WYO-VISION: The Quarterbacks (Spring Practice 2015)

[joshvanklomp]

If Coffman is the guy, then you red shirt everyone else possible. If Coffman has to come out for a play or two (maybe lost his helmet on a play) then you bring in someone who you won't burn a red-shirt.

That'd be Allen. The other three redshirted last year.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

It's like when Jason Thompson was red-shirting, and Thorton was listed as the back-up but everyone knew that if Smith had to come out for a significant period of time that Thompson was going in.

If you need to use Allen to win a game, then you burn the red-shirt, unless your season is already down the drain.

Bingo! Attempt to redshirt Allen. If he is our true #2, only use him if injury necessitates.

 

[BeaverPoke]

It's like when Jason Thompson was red-shirting, and Thorton was listed as the back-up but everyone knew that if Smith had to come out for a significant period of time that Thompson was going in.

If you need to use Allen to win a game, then you burn the red-shirt, unless your season is already down the drain.

Bingo! Attempt to redshirt Allen. If he is our true #2, only use him if injury necessitates.

Something DC should have done against Cal Poly.
Obviously he didn't know Kirk would lose to an FCS team.

But Thompson would have beaten Cal Poly. Then, the following week against AFA, Thompson wouldn't have been in his first week getting 1st team reps, and probably would have been able to score at least 2 more points.

Oh well, none of that matters now, none of those guys are involved with Wyo football now.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20 in this scenario. At the time, I would have been a bit irked if we had pulled Thompson's redshirt for Cal Poly, my thinking (like many other at the time) that any QB could have got us the win against an FCS team. Of course history has shown us otherwise. Knowing what we know now, playing Thompson would have been great; probably would have led him to stay at UW instead of transferring as well.

 

[BeaverPoke]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20 in this scenario. At the time, I would have been a bit irked if we had pulled Thompson's redshirt for Cal Poly, my thinking (like many other at the time) that any QB could have got us the win against an FCS team. Of course history has shown us otherwise. Knowing what we know now, playing Thompson would have been great; probably would have led him to stay at UW instead of transferring as well.

You make two very good points.

Let's say Thompson goes out and whoops Cal Poly.
We would all be saying... ARE YOU SERIOUS DC? YOU JUST BURNED HIS RS FOR CAL POLY?

But yeah, maybe Thompson gets us a couple wins, feels more part of this program and doesn't transfer.

But hey, think about this: If Thompson plays and beats Cal Poly, beats AFA, we go from 4-8 to 6-6. Then, when Brett Smith gets ejected at Nevada, Kirk doesn't come in and blow a handoff. 7-5. And a bowl game.

DC goes from 2 bowls in 5 years to 3 in 5. And that 5th season, maybe the team doesn't mail it and finish 5-7? Maybe the culture within the team is different and they don't choke to Texas State.

All a bunch of hypotheticals.

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

Obviously one game is not holding us back from multiple wins, and multiple bowl games, but I think the importance of losing to an FCS team can not be overstated.

 

[joshvanklomp]

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

But then you probably wouldn't have the pleasure of having me around

 

[BeaverPoke]

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

But then you probably wouldn't have the pleasure of having me around

Lol.

 

[LanderPoke]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20 in this scenario. At the time, I would have been a bit irked if we had pulled Thompson's redshirt for Cal Poly, my thinking (like many other at the time) that any QB could have got us the win against an FCS team. Of course history has shown us otherwise. Knowing what we know now, playing Thompson would have been great; probably would have led him to stay at UW instead of transferring as well.

You make two very good points.

Let's say Thompson goes out and whoops Cal Poly.
We would all be saying... ARE YOU SERIOUS DC? YOU JUST BURNED HIS RS FOR CAL POLY?

But yeah, maybe Thompson gets us a couple wins, feels more part of this program and doesn't transfer.

But hey, think about this: If Thompson plays and beats Cal Poly, beats AFA, we go from 4-8 to 6-6. Then, when Brett Smith gets ejected at Nevada, Kirk doesn't come in and blow a handoff. 7-5. And a bowl game.

DC goes from 2 bowls in 5 years to 3 in 5. And that 5th season, maybe the team doesn't mail it and finish 5-7? Maybe the culture within the team is different and they don't choke to Texas State.

All a bunch of hypotheticals.

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

Obviously one game is not holding us back from multiple wins, and multiple bowl games, but I think the importance of losing to an FCS team can not be overstated.

This is true. The fabric of time would be woven differently if Thompson just started that game vs. Cal Poly, but I'm glad he didn't. I think we are in better hands for the long-term.

 

[mwc fan]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20 in this scenario. At the time, I would have been a bit irked if we had pulled Thompson's redshirt for Cal Poly, my thinking (like many other at the time) that any QB could have got us the win against an FCS team. Of course history has shown us otherwise. Knowing what we know now, playing Thompson would have been great; probably would have led him to stay at UW instead of transferring as well.

You make two very good points.

Let's say Thompson goes out and whoops Cal Poly.
We would all be saying... ARE YOU SERIOUS DC? YOU JUST BURNED HIS RS FOR CAL POLY?

But yeah, maybe Thompson gets us a couple wins, feels more part of this program and doesn't transfer.

