Porter Gustin

[kansasCowboy]

Why does it really matter who we're getting recruits over? It has little bearing on how good a player will become. It's what the coaches do with them once they are here that makes the difference.

Has little bearing? Bullshit.

I guarantee that if you take an AVERAGE typical Wyoming High School player at LB and put him under Bohl for 5 years (redshirt, then 4 years of eligibility) he would not be as good as a 3 star kid with offers from UTEP, Texas Tech, Tulsa, and New Mexico under Dave Christensen after 5 years.

Sure, if you take the same kid you know Bohl will develop him a hell of a lot better than Christensen.

But to think it has little bearing of where they come from, who was offering him, how good he is in high school etc. is foolish.

Do diamonds in the rough exist? Yes.
Are there large amounts of high schools that unfairly NEVER get any athletes recruited? Yes.

But there is some or a lot of validity to certain places never being recruited, and a validity to what other schools are interested in.

Who would have a better record after 5 years, Craig Bohl with kids from the Wyoming Shrine Bowl for 5 straight seasons, or Dave Christensen with kids from the Texas All-State team for 5 straight seasons?

Who was Brett Smith, arguably the best player in recent Wyoming football history, choosing between?

Like I said earlier... diamond in the rough.

As exciting as Brett Smith was, as much as he left EVERYTHING out on the field, as much as he exemplified COWBOY TOUGH, Brett Smith never won a bowl game. Brett Smith had a losing record.

Brett Smith didn't have a losing record. Wyoming under DC had a losing record. Brett made a bad team average with big play alone. Sometimes it just seemed like it was BRETT vs 11 defenders every offensive possession. His Greatness kept us in games and won us some. He did everything he could. Pass, run, scramble, block. If even one RB or WR matched his game by game or play by play integrity and toughness, we would've even won more games. Nobody would ever match his enthusiasm though.
I think Brett could've had even better numbers last year, behind an OL that progressively got better, and the WR would run better routes, instead of more rudimentary routes with Kirk.
I get both of your points. And I agree with both. You both are arguing the extreme end of each side though.

Yes, Bohl can take little talent and build it up to something great.
Yes, it does matter the caliber a player you initially go after. By the end of building that player up one will generally be better than the other significantly. Even though both grew and gained as a player.

 

[Wyo2dal]

Why does it really matter who we're getting recruits over? It has little bearing on how good a player will become. It's what the coaches do with them once they are here that makes the difference.

Has little bearing? Bullshit.

I guarantee that if you take an AVERAGE typical Wyoming High School player at LB and put him under Bohl for 5 years (redshirt, then 4 years of eligibility) he would not be as good as a 3 star kid with offers from UTEP, Texas Tech, Tulsa, and New Mexico under Dave Christensen after 5 years.

Sure, if you take the same kid you know Bohl will develop him a hell of a lot better than Christensen.

But to think it has little bearing of where they come from, who was offering him, how good he is in high school etc. is foolish.

Do diamonds in the rough exist? Yes.
Are there large amounts of high schools that unfairly NEVER get any athletes recruited? Yes.

But there is some or a lot of validity to certain places never being recruited, and a validity to what other schools are interested in.

Who would have a better record after 5 years, Craig Bohl with kids from the Wyoming Shrine Bowl for 5 straight seasons, or Dave Christensen with kids from the Texas All-State team for 5 straight seasons?

Who was Brett Smith, arguably the best player in recent Wyoming football history, choosing between?

I can't even fathom the shit that you just typed out, You actually think a 3 star athlete under Christensen would be better? Maybe a 5 star under Christensen vs a 1-2 Star under Bohl is the example you should have used.

Name one Athlete that Christensen recruited and developed while at Wyoming.

 

[BeaverPoke]

Why does it really matter who we're getting recruits over? It has little bearing on how good a player will become. It's what the coaches do with them once they are here that makes the difference.

Has little bearing? Bullshit.

I guarantee that if you take an AVERAGE typical Wyoming High School player at LB and put him under Bohl for 5 years (redshirt, then 4 years of eligibility) he would not be as good as a 3 star kid with offers from UTEP, Texas Tech, Tulsa, and New Mexico under Dave Christensen after 5 years.

Sure, if you take the same kid you know Bohl will develop him a hell of a lot better than Christensen.

But to think it has little bearing of where they come from, who was offering him, how good he is in high school etc. is foolish.

Do diamonds in the rough exist? Yes.
Are there large amounts of high schools that unfairly NEVER get any athletes recruited? Yes.

But there is some or a lot of validity to certain places never being recruited, and a validity to what other schools are interested in.

Who would have a better record after 5 years, Craig Bohl with kids from the Wyoming Shrine Bowl for 5 straight seasons, or Dave Christensen with kids from the Texas All-State team for 5 straight seasons?

Who was Brett Smith, arguably the best player in recent Wyoming football history, choosing between?

I can't even fathom the shit that you just typed out, You actually think a 3 star athlete under Christensen would be better? Maybe a 5 star under Christensen vs a 1-2 Star under Bohl is the example you should have used.

Name one Athlete that Christensen recruited and developed while at Wyoming.

Robert Herron. Marqueston Huff.

 

[McPeachy]

Robert Herron. Marqueston Huff.

Well, not really. Dickface didn't develop Herron. He was lightening in a bottle from day 1, and a great recruit. But his talent was wasted his first 2 years...remember the running back experiment? Not sure that Huff developed much either - and we may never know. Was Shamwow developed more at OkieState than UW - that would be a good comparison to look at.

 

[BeaverPoke]

Whatever your feelings about Christensen are, doesn't change the fact that you need fucking football players to win football games. Everyone on here knows that even Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are going to lose with a bunch of scrubs, versus a scrub coach with significantly better talent.

