Wyoming Discussion

[DenverOfTheEast]

Clark has had to coach under more Expectations than any previous App State coach ever.
Clark has faced more ranked teams than any previous App State coach ever.
Clark has coached in the SBC while ULL, Coastal and Troy all have been ranked in the top 25.
Clark had his 1st Spring off season cancelled because of the Pandemic and still won 9 games.
Clark has had to coach in the portal era, where App State is at a DISadvantage against its peer SBC schools based on academic/transcript/credit hours.
Clark had to face back to back P5 games to open 2022, who does that to a G5 program/coach, oh yeah, I know who.
Clark had 3 straight Different OC because of lack of pay, Peterson - Illinois, Ponce to Miami, Other little dude to Miss State, fund the staff admin!!! Lack of continuity isn't good for consistent play.
Clark has coached in the Sun Belt when it was/is at its strongest and deepest ever in the history of its football inception.
Clark has to put up with the NLI Collective Clowns that have secret meetings with players to 'find out what is going on'
Clark lost Zac Thomas because the poor kid was ran out by the fan base that harassed him.


Chew on this all Sunday, talk bad and refute it based on it's coming from me, but it's all factual and has an impact on the success HCSC will end up having. He's a good dude, has common sense, knows what works to make App State football win and be competitive. This is the best collective staff since Satterfield's last season in Boone. There are miscues for sure during certain games periodically, but all things considering he's a good football coach.

[appstate5]

3- Bohl had the balls to blitz the last play, a screen or QB run should have beaten it, IMHO

Coach Bohl knew if he kept the game close, he had a chance.
We kept the game close by play calling that was working but not successful in TD's...... FCS coaching style will not win in FBS ....
Score as often as possible and kill the opponents will wins.... We kept them in the game, period!!!

And they called the screen. Everybody on our sideline knew the pressure was coming. Screen was set up perfectly. JA just didn't read it right.

Isn't every QB taught at the high school level NOT to throw it up for grabs when you are in FG range with only seconds to go? As soon as it left his hand I was screaming WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

[appstate5]

When we got destroyed by WKU in the bowl game I told the family that was the beginning of a downhill spiral for App State Football. Then last year going 6-6, beating ole Bob Morris shouldn't even have counted, losing to stink the way we did made me feel even stronger that App football was not where it should be. Bottom line Clark wins 2 of every 3 games. For some that's fine, for diehard App fans that's not satisfactory and I feel like even Clark would admit that. I see another 6-7 win season ahead of us. I'm still wearing my App State t-shirt today and will continue to support the players but if overall coaching doesn't get any better I will be receptive to a HC change at the end of the season.

Watching a stint of Cincinatti and Oklahoma yesterday Satterfield only won 2 out of 3 games at APP according to the announcers - fwiw

Vegas has had APP as an underdog in the UNC and Wyoming games. OK

Last season had a lot of bone headed staff calls, not seeing that this year so far 1/3 of the way through the season. They have cleaned up that part of the game. The players aren't getting drive ending penalties or giving opponents drive extending penalties. We've been in position to be 4-0, UNC and Wyoming are good teams and aren't bad losses, although losses.

Yesterday was a BAD loss, PERIOD.

[Yosef10]

While your baseball analogy is correct, it's apples to oranges.

What if Clark played for the win and Joey threw another pick 6 or Noel fumbled and returned for a TD? Then it's "OMG CLARK! GAME WAS IN HAND! JUST KICK THE FG!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" by the same exact people saying he should go for the win.

Both of those potential things happen WAY more often than a blocked FG. Let alone a blocked FG to take a perfect bounce into the defenders hands. Nobody could have expected what happen to happen. It was the first time in their history that kind of play happened at all. It just happened to be at a very critical time in the game against us.

There's no question we were the better team. But sometimes, the better team doesn't win.

Ultimately, this was on the execution of the players in the red zone, some weird stuff Wyoming was going in the middle on FG attempts (caught wind of what it was and it's not anywhere close to legal if that is what was happening), and an odd lateral play with another ball that hit Davis in the hands and he drops it.

