Is it really a better system?

Everything Wyoming Cowboy and Mountain West football!
User avatar
laxwyo
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 9468
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Rock Springs, WY
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 134 times

I wonder how many games a "good" or "great" QB wins us this year. Remember we have a QB that was absolutely buried on the depth chart. Kudos for Colby for winning some games. Even with the current team, we'd probably a few more games with a good qb
W-Y, Until I Die!
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

laxwyo wrote:I wonder how many games a "good" or "great" QB wins us this year. Remember we have a QB that was absolutely buried on the depth chart. Kudos for Colby for winning some games. Even with the current team, we'd probably a few more games with a good qb

I agree Colby's effort was valiant! Next year we will have a freakin stud at that position. So we will see what happens plus our running Back Stable will be full again.
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

joshvanklomp wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Nothing better than watching a shootout. That is why I love Oregon, Baylor, and Texas Tech back when Leech was there.
How often did we really have a shootout though?

A spread offense is good when you have the players to run it. Many times though, we were simply outclassed by teams that were able to shut down the offense and then score all over the defense.

11 times under Christensen, the Cowboys gave up 40+ points while scoring under 20 themselves. That's not a shootout, that's an embarrassment. And that's essentially what you're criticizing Bohl for.

Here is where my argument comes in. I say we stay with the points and recruit to get better on defense. Why throw them both away then you have to get considerably better on both sides of the ball.
User avatar
kansasCowboy
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2365
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Slow Hand wrote:
JohnnySunshine wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
JohnnySunshine wrote:Also I think the original poster didn't do his homework on Bohl, because when Bohl ran his system at NDSU he ran both a pro style and spread system, and scored more than enough points to win. His sytem averaged like 42 points last year.
This is only partially true. Bohl might have spread his sets but he still ran a west coast offense. The difference is that he relied on man to man match ups to take advantage of defenders rather than forcing the defenders to play a zone scheme. He just waited until they loaded the box on him then they would attack the zero coverage on the perimeter. So your statement is not true.
Bohl spread it out last year almost equally until they got a 2 or 3 TD lead. And then came the "ground and pound" you are referring to. And they still scored hella points. So your not very knowledgable on what exactly Bohl's offense is. He isn't going to "ground and pound" all game if he has the players. If the coach before Bohl actually recruited a QB other than the starter you wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Why did you completely ignore the fact that Bohl doesn't even have his type of players on offense yet you think it's a good idea to get an accurate comparable?
"spreading it out" and running a Spread Offense are two different animals. You are showing your ignorance of offensive styles.
What has been painfully obvious, and mentioned throughout the year, and yet you have missed completely is the fact tha we would be NO better off with the spread this year... Why? Because of our QB situation. This last game showed it was quite obvious that Kirk was our new number one, and he definitely wasn't a spread QB. You can say playing time had something to do with it, but Thorton and Stratton both get reps in and don't just sit on their hands at practice all season.

Last year our toughest opponent was??? Nebraska. We lost 34-37. They were in the bottom half of the top 20. This year? Oregon #3 (at the time we played them) and Mich. St. #8, and CSU #25. Not to mention a 8-2 BSU team and a 7-3 USU team, and we beat a 7-3 AFA team. I would say our competition is far more superior this year than to last. Shoot, I guess you could even throw Hawaii in there! Going from 1-12 to currently 4-8.
Now you want to talk point totals. Our O is in transition. Our D is also in transition and has to play some high powered offenses. The difference in our point difference are three games. #3 Oregon, #8 Mich St. And, BSU. All our other games, including USU and CSU were right there in range of a turnaround.
You want to freak out about a year that you yourself said wasn't really significant... Not making much sense.
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin. Like I said before I like Bohl , I think he will get to be a middle of the pack guy I just think he will struggle against teams that score lots of points unless he can get a high caliber defense in place. And the chances of that happening in Wyoming is not good. So you can beat me up all you want about my opinion I just think we would win more games in an open offense and concentrate of recruiting better defenders. I like the ol adage "good offense makes up for mediocre defense but good defense cannot overcome a bad offense"
User avatar
Wyo2dal
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Dome of Doom
Been liked: 1 time

The spread plays against playing at altitude and hurts your own team more than the opponent. ToP grinding on that defensive line until they are just completely spent is what we want not scoring in 30 seconds and letting them continually be fresh.
mwc fan
Cowpoke
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:49 am
Location: Wheatland, Wyoming

It doesn't matter what offense or defense we run. The attitude for Wyoming football has to change. The players ( not all but a lot ) have a loser mentality. I've witnessed players quiting on and off the field, but with everyone hurt there is nobody to replace them. So they just don't give a poop. The same thing was noted when the University hired a 3rd party company to figure out why we aren't more competitive. It's that "good enough " mentality and it's spreads like cancer. Once the winning stops certain players tank it in games. It's extremely frustrating because this team could of went to a bowl game.
WyoBrandX
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1785
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Location: Laramie, Wyoming

TOP doesn't matter much. Its an overrated stat until your offense can't score. Then TOP becomes a defensive stat. If you aren't scoring you sure better move the ball a bit to give the ol defense a rest so hopefully they can get the ball back as quickly as possible and you can start scoring again.

