2014 Predictions

[McPeachy]

We will get better next year but only marginally. Most of Bohls recruits will b ea red-shirt.

I have been thinking about this for a while now...

I think offensively, we are much better - how much, it depends, but to the point it could be significant. Better QB, great RB stable, better line play, WR's a wash.

I think defensively, we are very similar if not worse. Basically, the last few games we saw our defense for next year, minus #43, #1, #95, and #42...oh, and #20 (who sucks anyway). The rest of the seniors (4 starters) were injured or quit during the season.

You know what that means?

[joshvanklomp]

Aug. 30 - Montana
Sept. 6 - Air Force
Sept. 13 - @Oregon
Sept. 20 - Florida Atlantic
Sept. 27 - @Michigan State
Oct. 4 - Bye
Oct. 11 - @Hawaii
Oct. 18 - San Jose State
Oct. 25 - @Colorado State
Nov. 1 - @Fresno State
Nov. 7 - Utah State
Nov. 15 - Bye
Nov. 22 - Boise State
Nov. 29 - @New Mexico
Only missed on three games so far, and only a game off of my overall prediction.
As of today, I've got 6-6. Admittedly, my knowledge of the MWC is limited so I'm going a lot of guesswork and the preseason poll.

[Slow Hand]

We will get better next year but only marginally. Most of Bohls recruits will b ea red-shirt.

I have been thinking about this for a while now...

I think offensively, we are much better - how much, it depends, but to the point it could be significant. Better QB, great RB stable, better line play, WR's a wash.

I think defensively, we are very similar if not worse. Basically, the last few games we saw our defense for next year, minus #43, #1, #95, and #42...oh, and #20 (who sucks anyway). The rest of the seniors (4 starters) were injured or quit during the season.

You know what that means?

Just curious how you can substantiate us being better on offense? I have not looked but the point production can't even be close can it? We scored more points and were on the field less last year than this year. How does that equate to us being better. The only thing I can see we did different is hold on to the ball longer which kept our defense off the field. I would argue that we are worse offensively and worse defensively. Hell I thought the point differential would even be closer than it has been this year. But if you stack point scored against points scored against us I would almost be wiling to bet it is worse this year than last. If that is the case then there goes the argument for time of possession!

[fromolwyoming]

We will get better next year but only marginally. Most of Bohls recruits will b ea red-shirt.

I have been thinking about this for a while now...

I think offensively, we are much better - how much, it depends, but to the point it could be significant. Better QB, great RB stable, better line play, WR's a wash.

I think defensively, we are very similar if not worse. Basically, the last few games we saw our defense for next year, minus #43, #1, #95, and #42...oh, and #20 (who sucks anyway). The rest of the seniors (4 starters) were injured or quit during the season.

You know what that means?

Just curious how you can substantiate us being better on offense? I have not looked but the point production can't even be close can it? We scored more points and were on the field less last year than this year. How does that equate to us being better. The only thing I can see we did different is hold on to the ball longer which kept our defense off the field. I would argue that we are worse offensively and worse defensively. Hell I thought the point differential would even be closer than it has been this year. But if you stack point scored against points scored against us I would almost be wiling to bet it is worse this year than last. If that is the case then there goes the argument for time of possession!

Okay...
Against any team that had some semblance of a defense last year, we would be lucky to score one time, if that. This year, aside from the USU game, we scored at least 14 points in every game. And with our 1st and 2nd string QBs leaving, and Kirk not being a dual threat, meant that Kirk was not able to compensate for bad protection like Brett Smith could. We also had a considerably harder OOC schedule and a Mountain division that is on the rise to contend with this year.

But of course with you, if Bohl doesn't fix things in year 1, he must be terrible, because that's what you are implying with all of these posts.

[J-Rod]

I was wondering where you got the part about not doing well in Cali, as the last 2 times we played at SDSU, we beat them.

It was the first time Wyoming had won at Fresno, but yeah I was way wrong. Seems like the only games most fans were way off on were Fresno and Boise. Definitely did not see the biggest beat down in modern UW history occurring on Saturday, and few saw that historic night in Fresno coming either.

[McPeachy]

We will get better next year but only marginally. Most of Bohls recruits will b ea red-shirt.

I have been thinking about this for a while now...

I think offensively, we are much better - how much, it depends, but to the point it could be significant. Better QB, great RB stable, better line play, WR's a wash.

I think defensively, we are very similar if not worse. Basically, the last few games we saw our defense for next year, minus #43, #1, #95, and #42...oh, and #20 (who sucks anyway). The rest of the seniors (4 starters) were injured or quit during the season.

You know what that means?

Just curious how you can substantiate us being better on offense? I have not looked but the point production can't even be close can it? We scored more points and were on the field less last year than this year. How does that equate to us being better. The only thing I can see we did different is hold on to the ball longer which kept our defense off the field. I would argue that we are worse offensively and worse defensively. Hell I thought the point differential would even be closer than it has been this year. But if you stack point scored against points scored against us I would almost be wiling to bet it is worse this year than last. If that is the case then there goes the argument for time of possession!

Huh?

I thought my dialogue (clearly) was about this year vs. next year - and production. I will stand by my statement that our offense will be better next year, than it is this year. And also, as such, that our defense will be worse next year, than this year - essentially.

[Slow Hand]

We will get better next year but only marginally. Most of Bohls recruits will b ea red-shirt.

I have been thinking about this for a while now...