The game plan was perfection. It was ran to perfection outside of 3 plays (4 if you count the last play blunder). Anybody saying the gameplan was poor either didn't pay attention or knows nothing about football. We took a team that usually has the ball for 40 minutes and held them to under 20... that is gameplan perfection! We flipped the script on them and they were lost.

We were not out coached, out schemed, etc. We were out executed in 3 crucial plays (which yes, I understand ultimately is the head coaches responsibility). If our players out execute them on literally 1 more play, we win.

Again, I get execution is on the head coach. But, it is also week 4 with a lot of new faces on the staff. It's going to take time to gel. This is not an excuse, (I am not excusing it. It needs to be fixed and fixed soon) but an understanding of why execution can be sloppy in some cases. It sucks, but it's going to happen. That's why there are 12 guaranteed games. The fire and emotion on the leaders of this team after the loss was something I haven't seen since 2017. We'll be fine.

And just remember -- although Clark adamantly denies it, this is a rebuild year.

No one on earth who has watched App’s 4 games this season would call this a rebuild. This team is good enough to win the Sun Belt. But, go ahead and set your bar low to protect your guy.

The teams has progressed faster than expected. True. You know how that happens? Coaching... wild, right?

I’ve said it elsewhere. I, and others who do call out Clark’s OBVIOUS shortcomings on gameday, also applaud him for the good work he’s done in other areas. The issue is there are those who for whatever reason can’t admit the OBVIOUS when it comes to gameday. And that’s why these threads turn the way they do.

Because it's only "obvious" to the armchair QBs that have zero idea about football and discuss opinions only.

But anybody that has knowledge of football is just making excuses even though they are facts.

Ahh, the ole “you dont know football” retort. I implore you to just do the most basic of research on probability and analytics. 4th and 2 and 4th and 3 (what we faced on the two first half FGs) are 100% Go For It scenarios in plus territory. Let alone inside the 10 yard line. I can understand kicking one, but two just shows basic lack of understanding. Even 10 points instead of 6 is a huge difference. 3 instead of 6 is not. These are simple things.

[AppStateNews]

3- Bohl had the balls to blitz the last play, a screen or QB run should have beaten it, IMHO

Coach Bohl knew if he kept the game close, he had a chance.
We kept the game close by play calling that was working but not successful in TD's...... FCS coaching style will not win in FBS ....
Score as often as possible and kill the opponents will wins.... We kept them in the game, period!!!

And they called the screen. Everybody on our sideline knew the pressure was coming. Screen was set up perfectly. JA just didn't read it right.

AppState News
I guess you agree with me on my other observations???

We got played because WE didn't go for the KILL , over and over again...... its hard to watch because WE coaches and players dominated on the field BUT left the door open for 3 plays to take a WIN from US.

It's just replay after replay after replay...... WE better coach and play better this next month .... Is 7-5 okay... 8-4 okay ????

The TD wasn't a holding in the pocket. They ran that same exact play a minimum of 5 times prior.

The blocked FG was one guy destroying two in the middle. What I've been told (haven't gone back to watch) is he was able to destroy two by himself because the guys next to him intentionally stepped/fell/held on our o lines feet at the snap making it really easy to push through.

I've said all along I'm exciting and 8-4 regular season with next year getting back to the App State football we all know and love.

This team has also showed a lot of promise to have a special season now. But, we are a very young team. We will make mistakes. We made too many last night.

I understand the kill shot argument. But, you have to look at it from the other side. If we go for it on 4th down on any one of those attempts in the 1st half and don't get it, we are leaving points on the board in a game we knew was going to be a defensive battle. If you know it's going to be an offense shootout or our defense was unexpectedly playing terrible, then yes, you go for the TD. But, we were confident we could slow down their offense with our defensive game plan so you HAVE to take points where you can against a team like that.

It wasn't not taking the kill shot. It was not chasing points in a game where points were at a premium.

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

[PhillyApp1]

3 things I noticed

1- coach Bohl had the long TD run in his back pocket waiting because the game was within reach.

2- the blocked FG was blocked on a 2on1 with a new online man I believe

3- Bohl had the balls to blitz the last play, a screen or QB run should have beaten it, IMHO

Coach Bohl knew if he kept the game close, he had a chance.
We kept the game close by play calling that was working but not successful in TD's...... FCS coaching style will not win in FBS ....
Score as often as possible and kill the opponents will wins.... We kept them in the game, period!!!

