Stanard, wrong players or?

[stymeman]

It's really hard to watch our D this bad, over the past years we were always known for our strong D, ever since English left it seems it's really gone from bad to worse. Sure hope this gets shored up in the next few years, the O will come later on

[ragtimejoe1]

Geeze! Not even through year one and we have a thread which is the equivelant to "Fire our Coords!"

I've questioned the Stanard hire from the beginning. What is Bohl going to do that Sunny Lubick couldn't. Sonny built some pretty nasty D's in Miami, so it isn't like he didn't know what he was doing. Stanard failed at CSU. He has over 10 years of failure at this level. What makes the WYO situation different?

I love the Bohl hire, but I'm not sure that even he can overcome bad coordinators. It is Stanard's first year here, but it isn't like he doesn't already have a pretty substantial track record of attempting to be a DC.

[kansasCowboy]

And Bohl is a defense oriented coach himself who has had Stanard with him for years creating a pretty stingy D at NDSU that was enough to stop FBS opponents through the years. But their D at NDSU took time to build and grow to its status it was. I don't know an FBS school that they played where their D was not solid. It takes time. Plus injuries has just vamped up the exasperation this year. We showed good D against Mont, AFA, FAU when healthy. We've even produced five goal line stands this year.
Our secondary has been a complaint since 2007, let's not just put a new name on the top of that complaint (Stanard) a start blaming him for all the inadequacies that is our secondary and Defense overall. And with the injuries we've amassed this year it's know wonder we are being abused through the air. Is that Stanards fault. I honestly have been impressed with the coverage calls during games. What has killed us is inexperience or players being out of position (BURNS! Was burnt four times because he was not where he was supposed to be) and not making tackles. Give it some time. We've had what now, three D Coords in five years? What defense would not be confused at this point.

Give

It

TIME.

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm all for the Bohl hire. Stanard was a position coach for Bohl, not the DC. Some people are great position coaches but terrible coordinators. Every time he has attempted to be a DC, he has failed. I view that as reason for concern. The defensive issues certainly aren't all on Stanard, but I'm not convinced he is the guy, either. Glenn was loyal to a fault; I hope Bohl isn't.

[hithere]

And Bohl is a defense oriented coach himself who has had Stanard with him for years creating a pretty stingy D at NDSU that was enough to stop FBS opponents through the years. But their D at NDSU took time to build and grow to its status it was. I don't know an FBS school that they played where their D was not solid. It takes time. Plus injuries has just vamped up the exasperation this year. We showed good D against Mont, AFA, FAU when healthy. We've even produced five goal line stands this year.
Our secondary has been a complaint since 2007, let's not just put a new name on the top of that complaint (Stanard) a start blaming him for all the inadequacies that is our secondary and Defense overall. And with the injuries we've amassed this year it's know wonder we are being abused through the air. Is that Stanards fault. I honestly have been impressed with the coverage calls during games. What has killed us is inexperience or players being out of position (BURNS! Was burnt four times because he was not where he was supposed to be) and not making tackles. Give it some time. We've had what now, three D Coords in five years? What defense would not be confused at this point.

Give

It

TIME.

I was hoping you'd jump in here, coach.

No sarcasm:

I've never coached football. I coached skiing one season; wasn't my thing. But I do follow FBS football teams' performances, stats and trends. Steve Stanard, the Defensive Coordinator that is being referenced in this particular thread, has shown statistically, as well as in the wins and losses columns, that his performance as an FBS Defensive Coordinator in four different stops over a fourteen year period is way below average. This is a fact.

A little bit of sarcasm:

Now what I'm asking you as a coach, is what types of things should I be looking for in a "Stanard Team Defense" or STD that would preclude me from thinking that Craig Bohl hired a man, presumably, that was born with a few extra chromosomes to coordinate the defense at Wyoming?

Switching back to no sarcasm:

Keep in mind, that giving someone time who has proven himself as an elite college football coach with three straight national titles is easy for someone to ask of a fanbase as compared to giving someone time who has consistently failed at his job. Not once, not twice, but three times. And I can't stress this next part enough, in twelve+ years of being a defensive coordinator.

I know he was with Bohl at NDSU. But he was the linebackers coach. He also coached under Frank Solich at Ohio, but as DL coach. He worked under one of the finest defensive coaches in the game as defensive coordinator for five years in Sonny Lubick and regressed EVERY YEAR.