I think offensively, we are much better - how much, it depends, but to the point it could be significant. Better QB, great RB stable, better line play, WR's a wash.

I think defensively, we are very similar if not worse. Basically, the last few games we saw our defense for next year, minus #43, #1, #95, and #42...oh, and #20 (who sucks anyway). The rest of the seniors (4 starters) were injured or quit during the season.

You know what that means?

Just curious how you can substantiate us being better on offense? I have not looked but the point production can't even be close can it? We scored more points and were on the field less last year than this year. How does that equate to us being better. The only thing I can see we did different is hold on to the ball longer which kept our defense off the field. I would argue that we are worse offensively and worse defensively. Hell I thought the point differential would even be closer than it has been this year. But if you stack point scored against points scored against us I would almost be wiling to bet it is worse this year than last. If that is the case then there goes the argument for time of possession!

Okay...
Against any team that had some semblance of a defense last year, we would be lucky to score one time, if that. This year, aside from the USU game, we scored at least 14 points in every game. And with our 1st and 2nd string QBs leaving, and Kirk not being a dual threat, meant that Kirk was not able to compensate for bad protection like Brett Smith could. We also had a considerably harder OOC schedule and a Mountain division that is on the rise to contend with this year.

But of course with you, if Bohl doesn't fix things in year 1, he must be terrible, because that's what you are implying with all of these posts.

Lost seven games in 4 of those we scored more than 21 points each game.......Your logic is lost. You are trying to paint me as a guy that wants Bohl gone. that is not true I respect the guy I think he has a great vision my only point is we could have saved time by using the assets we already had in place and those were for a spread.

BTW here is a link to last year scores just so you don't think I am making stuff up. Only three of the games did we have a poor offensive output.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-13/mtn- ... hedule.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[joshvanklomp]

You are trying to paint me as a guy that wants Bohl gone. that is not true I respect the guy I think he has a great vision my only point is we could have saved time by using the assets we already had in place and those were for a spread.

When you're building a house, it's foolish to save time by cutting corners during the foundation-laying process. You may get the house built faster, but the foundation won't last as long as if you took the proper time to make sure it was done correctly.

[Slow Hand]

You are trying to paint me as a guy that wants Bohl gone. that is not true I respect the guy I think he has a great vision my only point is we could have saved time by using the assets we already had in place and those were for a spread.

When you're building a house, it's foolish to save time by cutting corners during the foundation-laying process. You may get the house built faster, but the foundation won't last as long as if you took the proper time to make sure it was done correctly.

I hear you...but on the same hand does it make sense to build a new house every 5 years? When Bohl retires it isn't going to matter what he builds unless we hire another coach that believes in his system. If not we get to build another house and look five more years into the future. It only makes sense to use what you have or you will "get there" once or twice every 8-10 years. Look at our history, why haven't we been successful after Roach left? It is because we keep building new houses!

[joshvanklomp]

I hear you...but on the same hand does it make sense to build a new house every 5 years? When Bohl retires it isn't going to matter what he builds unless we hire another coach that believes in his system.

The spread wasn't successful here, why stick with it? Just because that's what the coach you just fired ran?

Bohl was hired because he was successful running his system. Why expect him to run someone else's system? Yeah we might have five wins at this point instead of four, but it also compromises the development and the transition to Bohl's system.

[Slow Hand]

I hear you...but on the same hand does it make sense to build a new house every 5 years? When Bohl retires it isn't going to matter what he builds unless we hire another coach that believes in his system.

The spread wasn't successful here, why stick with it? Just because that's what the coach you just fired ran?

Bohl was hired because he was successful running his system. Why expect him to run someone else's system? Yeah we might have five wins at this point instead of four, but it also compromises the development and the transition to Bohl's system.

1. I would say that components of the spread were very successful here. Our point output was better than average, we just couldn't stop anyone.

2. Bohl shouldn't be expected to run a style that isn't his. I am not advocating that. All I am suggesting is maybe we should have went after a successful spread coach that could have used components of what we already had and perhaps made the defense better.

However now that we have Bohl, let him build what he wants. I am not advocating getting rid of the guy I am just offering a few counter points.

[joshvanklomp]

1. I would say that components of the spread were very successful here. Our point output was better than average, we just couldn't stop anyone.

Part of the reason the defense couldn't stop anyone is that they had hardly any time to recover on the sidelines between drives. That's where the time of possession comes into play.

[Slow Hand]

1. I would say that components of the spread were very successful here. Our point output was better than average, we just couldn't stop anyone.

Part of the reason the defense couldn't stop anyone is that they had hardly any time to recover on the sidelines between drives. That's where the time of possession comes into play.

And so what about this year? They had considerably more time to rest and gave up roughly the same amount of points. Yes I know we played Oregon, Mich. St. Etc...but what about the other teams? They put up as many or more than they ever have?

[joshvanklomp]

And so what about this year? They had considerably more time to rest and gave up roughly the same amount of points. Yes I know we played Oregon, Mich. St. Etc...but what about the other teams? They put up as many or more than they ever have?

Depth plays a big part, especially when you lose half your starters to injury over the course of the season. And while there was a big jump in TOP (123rd to 27th), it still wasn't as much as it could've been, considering we also finished 82nd in 3rd down percentage (38.1%), down from 30th (45.2%) the year before. Our 3rd down defense also got worse, from 83rd (41.5%) to 110th (45.1%).