How do you keep a long TD in your back pocket? It was the same play ran probably 5 times during the game.

Okay, they made the right blocks after 5 attempts but I believe they knew that they had a chance because we didn't CLOSE the door via scoring.

[Appmountaineers19]

3 things I noticed

1- coach Bohl had the long TD run in his back pocket waiting because the game was within reach.

2- the blocked FG was blocked on a 2on1 with a new online man I believe

3- Bohl had the balls to blitz the last play, a screen or QB run should have beaten it, IMHO

Coach Bohl knew if he kept the game close, he had a chance.
We kept the game close by play calling that was working but not successful in TD's...... FCS coaching style will not win in FBS ....
Score as often as possible and kill the opponents will wins.... We kept them in the game, period!!!

How do you keep a long TD in your back pocket? It was the same play ran probably 5 times during the game.

Okay, they made the right blocks after 5 attempts but I believe they knew that they had a chance because we didn't CLOSE the door via scoring.

I think we all can agree that we want to see APP win but yesterday feels like it was more on the players than the coaches.

[Yosef10]

And they called the screen. Everybody on our sideline knew the pressure was coming. Screen was set up perfectly. JA just didn't read it right.

AppState News
I guess you agree with me on my other observations???

We got played because WE didn't go for the KILL , over and over again...... its hard to watch because WE coaches and players dominated on the field BUT left the door open for 3 plays to take a WIN from US.

It's just replay after replay after replay...... WE better coach and play better this next month .... Is 7-5 okay... 8-4 okay ????

The TD wasn't a holding in the pocket. They ran that same exact play a minimum of 5 times prior.

The blocked FG was one guy destroying two in the middle. What I've been told (haven't gone back to watch) is he was able to destroy two by himself because the guys next to him intentionally stepped/fell/held on our o lines feet at the snap making it really easy to push through.

I've said all along I'm exciting and 8-4 regular season with next year getting back to the App State football we all know and love.

This team has also showed a lot of promise to have a special season now. But, we are a very young team. We will make mistakes. We made too many last night.

I understand the kill shot argument. But, you have to look at it from the other side. If we go for it on 4th down on any one of those attempts in the 1st half and don't get it, we are leaving points on the board in a game we knew was going to be a defensive battle. If you know it's going to be an offense shootout or our defense was unexpectedly playing terrible, then yes, you go for the TD. But, we were confident we could slow down their offense with our defensive game plan so you HAVE to take points where you can against a team like that.

It wasn't not taking the kill shot. It was not chasing points in a game where points were at a premium.

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

[appgrad95&97]

And they called the screen. Everybody on our sideline knew the pressure was coming. Screen was set up perfectly. JA just didn't read it right.

AppState News
I guess you agree with me on my other observations???

We got played because WE didn't go for the KILL , over and over again...... its hard to watch because WE coaches and players dominated on the field BUT left the door open for 3 plays to take a WIN from US.

It's just replay after replay after replay...... WE better coach and play better this next month .... Is 7-5 okay... 8-4 okay ????

The TD wasn't a holding in the pocket. They ran that same exact play a minimum of 5 times prior.

The blocked FG was one guy destroying two in the middle. What I've been told (haven't gone back to watch) is he was able to destroy two by himself because the guys next to him intentionally stepped/fell/held on our o lines feet at the snap making it really easy to push through.

I've said all along I'm exciting and 8-4 regular season with next year getting back to the App State football we all know and love.

This team has also showed a lot of promise to have a special season now. But, we are a very young team. We will make mistakes. We made too many last night.

I understand the kill shot argument. But, you have to look at it from the other side. If we go for it on 4th down on any one of those attempts in the 1st half and don't get it, we are leaving points on the board in a game we knew was going to be a defensive battle. If you know it's going to be an offense shootout or our defense was unexpectedly playing terrible, then yes, you go for the TD. But, we were confident we could slow down their offense with our defensive game plan so you HAVE to take points where you can against a team like that.

It wasn't not taking the kill shot. It was not chasing points in a game where points were at a premium.

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

One size does not fit all. But since the WKU bowl game we are 8-8, with 3 of those 8 wins against FCS opponents.