This killed Christensen the last few years. We would go 3 and out in a blink of an eye and other teams would wear out defense down and score.

Wyoming will be good when we field both a good offense and a good defense at the same time. I like the new system. There is so much that can be done when you can run and throw the football and control the tempo of the game. Hell, if you can score at will and your defense can get the other team off the field, there is no reason to not toss the ball around and go up tempo.
User avatar
kansasCowboy
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2365
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.
wyoforever
Buckaroo
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:09 am

Bohl's system is not as pedestrian as it looks this year. Last year Brock Jensen rushed for 576 yards and had 10 rushing TD's. His runs would come off of spread look with read option. Also he passed for 2793 yards and had 34 passing TD's. The problem this year is not Bohl's system but the players. Colby was no threat to run and this limited the play calling. Offensive line had issues with protection and run blocking at times. Colby had a decent year but at critical times he was unable to extend the play due to lack of mobility. Next year I would expect a more open playbook with better athletes at QB (i.e. Coffman, Fort, Smith).
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.[/quote
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

Slow Hand wrote:
kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.[/quote

Here is where you and I disagree a little. I firmly believe that Rufran, Herron, and Gentry all achieved because of the system. People were forced to cover us with zone packages and they were very good at finding seams and room to run. This year most all coverages were zero. Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that they got slower or weaker this year? I can attest to you first hand that they are not slower fact is they are faster and CONSIDERABLY stronger. So you tell me what is the difference? I will agree that we are not nearly as good at the Qb position but we were most certainly adequate.
User avatar
kansasCowboy
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2365
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Slow Hand wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.[/quote

Here is where you and I disagree a little. I firmly believe that Rufran, Herron, and Gentry all achieved because of the system. People were forced to cover us with zone packages and they were very good at finding seams and room to run. This year most all coverages were zero. Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that they got slower or weaker this year? I can attest to you first hand that they are not slower fact is they are faster and CONSIDERABLY stronger. So you tell me what is the difference? I will agree that we are not nearly as good at the Qb position but we were most certainly adequate.
Our WRs are faster? I don't know. I've watched time and again Claiborne and Rufran being caught from behind. That didn't happen last year. Zone or man, last year Claiborne andRufran both broke off coverages. when Rufran did it and got into the open he was gone! No one would catch him. This year he's been caught multiple times. Just to name a few. Big pass against AFA this year. Also the pass at the end of the FAU game that he could've ran in, the defender started out 15 yards away and caught him. That is not bad luck, that is underachieving. These guys went from playmakers to possession type receivers. That's digressing.
ragtimejoe1
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 5118
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:21 pm
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 116 times

I'm not too worried about the "system" because we really haven't seen the "system". There is no way. In year 1, the playbook on both sides is limited not just by personnel but also the learning curve. I think Bohl is a good coach. I think at this point, if Bohl can't turn things around, nobody can and we will have to critically evaluate the importance of football at WYO.

With that said, I think the main areas of concern are:
1) Administration. Our budget has not kept up with inflation and peer institutions who win are rapidly passing us by. The sheep are going to eclipse us if something isn't done. Our AD himself said his only plan is to get more money from the State and if the State doesn't buy in, DI athletics at WYO will FAIL. We are seeing that trend now in football. Bohl is a good coach, but even good coaches can't succeed without money. If Bohl fails, it will largely be because of our Administration.

2) (this is just my concern) Loyalty to assistants. People like Stanard should be given time, but also be on a short leash. The guy has failed every time he has been a DC at this level. That doesn't necessarily mean he will fail now, but it is also reason enough to keep him on a short timeline if things are not progressing at a decent pace.

3) No effort at all in regard to rebranding. Just the same old Cowboy Tough, Powder River, etc. etc. Guess what? We've been getting our Cowboy Tough tails kicked for 15 years or better. However, our AD lacks the vision necessary to lead a rebranding of WYO athletics.

4) Will the State ever buy in. From fans to finances. Will we ever truly do, as a State, what is necessary to compete not just with CSU or within the MWC but nationally? I really don't know.