I have chosen to refuse to give this man a chance. He does not deserve it. He is a terrible coach as shown in his teams' performances, statistics and types of places coached. He's Robin Ross. He is Bob Cole. He is filtered chaff that somehow keeps being swirled around the toilet bowls of the have-nots of FBS football.

Please, please, please if you wouldn't mind. Please give me something; x's and o's, personal anecdotes, tangible evidence, anything that might give me a sliver of hope that Steve Stanard could somehow bring any defensive unit that he's in charge of from god awful level to slightly mediocre. Because if all you have to offer is the mantra of waiting and being patient, you will have failed me. You will have failed me, internet stranger.

Steve Stanard is the worst.

[kansasCowboy]

And Bohl is a defense oriented coach himself who has had Stanard with him for years creating a pretty stingy D at NDSU that was enough to stop FBS opponents through the years. But their D at NDSU took time to build and grow to its status it was. I don't know an FBS school that they played where their D was not solid. It takes time. Plus injuries has just vamped up the exasperation this year. We showed good D against Mont, AFA, FAU when healthy. We've even produced five goal line stands this year.
Our secondary has been a complaint since 2007, let's not just put a new name on the top of that complaint (Stanard) a start blaming him for all the inadequacies that is our secondary and Defense overall. And with the injuries we've amassed this year it's know wonder we are being abused through the air. Is that Stanards fault. I honestly have been impressed with the coverage calls during games. What has killed us is inexperience or players being out of position (BURNS! Was burnt four times because he was not where he was supposed to be) and not making tackles. Give it some time. We've had what now, three D Coords in five years? What defense would not be confused at this point.

Give

It

TIME.

I was hoping you'd jump in here, coach.

No sarcasm:

I've never coached football. I coached skiing one season; wasn't my thing. But I do follow FBS football teams' performances, stats and trends. Steve Stanard, the Defensive Coordinator that is being referenced in this particular thread, has shown statistically, as well as in the wins and losses columns, that his performance as an FBS Defensive Coordinator in four different stops over a fourteen year period is way below average. This is a fact.

A little bit of sarcasm:

Now what I'm asking you as a coach, is what types of things should I be looking for in a "Stanard Team Defense" or STD that would preclude me from thinking that Craig Bohl hired a man, presumably, that was born with a few extra chromosomes to coordinate the defense at Wyoming?

Switching back to no sarcasm:

Keep in mind, that giving someone time who has proven himself as an elite college football coach with three straight national titles is easy for someone to ask of a fanbase as compared to giving someone time who has consistently failed at his job. Not once, not twice, but three times. And I can't stress this next part enough, in twelve+ years of being a defensive coordinator.

I know he was with Bohl at NDSU. But he was the linebackers coach. He also coached under Frank Solich at Ohio, but as DL coach. He worked under one of the finest defensive coaches in the game as defensive coordinator for five years in Sonny Lubick and regressed EVERY YEAR.

I have chosen to refuse to give this man a chance. He does not deserve it. He is a terrible coach as shown in his teams' performances, statistics and types of places coached. He's Robin Ross. He is Bob Cole. He is filtered chaff that somehow keeps being swirled around the toilet bowls of the have-nots of FBS football.

Please, please, please if you wouldn't mind. Please give me something; x's and o's, personal anecdotes, tangible evidence, anything that might give me a sliver of hope that Steve Stanard could somehow bring any defensive unit that he's in charge of from god awful level to slightly mediocre. Because if all you have to offer is the mantra of waiting and being patient, you will have failed me. You will have failed me, internet stranger.

Steve Stanard is the worst.

That was absolutely awesome! I promise to get back to to you and answer this. But it's my bedtime... Literally. Working nights, coaching, lay-pastoring and farming (thank goodness I'm in the offseason of that last one!) tend to make a man tired. When I get a moment I will peruse through your questions, so to make sure I'm following them correctly and give you my coaching opinion.