[AppStateNews]

AppState News
I guess you agree with me on my other observations???

We got played because WE didn't go for the KILL , over and over again...... its hard to watch because WE coaches and players dominated on the field BUT left the door open for 3 plays to take a WIN from US.

It's just replay after replay after replay...... WE better coach and play better this next month .... Is 7-5 okay... 8-4 okay ????

The TD wasn't a holding in the pocket. They ran that same exact play a minimum of 5 times prior.

The blocked FG was one guy destroying two in the middle. What I've been told (haven't gone back to watch) is he was able to destroy two by himself because the guys next to him intentionally stepped/fell/held on our o lines feet at the snap making it really easy to push through.

I've said all along I'm exciting and 8-4 regular season with next year getting back to the App State football we all know and love.

This team has also showed a lot of promise to have a special season now. But, we are a very young team. We will make mistakes. We made too many last night.

I understand the kill shot argument. But, you have to look at it from the other side. If we go for it on 4th down on any one of those attempts in the 1st half and don't get it, we are leaving points on the board in a game we knew was going to be a defensive battle. If you know it's going to be an offense shootout or our defense was unexpectedly playing terrible, then yes, you go for the TD. But, we were confident we could slow down their offense with our defensive game plan so you HAVE to take points where you can against a team like that.

It wasn't not taking the kill shot. It was not chasing points in a game where points were at a premium.

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

And yes, two things can be true at once. But you can't say Clark doesn't believe in his players and is a bad coach and the very next sentence say this team is light years ahead of where we were. The latter doesn't happen if the former is true.

[ASUTodd]

The TD wasn't a holding in the pocket. They ran that same exact play a minimum of 5 times prior.

The blocked FG was one guy destroying two in the middle. What I've been told (haven't gone back to watch) is he was able to destroy two by himself because the guys next to him intentionally stepped/fell/held on our o lines feet at the snap making it really easy to push through.

I've said all along I'm exciting and 8-4 regular season with next year getting back to the App State football we all know and love.

This team has also showed a lot of promise to have a special season now. But, we are a very young team. We will make mistakes. We made too many last night.

I understand the kill shot argument. But, you have to look at it from the other side. If we go for it on 4th down on any one of those attempts in the 1st half and don't get it, we are leaving points on the board in a game we knew was going to be a defensive battle. If you know it's going to be an offense shootout or our defense was unexpectedly playing terrible, then yes, you go for the TD. But, we were confident we could slow down their offense with our defensive game plan so you HAVE to take points where you can against a team like that.

It wasn't not taking the kill shot. It was not chasing points in a game where points were at a premium.

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

[Appmountaineers19]

No one on earth who has watched App’s 4 games this season would call this a rebuild. This team is good enough to win the Sun Belt. But, go ahead and set your bar low to protect your guy.

The teams has progressed faster than expected. True. You know how that happens? Coaching... wild, right?

I’ve said it elsewhere. I, and others who do call out Clark’s OBVIOUS shortcomings on gameday, also applaud him for the good work he’s done in other areas. The issue is there are those who for whatever reason can’t admit the OBVIOUS when it comes to gameday. And that’s why these threads turn the way they do.

Because it's only "obvious" to the armchair QBs that have zero idea about football and discuss opinions only.

But anybody that has knowledge of football is just making excuses even though they are facts.

Ahh, the ole “you dont know football” retort. I implore you to just do the most basic of research on probability and analytics. 4th and 2 and 4th and 3 (what we faced on the two first half FGs) are 100% Go For It scenarios in plus territory. Let alone inside the 10 yard line. I can understand kicking one, but two just shows basic lack of understanding. Even 10 points instead of 6 is a huge difference. 3 instead of 6 is not. These are simple things.

You say these things are simple but analytics do not take into account the problem that analytics are gathering situational data as opposed to team data. You are looking at the average outcome based on what teams have done in similar situations. No doubt analytics are playing more of a role in sports but understanding when and how to use them is important and that doesn't include playing on the road, momentum gained or lost if said play doesn't work, is it a defensive battle etc. Yes the "you don't play X sport does apply" ( I will take someone's knowledge who played at a high level of X sport over analytics anytime) because you/me have never been in that situation on a football field. (but maybe you have - If you have please let me know) There's more that goes into a 4th down decision than just analytics.

