend in that game. Was it "bad" that we beat Idaho? or "good" that we lost to BSU? ...I don't think it is ever that simple.

Good lord. You felt good losing to BSU, that’s disgusting. Thank god you’re not involved with or directly connected to the football team. Moral victories are for pee wee teams and CSU fans. The ugliest win is always better than the prettiest loss. It’s funny you mention Alabama having excuses for dropping and one of them being their opponents offense found another gear. Imagine our record this year if our offense had any gears...

*Sigh*

Learn to interpret context...I realize you are a big man and cannot distinguish anything beyond "duh win equals good...lose equals bad". Putting a word in quotes signifies that it is being used in a manner that is not according to it's normal usage. This is not uncommon. When you see "good" or "bad" used in a context that is confusing to you, do yourself a favor and sit with that confusion... Challenge yourself to find the real meaning that the author was trying to impart. Don't get too down on yourself if it's not obvious at first. Heck... They taught a gorilla sign language!

As do teams that win consistently. You think Boise State cares about context? Or do they care about winning? You think Michigan cares they scored more this season against Ohio State than they did last season? You think Washington cares they beat the brakes off WSU again? Hell no. They're hella pissed they finished 7-5.

If not being satisfied by mediocrity is derpy to you, then I will take my crayons and will go derp it up. You can keep your "Good Enough" cool aid.

I guess if you cant tell the difference between getting ground to dust by quality teams and going toe to toe w/quality teams then we probably don't have much to talk about. Even if they are both losses, I actually prefer one to the other. If your choices are the 2014 home loss to BSU by almost 50 points or losing in overtime on the blue turf in OT...you really can't tell the difference? One means you don't belong on the field and the other means you are right on the cusp. Do you play for any of these teams?...Your "win or it's nothing" mindset makes sense from a player standpoint. Fans/observers can guage where teams are relative to the competition by how they compete in the games. Save yourself the time wasted watching if all you care about is who won.

I'm more familiar w/the basketball version of this....ever seen coaches that were satisfied with the effort of a team after a loss because the team played hard and together? Or a coach upset after a sloppy win?

Boise won this year on the smurf turf - barely. Their fans were calling for Harsins' head.

We fielded a mostly 3rd string offense and took the Broncos to overtime. Thats way better than being beat by 50 and having boise state players doing backflips into the endzone.

 

[Wyokie]

Boise won this year on the smurf turf - barely. Their fans were calling for Harsins' head.

We fielded a mostly 3rd string offense and took the Broncos to overtime. Thats way better than being beat by 50 and having boise state players doing backflips into the endzone.

Moral "victories" DON'T win championships!!!!!!! Actual victories DO!!!!!

 

[WyoBrandX]

Boise won this year on the smurf turf - barely. Their fans were calling for Harsins' head.

We fielded a mostly 3rd string offense and took the Broncos to overtime. Thats way better than being beat by 50 and having boise state players doing backflips into the endzone.

Moral "victories" DON'T win championships!!!!!!! Actual victories DO!!!!!

Moral victories don't exist. Progress does. We won't beat Boise every year. But we have once in Bohls term. Out of what - 14 times now? Most of those chances were with other coaches? Arggg....

 

[bullbugle307]

The fact that Vigens situational play calling remains largely the same even when it's not working, year in and year out signifies to me that he is in fact happy to not change.

 

[ItSucksToBeACSURam]

The fact that Vigens situational play calling remains largely the same even when it's not working, year in and year out signifies to me that he is in fact happy to not change.

It signifies to me that Bohl is satisfied not to change. If it was a pressing issue to Bohl, it’d change quick.