With the new format coming, it is difficult to tell what will happen. The old saying of "poop or get off the pot" has never been more relevant. For 15 years, we've blamed coaches and players. Maybe we will finally realize what our real problems are.
WYO1016 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2023 8:10 am I'm starting to think that Burman has been laying the pipe to ragtimejoe1's wife
Insults are the last resort of fools with a crumbling position.
Cornpoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: Pinedale, WY
Been liked: 6 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote:I'm not too worried about the "system" because we really haven't seen the "system". There is no way. In year 1, the playbook on both sides is limited not just by personnel but also the learning curve. I think Bohl is a good coach. I think at this point, if Bohl can't turn things around, nobody can and we will have to critically evaluate the importance of football at WYO.

With that said, I think the main areas of concern are:
1) Administration. Our budget has not kept up with inflation and peer institutions who win are rapidly passing us by. The sheep are going to eclipse us if something isn't done. Our AD himself said his only plan is to get more money from the State and if the State doesn't buy in, DI athletics at WYO will FAIL. We are seeing that trend now in football. Bohl is a good coach, but even good coaches can't succeed without money. If Bohl fails, it will largely be because of our Administration.

2) (this is just my concern) Loyalty to assistants. People like Stanard should be given time, but also be on a short leash. The guy has failed every time he has been a DC at this level. That doesn't necessarily mean he will fail now, but it is also reason enough to keep him on a short timeline if things are not progressing at a decent pace.

3) No effort at all in regard to rebranding. Just the same old Cowboy Tough, Powder River, etc. etc. Guess what? We've been getting our Cowboy Tough tails kicked for 15 years or better. However, our AD lacks the vision necessary to lead a rebranding of WYO athletics.

4) Will the State ever buy in. From fans to finances. Will we ever truly do, as a State, what is necessary to compete not just with CSU or within the MWC but nationally? I really don't know.

With the new format coming, it is difficult to tell what will happen. The old saying of "poop or get off the pot" has never been more relevant. For 15 years, we've blamed coaches and players. Maybe we will finally realize what our real problems are.
Couldn't have said it better myself. 100% Agree!!
I'm good for 3!
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.[/quote

Here is where you and I disagree a little. I firmly believe that Rufran, Herron, and Gentry all achieved because of the system. People were forced to cover us with zone packages and they were very good at finding seams and room to run. This year most all coverages were zero. Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that they got slower or weaker this year? I can attest to you first hand that they are not slower fact is they are faster and CONSIDERABLY stronger. So you tell me what is the difference? I will agree that we are not nearly as good at the Qb position but we were most certainly adequate.
Our WRs are faster? I don't know. I've watched time and again Claiborne and Rufran being caught from behind. That didn't happen last year. Zone or man, last year Claiborne andRufran both broke off coverages. when Rufran did it and got into the open he was gone! No one would catch him. This year he's been caught multiple times. Just to name a few. Big pass against AFA this year. Also the pass at the end of the FAU game that he could've ran in, the defender started out 15 yards away and caught him. That is not bad luck, that is underachieving. These guys went from playmakers to possession type receivers. That's digressing.
And so you hit it right on the head. They are in fact possession type receivers now. With the pro style offense unless you have an elite receiver you will not see the big plays because they cannot get separation. In a spread you don't need to get separation because your routes are built to take advantage of seams and windows. I am telling you every one of them are stronger and faster than they were a year ago. Thanks to Coach Duval! But the problem is it doesn't transfer to the field because they cannot get separation from man coverage!
User avatar
McPeachy
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7914
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:04 pm
Has liked: 291 times
Been liked: 115 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote:I think at this point, if Bohl can't turn things around, nobody can and we will have to critically evaluate the importance of football at WYO.
Oh poop. The exact same was said for Glenn, and then the exact same was said for Dickface. Now you curse Bohl with that same tired theory / line?

Bohl may only end up being as good as his parts - like Glenn was. Had Glenn had any resemblance of a staff on the offensive side of the ball, he would still (probably) be coaching at UW.
Dear Karma,

I have a list of people you missed...
TSpoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1435
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:08 am

I think I agree with Slow Hand. Maybe. Here is my take. I also prefer the spread offense and believe it is better suited for a place like Wyoming. It allows us to take advantages of mismatches on the outside if we can get a couple of good athletes and expose soft spots on the defense. The pro style requires a great offensive line which has not been something we have had much luck recruitnig the past 10ish years. Alabama (and others) have had luck with it because they continually get great results. And in my opinion NDSU is like the Alabama of the FCS(they recruited players that should be playing in the FBS).
That being said I beleive Craig Bohl was the best coach we could have hired and was ecstatic with the hire. I have bought in fully and embraced the new offense and at times have really enjoyed watching it. So none of this is an insult to Coach Bohl and I dont think SLow Hand was either. He was just starting a discussion on which scheme he thought was better.