[appstatealum]

When we got destroyed by WKU in the bowl game I told the family that was the beginning of a downhill spiral for App State Football. Then last year going 6-6, beating ole Bob Morris shouldn't even have counted, losing to stink the way we did made me feel even stronger that App football was not where it should be. Bottom line Clark wins 2 of every 3 games. For some that's fine, for diehard App fans that's not satisfactory and I feel like even Clark would admit that. I see another 6-7 win season ahead of us. I'm still wearing my App State t-shirt today and will continue to support the players but if overall coaching doesn't get any better I will be receptive to a HC change at the end of the season.

Watching a stint of Cincinatti and Oklahoma yesterday Satterfield only won 2 out of 3 games at APP according to the announcers - fwiw

Vegas has had APP as an underdog in the UNC and Wyoming games. OK

Last season had a lot of bone headed staff calls, not seeing that this year so far 1/3 of the way through the season. They have cleaned up that part of the game. The players aren't getting drive ending penalties or giving opponents drive extending penalties. We've been in position to be 4-0, UNC and Wyoming are good teams and aren't bad losses, although losses.

Did we watch the same games? UNC was a bad loss and Wyoming was an even worse loss. We were clearly the better team in both and lost.

[AppStateNews]

Football has changed man. FGs don’t win you games anymore, and missing out on 3 points, or even 6, in the first half doesn’t lose you the game anymore when offenses aren’t 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Fact is, the math says more often than not you’re going to convert either of those 4th downs and turn that into 7 points. It’s mindblowing it’s 2023 and folks haven’t learned that yet.

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but soccer is a low scoring sport. One goal can win the game -- and often does, right?

So, if the opposing team has a REALLY good defense that is the exact type of defense that is going to slow your type of offense down and their coach says "I'll live with you getting a point on a penalty kick instead of playing it into the box and likely getting it stopped by our all world goal keeper," are you going to take the PK or are you going to try to do what the opponent wants you to do (keep trying and get 0)?

I bet your strategy changes if you know you can score that goal either way (PK or normal play) later in the game, right? Or, if the opposing team has an all world striker that is averaging 3 goals a game -- that probably changes your strategy too, right?

Again, I know it's apples to oranges trying to compare soccer to football. But, my point is your opponent and their tactics, game plan, and tendencies all HAVE to play a role in every decision you make. And what you decide for one opponent may not work for the next.

In this case against a stout red zone defense, going for FGs and not chasing points was the right move for early in the game. Those 3 points do matter more in a game like this.

[LKN_Lawyer]

FGs do win games in defensive battles. FGs would have won the game last night if we execute one more play correctly.

You don't chase points in the first half in a defensive battle. Point. Blank. Period. You don't do it. It's as simple as that.

And yes, the game has changed. And your philosophy has to change based on opponent. Just using recency bias -- if we were in the same situation against WKU in Boca, then I agree you go for the TD because a FG is not going to win that game. A FG can and should have won a game against Wyoming.

You can't have a one size fits all philosophy.

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but soccer is a low scoring sport. One goal can win the game -- and often does, right?

So, if the opposing team has a REALLY good defense that is the exact type of defense that is going to slow your type of offense down and their coach says "I'll live with you getting a point on a penalty kick instead of playing it into the box and likely getting it stopped by our all world goal keeper," are you going to take the PK or are you going to try to do what the opponent wants you to do (keep trying and get 0)?

I bet your strategy changes if you know you can score that goal either way (PK or normal play) later in the game, right? Or, if the opposing team has an all world striker that is averaging 3 goals a game -- that probably changes your strategy too, right?

Again, I know it's apples to oranges trying to compare soccer to football. But, my point is your opponent and their tactics, game plan, and tendencies all HAVE to play a role in every decision you make. And what you decide for one opponent may not work for the next.

In this case against a stout red zone defense, going for FGs and not chasing points was the right move for early in the game. Those 3 points do matter more in a game like this.