[kansasCowboy]

You need to first understand that coordinating is tough. You end up with the gist of the responsibilities. You may be a new coord or old, but you need to make sure that your position coaches are working in an effort to help the D better strive for cohesiveness.
To have an effective D a coach has to be able to mold his D into a tough and physical presence. In order to do that he needs to identify which scheme better suites his team based on the type of players that are on the roster that are either better at stopping the run or pass. So what was our best D option? 4-3. Our best D players are DLs and LBs. Our secondary was still questionable at best... When healthy. And you need a base D that players can execute effectively with confidence.
When you first begin to impliment your base D, you have to start at the basics. Fundamentals, effective coverages, pursuit angles, proper assignments, alignments, techniques, etc. High School, college or pro, these are all things that need to be learned and relearned, be it due to new coaches, new schemes or adding schemes.
Currently I think we only have a couple of players on our roster that played for us the last time we played 4-3. Which means it is a complete learning experience for this team. Back to the basics again. And it probably wouldn't have looked so bad had we not been plagued with injuries. These injuries have us playing young and inexperienced guys who get lost in the game and watching, rather than completing their assignments.
So with that your play call can be quite vanilla. Calling basic coverages and blitzes considering these players are learning blitz packages,run-pass coverages, run-pass blitzes, man coverage and etc.
It is a full load that takes time to impliment. And multiple key injuries basically adds insult to injury.
Coordinating is tough, you have to be in tune with the HC and what he wants and then trust that your position coaches are teaching all of the above in order for the coord to be able to successfully analyze plays, players, the opponent, and figure the overall play call for the week. The coord also has to analyze the scouting report and break it down with position coaches so they can teach alignments, angles, and assignments for that specific game. The coord then breaks down video with coaches and players on the opponent and on breakdown videos of what our players need to work on, coaching players on missed assignments, alignments and messed up techniques and the like.
Then the coord sets up his play call for the game. Breaking it down and getting it approved by the HC and then presenting the play calls to the other D coaches and players.
Like I said before, I've actually been impressed with the play call so far this year, but our inexperience is killing us, young players get caught up in the game and miss assignments or coverage. They start the play where they need to be, but get caught up in watching the play instead of following through with their assignment. This is why Kamana, Preister, and Burns all got burnt several different times against CSU.
Now, I'm not saying Stanard is THE guy for this job. But he is qualified. And I know he does need at the very least two years to make this D his own and fully make any kind of impact.
Now, I haven't looked at his past other than what has been posted on here, and I have to say his D coaching at NMST was pretty significant. Seriously, NMST has been known for always having weak teams and horrid D's. And to take it over and see success year after year is quite good. Especially to take it from 95 to 87 to 54! He bettered them year after year. What more could you ask for from a coord? What more would you have wanted to see him do at NMST in order for his stint there to be a success in your eyes?
Now at CSU, I don't fully remember CSU's dynamics year after year at that time, but when they dropped in the rankings I believe they had lost some key defenders and then the next year had some key injuries that caused their D to be shredded. That's just the nature of the game and that can happen to even you best DC's.
A benefit for Stanard as well is he has been able to coach and learn from some key coaches in the course of his career where he was able to learn and add more to his own arsenal. Now he's with Bohl, who is also a hard nosed defensive minded coach. A HC will hire a coord if they are closely like minded in the same concept that they want to bring to the program.
Year one is always hard for a fan to understand, because year one is considered very vanilla in concept and play calling. Which is okay. These coaches are having a year of breaking in the basics of the schemes and formations that they are installing. Our offense is the same this year. Basic runs, basic passing plays; still effective, but rarely will you see new wrinkles added. Year two brings more to the table. One, you will have recruits brought in who better identify with your concept than what you may have inherited. Two, experience for the players who have already broke in that concept the year before. So you will see more confidence, and when there is more confidence and a better knowledge of what is expected you can then begin to open up the play book more and add wrinkles and tricks to the scheme.
The best example would be our spread under DC. His first two year he did not have the right players for a true spread, hence why you saw our averages at about 180 passing yards a game and 150 rushing. When DC had the speed at receiver and and a dynamic QB in Smith our numbers jumped significantly. We were passing for about an average of 270+ yards per game and rushing for about 130 to 150 yards per game. It took two full years before we saw a true spread utilized under DC. Our D was another story. DCs downfall was looking for a quick fix on D, which is why we saw several changes in D coords under him.
Quick fixes will always fail. Which is why we are now seeing success in our basketball. Shyatt went away from JUCO fixes and planned on bringing in quality HS players who he could mold into what he ultimately wants on the court. If you remember our O was horrid on the court, Shyatt knew this and decided to do a slow down motion. The longer we had the ball, the less time our opponents had a chance to score. He ran a mythodical motion to gain a quality shot. Year one was his worst offensive output. Year two they amped up the offensive side of things and we saw a little more scoring. And in year three we heard him say we were going to run a little more. Three years and using their concept they gave us a basic motion, which was quite vanilla, and each year have added to it to become more and more productive on the court.
This is year four for Shyatt and we've seen a massive makeover of ou bball program to where this year could potentially be a breakout year. The same needs to be done in football, maybe even moreso. This is why I advocate for a coach and his staff to have at least four years. Year three is when the true identity of you concept begins to shine. And if successfull, then year four could be the breakout year. But as I said, four years... It takes time. Now if you don't see improvement in those first three years, then no, I don't advocate for a fourth. We complain about Koenning, but as bad as we were, we began to play better each year. Had Vic got to coach in 03 (this is me speculating) I really think he would've got us to a bowl. But instead we brought in Glenn, who really didn't utilize Casey Bramlet to his full potential in his senior year and we faltered to a 4-8 year. If you looked at the year before our offense was becoming more prolific and moving the ball against anyone. We were losing in shootouts, not getting blown out game after game.
That's my take on it. Take it for what it's worth. Not trying to change your mind. Just giving you a coaches perspective. And there are always varying opinions, there may be coaches out there who don't agree with me, but most that I've been around do. I hope I answered well enough to allow you to see more as a coach where we are and what we are doing than looking at it as another failed year like most fans will see it. This is why I always see the positives in tough times. I've been there. And done it myself as a coach. And I still struggle with it as a fan. Because I really want to see UW succeed. I want the winning ways back in Laramie. And I think it can be done, but it's hard when everyone is looking for a quick fix. Quick fixes give you mostly mediocre seasons and occasionally a good or decent year followed by another drop off. Sound familiar?