But hey, think about this: If Thompson plays and beats Cal Poly, beats AFA, we go from 4-8 to 6-6. Then, when Brett Smith gets ejected at Nevada, Kirk doesn't come in and blow a handoff. 7-5. And a bowl game.

DC goes from 2 bowls in 5 years to 3 in 5. And that 5th season, maybe the team doesn't mail it and finish 5-7? Maybe the culture within the team is different and they don't choke to Texas State.

All a bunch of hypotheticals.

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

Obviously one game is not holding us back from multiple wins, and multiple bowl games, but I think the importance of losing to an FCS team can not be overstated.

I think you made a great point. That decision by CDC not to play Thompson against Cal Poly really hurt the team in hindsight. It also probably cost him his job in the long run. That is probably why CDC is a better OC then a HC. He simply didn't play to win. Look back to all those possessions before half time where he ate up the clock and went into the locker room. He had an explosive offense and instead chose not to take advantage of it. Bad decisions cost him. That was one of many, including some of borderline FCS and division 2 players he gave scholarships to.

 

[BeaverPoke]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20 in this scenario. At the time, I would have been a bit irked if we had pulled Thompson's redshirt for Cal Poly, my thinking (like many other at the time) that any QB could have got us the win against an FCS team. Of course history has shown us otherwise. Knowing what we know now, playing Thompson would have been great; probably would have led him to stay at UW instead of transferring as well.

You make two very good points.

Let's say Thompson goes out and whoops Cal Poly.
We would all be saying... ARE YOU SERIOUS DC? YOU JUST BURNED HIS RS FOR CAL POLY?

But yeah, maybe Thompson gets us a couple wins, feels more part of this program and doesn't transfer.

But hey, think about this: If Thompson plays and beats Cal Poly, beats AFA, we go from 4-8 to 6-6. Then, when Brett Smith gets ejected at Nevada, Kirk doesn't come in and blow a handoff. 7-5. And a bowl game.

DC goes from 2 bowls in 5 years to 3 in 5. And that 5th season, maybe the team doesn't mail it and finish 5-7? Maybe the culture within the team is different and they don't choke to Texas State.

All a bunch of hypotheticals.

But my point is, maybe if Thompson plays vs Cal Poly, not only does Thompson stay through the DC-Bohl transition like you pointed out, but maybe there is no DC-Bohl transition, and DC is still our coach and we are working on a handful of bowl seasons?

Obviously one game is not holding us back from multiple wins, and multiple bowl games, but I think the importance of losing to an FCS team can not be overstated.

I think you made a great point. That decision by CDC not to play Thompson against Cal Poly really hurt the team in hindsight. It also probably cost him his job in the long run. That is probably why CDC is a better OC then a HC. He simply didn't play to win. Look back to all those possessions before half time where he ate up the clock and went into the locker room. He had an explosive offense and instead chose not to take advantage of it. Bad decisions cost him. That was one of many, including some of borderline FCS and division 2 players he gave scholarships to.

I think DC was obsessed with the "fairytale" stories with his QBs.

Let me clarify what that means.
If DC didn't get fired, let's assume that Brett Smith starts for 4 seasons. Starts as a true freshman, ends up smashing QB records. Starts for 4 years. He then wanted Jason Thompson to take over as a RS-sophomore. Starter for 3 seasons.
It's no secret he built his teams around his QBs. He wanted his QBs to have the picture perfect career. Start as a young guy and be "the man" for the next few years. Keep 1 guy in that role as long as possible.

DC did play to win. But he played to win in the future. After his first season at Wyoming where he started a freshman QB 4 games into the season, had an amazing comeback vs SDSU, almost got the road upset of a ranked Utah team, won the Border War with an ACS stiff arm to the face, and had the AMAZING NM Bowl win with the fake punt deep in our own territory, the goal line stand, the TD pass, etc, DC quit playing for the win now. He played for the future.

He assumed Kirk could beat Cal Poly. He didn't want to burn a Thompson red-shirt and have that take away a potential year starting for him.

I am not saying DC would have built something sustainable in the long run. I am saying he put an emphasis on having long term QBs and having the QBs be the man.

But hey, college football, ya gotta win now. Not next year.

 

[Wyo2dal]

This debate could go on for days but here is how I see DC in a nutshell.

Play not to lose.

Never once did I see him take a risk with 1 min or less in the half and go for something that could have awesome momentum starting the third he always did nothing. Down the ball, run the clock out just in my eyes he was never willing to risk anything so he never played to win he just always played not to lose.

But that is just how I see it, I'm sure there were a few games he might have done something crazy at the end of the half but they were far and few between and because they were I don't remember them.

 

[mwc fan]

This debate could go on for days but here is how I see DC in a nutshell.

Play not to lose.

Never once did I see him take a risk with 1 min or less in the half and go for something that could have awesome momentum starting the third he always did nothing. Down the ball, run the clock out just in my eyes he was never willing to risk anything so he never played to win he just always played not to lose.

But that is just how I see it, I'm sure there were a few games he might have done something crazy at the end of the half but they were far and few between and because they were I don't remember them.

Nebraska 2013 was a perfect example of that " playing not to lose ". His offense was on fire in the first half and had about 1:30 left before the half, ball at mid field. He calls it wrap!! WTF was that?