You keep saying the game plan was that it was going to be a defensive battle and that is why the management was conservative. Can game plans not be adjusted? Like hey, we are driving all over these guys, maybe their defense isn’t so strong after all. Why throttle down just for the sake of sticking to the game plan when you are moving the ball with rather ease?

[AppStateNews]

The first drive of the game is where they kocked from the 8. App was ripping off more than 5 yards per play. How was this a defensive battle at this point? Oh it wasn’t, Clark was just playing for one. Thanks for proving my point. And yes, other than not having any feel for this area of the game, Shawn is a pretty good coach. Two things can be true at once. Unfortunately what he’s bad at creates pretty much 0 margin for error.

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but soccer is a low scoring sport. One goal can win the game -- and often does, right?

So, if the opposing team has a REALLY good defense that is the exact type of defense that is going to slow your type of offense down and their coach says "I'll live with you getting a point on a penalty kick instead of playing it into the box and likely getting it stopped by our all world goal keeper," are you going to take the PK or are you going to try to do what the opponent wants you to do (keep trying and get 0)?

I bet your strategy changes if you know you can score that goal either way (PK or normal play) later in the game, right? Or, if the opposing team has an all world striker that is averaging 3 goals a game -- that probably changes your strategy too, right?

Again, I know it's apples to oranges trying to compare soccer to football. But, my point is your opponent and their tactics, game plan, and tendencies all HAVE to play a role in every decision you make. And what you decide for one opponent may not work for the next.

In this case against a stout red zone defense, going for FGs and not chasing points was the right move for early in the game. Those 3 points do matter more in a game like this.

You keep saying the game plan was that it was going to be a defensive battle and that is why the management was conservative. Can game plans not be adjusted? Like hey, we are driving all over these guys, maybe their defense isn’t so strong after all. Why throttle down just for the sake of sticking to the game plan when you are moving the ball with rather ease?

Their scheme is similar to ours in we both keep everything in front. So, once you get in to the red zone, it's a lot harder for the offenses. It's harder to spread out. It's harder to use the boundary. It's harder to use speed. It's harder to use misdirections. Offense in the red zone is just harder. Plain and simple. I mention this because yes, we drove all over them but the plays that were wrong at the 40 probably won't work at the 10. No denying we have to get better in the red zone -- play calling and execution.

The gameplan I am referencing is keeping the ball out of their hands. They wanted to play the game we played but we didn't allow them to. They average right around 35 minutes of possession a game. They had it for less than 20 last night. So, when I say the gameplan was perfectly executed, this is what I mean. We did exactly what we had to do to win -- destroyed the TOP battle, flipped their script, made them very uncomfortable, and played essentially lock down defense (minus one play).

[Stonewall]

A thousand and one variables that you can all argue about but the bottom line is winning and losing .HC is responsible for successfully managing those variables , at least enough of them to get the win. Didn't get it done. Good news is that the games that really count toward our often stated goal are all ahead of us.

[Black Saturday]

Wait, coaches are no longer allowed to watch film before the game to know what the opponent is really good at? That's crazy! These rule changes are insane.....

Obviously tongue in cheek, but you go in to every game knowing what kind of game it's going to be. This one everybody knew was going to be a mano y mano, blue collar, defensive battle. You don't even have to be a coach that watches film to see that.

Again, if Wyoming was a threat to score a lot of points, I agree with you. But they weren't. And the game plan worked to perfection. It took a literal first time in existence type of play for them to win. You can't expect that to happen.

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but soccer is a low scoring sport. One goal can win the game -- and often does, right?

So, if the opposing team has a REALLY good defense that is the exact type of defense that is going to slow your type of offense down and their coach says "I'll live with you getting a point on a penalty kick instead of playing it into the box and likely getting it stopped by our all world goal keeper," are you going to take the PK or are you going to try to do what the opponent wants you to do (keep trying and get 0)?

I bet your strategy changes if you know you can score that goal either way (PK or normal play) later in the game, right? Or, if the opposing team has an all world striker that is averaging 3 goals a game -- that probably changes your strategy too, right?

Again, I know it's apples to oranges trying to compare soccer to football. But, my point is your opponent and their tactics, game plan, and tendencies all HAVE to play a role in every decision you make. And what you decide for one opponent may not work for the next.