[ragtimejoe1]

Kansas, how long would you give Stanard?

Look, I think he is a nice guy, but he had over a decade to demonstrate his abilities. When given the chance, he couldn't recruit well at all. Sonny Lubick worked with him but it never sank in. He really was terrible at CSU and Sonny, despite my hatred for all things CSU, was a damn fine coach and new defenses well. If you couldn't prosper under him, I think it brings your ability into question. Hell, Sonny even made Kerr look good. Remember, Stanard wasn't in charge of the D at NDSU.

My point being, his leash should be pretty damn short. If Bohl believes in him, then I'm fine with giving him another year. Glenn believed in Cockhill, too, though.

[kansasCowboy]

Kansas, how long would you give Stanard?

Look, I think he is a nice guy, but he had over a decade to demonstrate his abilities. When given the chance, he couldn't recruit well at all. Sonny Lubick worked with him but it never sank in. He really was terrible at CSU and Sonny, despite my hatred for all things CSU, was a damn fine coach and new defenses well. If you couldn't prosper under him, I think it brings your ability into question. Hell, Sonny even made Kerr look good. Remember, Stanard wasn't in charge of the D at NDSU.

My point being, his leash should be pretty damn short. If Bohl believes in him, then I'm fine with giving him another year. Glenn believed in Cockhill, too, though.

Two years at the very least. If next year is just as bad or worse then he should go. If we have pretty good improvement, by all means a third year. Remember as much as you don't like the guy, there is nothing he can do about injuries and having to play some pretty inexperienced secondary.

[JimmyDimes]

Kansas, how long would you give Stanard?

Look, I think he is a nice guy, but he had over a decade to demonstrate his abilities. When given the chance, he couldn't recruit well at all. Sonny Lubick worked with him but it never sank in. He really was terrible at CSU and Sonny, despite my hatred for all things CSU, was a damn fine coach and new defenses well. If you couldn't prosper under him, I think it brings your ability into question. Hell, Sonny even made Kerr look good. Remember, Stanard wasn't in charge of the D at NDSU.

My point being, his leash should be pretty damn short. If Bohl believes in him, then I'm fine with giving him another year. Glenn believed in Cockhill, too, though.

Two years at the very least. If next year is just as bad or worse then he should go. If we have pretty good improvement, by all means a third year. Remember as much as you don't like the guy, there is nothing he can do about injuries and having to play some pretty inexperienced secondary.

Agreed....I think he has probably learned from Bohl and isn't the same level of coordinator he was when with CSU. Give the coaches at least two to three years to recruit, develop, and coach these kids to play the style the coaching staff wants them to play.

I think everyone will agree DC didn't have much success recruiting players on the defensive side of the ball. Let's give the new staff the chance to prove they can.