One last thing, this year it appears that CSU is having plenty of success using a pro style offense so my thoughts on how successful it can be here are also changing.
User avatar
kansasCowboy
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2365
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:42 pm

Slow Hand wrote:
kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:
kansasCowboy wrote:
Slow Hand wrote:Not Freaking out by any stretch of the imagination. All I am doing is making a case for why I believe the Spread is a better fit for a mid level talent like Wyoming. It allows you to get the few high caliber athletes you may have in space and helps them make plays. I understand that we are in transition and I realize that we are not going to change that. I am just trying to offer up an opposing side of the coin.
You mean like Herron busting out big catches for big gains last year? If that's the case what about the opposite, in the pro style we watched Wick excel almost every game! Big plays for big gains. Probably just as many as Herron. Our WRs have shown that they can't do what we were doing last year as well. Blame a new offense, or new QB, or whatever, but theyve had their opportunities this year and dropped passes and acted slow as can be. Rufran is a clear example. I like the kid, but if he caught a deep ball last year, he was taking it to the house. He's had opportunity after opportunity game after game, and he has yet to even get a td this year! Is that Bohl? The pro style offense? No. It's the fact that he severely underachieved. Claiborne and Gentry are in the same boat. The only receivers that I've seen progress is TE Hollister.

Again, we probably would've been worse off this year with a third string Spread QB, and WRs that were underachieving this year. Your spread probably would've produced worse results. You play to your strengths. What's ours? Runningback. So it would stand to reason that we need to run the ball.[/quote

Here is where you and I disagree a little. I firmly believe that Rufran, Herron, and Gentry all achieved because of the system. People were forced to cover us with zone packages and they were very good at finding seams and room to run. This year most all coverages were zero. Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that they got slower or weaker this year? I can attest to you first hand that they are not slower fact is they are faster and CONSIDERABLY stronger. So you tell me what is the difference? I will agree that we are not nearly as good at the Qb position but we were most certainly adequate.
Our WRs are faster? I don't know. I've watched time and again Claiborne and Rufran being caught from behind. That didn't happen last year. Zone or man, last year Claiborne andRufran both broke off coverages. when Rufran did it and got into the open he was gone! No one would catch him. This year he's been caught multiple times. Just to name a few. Big pass against AFA this year. Also the pass at the end of the FAU game that he could've ran in, the defender started out 15 yards away and caught him. That is not bad luck, that is underachieving. These guys went from playmakers to possession type receivers. That's digressing.
And so you hit it right on the head. They are in fact possession type receivers now. With the pro style offense unless you have an elite receiver you will not see the big plays because they cannot get separation. In a spread you don't need to get separation because your routes are built to take advantage of seams and windows. I am telling you every one of them are stronger and faster than they were a year ago. Thanks to Coach Duval! But the problem is it doesn't transfer to the field because they cannot get separation from man coverage!
Wow! Just, wow! I even used two perfect examples and still you went with the excuse that it is pro style... Rufran had is man beat by 15 yards against FAU. He was caught after a clear 15 yard separation.
I see what you're getting at. But it's wrong. A pro style offense does not make you a possession WR. If you don't believe me then watch the highlights of each game and watch Claiborne and Rufrans catches. They have plenty of opportunity to get up field but Rufran either stutter steps, or Claiborne is caught and thrown out of bounds like a rag doll. Faster? Stronger? Both of them indicate this year, no.
I'm in no way saying I'm better than you. But, I am a coach and I do see this crap from a coaches perspective before I do a fans. And I really see underachieving here. You don't believe me, watch one of Rufrans interviews from last year compared to this year.
Slow Hand
Cowpoke
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:25 am

TSpoke wrote:I think I agree with Slow Hand. Maybe. Here is my take. I also prefer the spread offense and believe it is better suited for a place like Wyoming. It allows us to take advantages of mismatches on the outside if we can get a couple of good athletes and expose soft spots on the defense. The pro style requires a great offensive line which has not been something we have had much luck recruitnig the past 10ish years. Alabama (and others) have had luck with it because they continually get great results. And in my opinion NDSU is like the Alabama of the FCS(they recruited players that should be playing in the FBS).
That being said I beleive Craig Bohl was the best coach we could have hired and was ecstatic with the hire. I have bought in fully and embraced the new offense and at times have really enjoyed watching it. So none of this is an insult to Coach Bohl and I dont think SLow Hand was either. He was just starting a discussion on which scheme he thought was better.

One last thing, this year it appears that CSU is having plenty of success using a pro style offense so my thoughts on how successful it can be here are also changing.
Thank you TSpoke....that is exactly what I was trying to do. I would prefer to see a spread for stated reasons but we have a great coach in Coach Bohl who happens to think the Pro style is the way to go. Obviously he has a little more merit than I do! LOL
Post Reply