In this case against a stout red zone defense, going for FGs and not chasing points was the right move for early in the game. Those 3 points do matter more in a game like this.

You keep saying the game plan was that it was going to be a defensive battle and that is why the management was conservative. Can game plans not be adjusted? Like hey, we are driving all over these guys, maybe their defense isn’t so strong after all. Why throttle down just for the sake of sticking to the game plan when you are moving the ball with rather ease?

Their scheme is similar to ours in we both keep everything in front. So, once you get in to the red zone, it's a lot harder for the offenses. It's harder to spread out. It's harder to use the boundary. It's harder to use speed. It's harder to use misdirections. Offense in the red zone is just harder. Plain and simple. I mention this because yes, we drove all over them but the plays that were wrong at the 40 probably won't work at the 10. No denying we have to get better in the red zone -- play calling and execution.

The gameplan I am referencing is keeping the ball out of their hands. They wanted to play the game we played but we didn't allow them to. They average right around 35 minutes of possession a game. They had it for less than 20 last night. So, when I say the gameplan was perfectly executed, this is what I mean. We did exactly what we had to do to win -- destroyed the TOP battle, flipped their script, made them very uncomfortable, and played essentially lock down defense (minus one play).

How about going under center in certain situations?

[AppStateNews]

You don't play so that one play can win the game(that's like letting a fight go to the judges score cards, disaster waiting to happen). You go out there and put your athletes in a position to give you maximum points. The Wyoming offense was going to score zero points. They aren't good. Our defense did it's job and yet we decided to throttle the offense and play touch butt all night. I know you're on the sidelines... I know you're connected with the team... I know you have way more football knowledge and inside info than most of us.... (And I appreciate the input that normally we wouldn't get) .....but I know what I watched. I coach soccer, have for over 12 years now. I know it isn't football but I know when see a debacle taking place in a game. Whether it's on Shawn or Ponce, don't really care at this point. To me someone tried to play the great tactician last night instead of just going out there and letting the offense do what it does....score.... Sometimes it feels like we overthink a game plan so much we look like we don't have one.

Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but soccer is a low scoring sport. One goal can win the game -- and often does, right?

So, if the opposing team has a REALLY good defense that is the exact type of defense that is going to slow your type of offense down and their coach says "I'll live with you getting a point on a penalty kick instead of playing it into the box and likely getting it stopped by our all world goal keeper," are you going to take the PK or are you going to try to do what the opponent wants you to do (keep trying and get 0)?

I bet your strategy changes if you know you can score that goal either way (PK or normal play) later in the game, right? Or, if the opposing team has an all world striker that is averaging 3 goals a game -- that probably changes your strategy too, right?

Again, I know it's apples to oranges trying to compare soccer to football. But, my point is your opponent and their tactics, game plan, and tendencies all HAVE to play a role in every decision you make. And what you decide for one opponent may not work for the next.

In this case against a stout red zone defense, going for FGs and not chasing points was the right move for early in the game. Those 3 points do matter more in a game like this.

You keep saying the game plan was that it was going to be a defensive battle and that is why the management was conservative. Can game plans not be adjusted? Like hey, we are driving all over these guys, maybe their defense isn’t so strong after all. Why throttle down just for the sake of sticking to the game plan when you are moving the ball with rather ease?

Their scheme is similar to ours in we both keep everything in front. So, once you get in to the red zone, it's a lot harder for the offenses. It's harder to spread out. It's harder to use the boundary. It's harder to use speed. It's harder to use misdirections. Offense in the red zone is just harder. Plain and simple. I mention this because yes, we drove all over them but the plays that were wrong at the 40 probably won't work at the 10. No denying we have to get better in the red zone -- play calling and execution.

The gameplan I am referencing is keeping the ball out of their hands. They wanted to play the game we played but we didn't allow them to. They average right around 35 minutes of possession a game. They had it for less than 20 last night. So, when I say the gameplan was perfectly executed, this is what I mean. We did exactly what we had to do to win -- destroyed the TOP battle, flipped their script, made them very uncomfortable, and played essentially lock down defense (minus one play).

How about going under center in certain situations?

We've gone under center at least twice so far this year...

[Saint3333]

It’s really hard to spread teams out when you line up with everyone in the middle.