Go Pokes!!

[ragtimejoe1]

Agreed....I think he has probably learned from Bohl and isn't the same level of coordinator he was when with CSU. Give the coaches at least two to three years to recruit, develop, and coach these kids to play the style the coaching staff wants them to play.

I think everyone will agree DC didn't have much success recruiting players on the defensive side of the ball. Let's give the new staff the chance to prove they can.

Go Pokes!!

What is different in his position now vs. CSU?

I'd agree to 1 year and then evaluation. I'd definitely not be too loyal to him is all I'm sayin.

[hithere]

...That's my take on it.

I won't quote the whole thing.

This is really good, thanks for writing it; several very good points. I appreciate it.

I think we don't see eye to eye on a few things but I understand what you're advocating and where you're coming from.

[kansasCowboy]

...That's my take on it.

I won't quote the whole thing.

This is really good, thanks for writing it; several very good points. I appreciate it.

I think we don't see eye to eye on a few things but I understand what you're advocating and where you're coming from.

Understandable. It's all good. Like I said. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you otherwise. Just giving my perspective.
I will say giving a coach only one year is suicide for the program. Because nothing can grow or maintain. It's like my garden. I like getting perennials, because the root is already started, and it will begin to grow and have strength way before a an annual can get used to the soil and fully begin to grow. Plus it's base roots are set, unlike an annual which is constantly looking to build its roots.
Most everyone here liked Mike Breske, when Glenn was here. Tough and strong D's. Our D was terrible Glenn's first year. But we allowed for a base D to grow. And we started getting success. Our offense could never gain ground under Glenn. Then with DC we flipped. Our O began to take off, but he killed our D looking for constant quick fixes and uprooting anything base D before it could gain strength.
The first year that you plant a perennial, it doesn't generally grow so great the first year, but it begins to get better year after year.

[hithere]

Understandable. It's all good. Like I said. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you otherwise. Just giving my perspective.
I will say giving a coach only one year is suicide for the program. Because nothing can grow or maintain. It's like my garden. I like getting perennials, because the root is already started, and it will begin to grow and have strength way before a an annual can get used to the soil and fully begin to grow. Plus it's base roots are set, unlike an annual which is constantly looking to build its roots.
Most everyone here liked Mike Breske, when Glenn was here. Tough and strong D's. Our D was terrible Glenn's first year. But we allowed for a base D to grow. And we started getting success. Our offense could never gain ground under Glenn. Then with DC we flipped. Our O began to take off, but he killed our D looking for constant quick fixes and uprooting anything base D before it could gain strength.
The first year that you plant a perennial, it doesn't generally grow so great the first year, but it begins to get better year after year.

That's a really good analogy.

Breske really blossomed in Laramie and has shown to have continued value in other areas where he has transplanted.

Stanard is the Tribulus terrestris of his profession and doesn't ever bring anything good to anyone whenever he shows up. Or whatever Utah's state flower is, is it some kind of lily? Anyway, that.

And if you're really a BYU fan, then eat my asshole, you jamook. I'm sorry I was ever civil to you.

[Wyokie]

Understandable. It's all good. Like I said. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you otherwise. Just giving my perspective.
I will say giving a coach only one year is suicide for the program. Because nothing can grow or maintain. It's like my garden. I like getting perennials, because the root is already started, and it will begin to grow and have strength way before a an annual can get used to the soil and fully begin to grow. Plus it's base roots are set, unlike an annual which is constantly looking to build its roots.
Most everyone here liked Mike Breske, when Glenn was here. Tough and strong D's. Our D was terrible Glenn's first year. But we allowed for a base D to grow. And we started getting success. Our offense could never gain ground under Glenn. Then with DC we flipped. Our O began to take off, but he killed our D looking for constant quick fixes and uprooting anything base D before it could gain strength.
The first year that you plant a perennial, it doesn't generally grow so great the first year, but it begins to get better year after year.

That's a really good analogy.

Breske really blossomed in Laramie and has shown to have continued value in other areas where he has transplanted.

Stanard is the Tribulus terrestris of his profession and doesn't ever bring anything good to anyone whenever he shows up. Or whatever Utah's state flower is, is it some kind of lily? Anyway, that.

And if you're really a BYU fan, then eat my asshole, you jamook. I'm sorry I was ever civil to you.

Very good. Just googled it and it's the Sego Lily.