You can talk about how Bohl is going to develop kids, and how Christensen sucked at it, which is fine, but if I used some other bad coach besides Christensen you would agree. Jesus.
We get it, you hate Christensen. Move on.

Still, Christensen or some other shit coach with a Texas All-State team would beat a Bohl with a the Shrine Bowl team 9 times out of 10.

If you think otherwise, then holy shit I don't know what else to tell ya.

That Christensen team would have a 4 or 5 star QB, a couple 4 and 5 star RBs, a bunch of 4 and 5 star WRs, an entire O-Line of 4 and 5 star players. The D-Line would be all 4 and 5 stars. The LBs, same thing. I think you get my point.

The O and D lines would have kids weighing up to 100 pounds more than their counterparts.

You wanna field a team full of Wyo kids? A bunch of 160 pound linebackers, and 180 pound linemen, going against 270 pounders?

If you don't see how the baseline of the talent you are recruiting matters, then you don't know shit about football, and have an incredible hard-on for Bohl and are in complete denial about this football program.

 

[Wyo2dal]

Why does it really matter who we're getting recruits over? It has little bearing on how good a player will become. It's what the coaches do with them once they are here that makes the difference.

Has little bearing? Bullshit.

I guarantee that if you take an AVERAGE typical Wyoming High School player at LB and put him under Bohl for 5 years (redshirt, then 4 years of eligibility) he would not be as good as a 3 star kid with offers from UTEP, Texas Tech, Tulsa, and New Mexico under Dave Christensen after 5 years.

Sure, if you take the same kid you know Bohl will develop him a hell of a lot better than Christensen.

But to think it has little bearing of where they come from, who was offering him, how good he is in high school etc. is foolish.

Do diamonds in the rough exist? Yes.
Are there large amounts of high schools that unfairly NEVER get any athletes recruited? Yes.

But there is some or a lot of validity to certain places never being recruited, and a validity to what other schools are interested in.

Who would have a better record after 5 years, Craig Bohl with kids from the Wyoming Shrine Bowl for 5 straight seasons, or Dave Christensen with kids from the Texas All-State team for 5 straight seasons?

Who was Brett Smith, arguably the best player in recent Wyoming football history, choosing between?

I can't even fathom the shit that you just typed out, You actually think a 3 star athlete under Christensen would be better? Maybe a 5 star under Christensen vs a 1-2 Star under Bohl is the example you should have used.

Name one Athlete that Christensen recruited and developed while at Wyoming.

Robert Herron. Marqueston Huff.

Marcus Williams no rating out of high school CB, Not drafted signed as a FA.

Huff was a 3 star high School recruit CB from Texas, He was drafted Rd #4 pick #122.

That is where he was after his first year in the NFL. This is what I expect a 3 star athlete has the potential to become when serious about the sport and trains hard and is coached up.

That is Kyle Fuller 3 star CB out of Virginia Tech, He was drafted Rd #1 pick #14.

Are the stars not really 3 stars for both players or did one have better coaching in college or is one just better than the other? I'd put money that Huff with the same coaching staff that Fuller had he goes higher and is an overall better player and athlete.

I take nothing away from what Herron and Huff have done but I give no credit for Christensen because any 3 star has the potential to be a first round draft pick and the difference between going 1st round and 4th round has a hell of a lot of do with coaching.

This has nothing to do with hatred for Christensen you are letting your feelings for him cloud your judgement. I'm judging on 3 star CB's that played for the same team for their career and how they ended up. The list goes on and on and on for 3 Star CB's that went in the first round of an NFL draft.

Do you really think Huff isn't good or that better coaching would have made him better? You think Huff could have been as good as Jason Verrett who was at TCU who went #25? I do.

 

[BeaverPoke]

How many 3 star recruits never get drafted?

 

[joshvanklomp]

If you don't see how the baseline of the talent you are recruiting matters, then you don't know shit about football, and have an incredible hard-on for Bohl and are in complete denial about this football program.

That's not what I said at all.

Guess what, the star system isn't perfect. Not every five-star athlete is bound to become an All-American. These scouting services miss on players all the time.

Of course you need talent to win football games. But a player's talent is not defined by the number of stars he has next to his name when he signs his National Letter of Intent.

Each of the recruiting classes that made up last year's Michigan football team were top four in the Big Ten. According to your reasoning, they should've been a lock to challenge for the Big Ten title. They went 5-7 in 2014. In that same four-year span, Minnesota's recruiting classes ranked 11th, 14th, 14th and 8th. They went 8-4 in 2014.

Clearly the number of stars and the offer lists aren't as important as ESPN makes them out to be.

 

[Wyo2dal]

How many 3 star recruits never get drafted?

This isn't about who doesn't or does get drafted this is about the level of coaching Wyoming players received and you disputing that Christensen coached them as well as they could have been.

Clearly we will never know if that is the case but I simply don't believe that Huff isn't a better college player on a team like TCU. I believe Christensens first shot at coaching he bit of way more than he could chew.

Maybe in 10 years Chirstensen will learn as much as some of the better coaches and will be better at coaching. It was his first shot and he failed at it in a hard place to coach and he left and went back to doing what he is better at which is being in charge of a position not an entire team.

From an example stand point we could use Josh Doctson who was a solid receiver at Wyoming and move him to TCU and see what happens.

His first year in TCU he was pretty close and then he completely blew up and next year he is going to be a shining star in TCU. So was that all by chance or did maybe coaching play a role in him becoming a better player? I think a mix of coaching and experience are why he is where he is now and I do not believe for a second he would have the same year with Wyoming under DC.

 

[BeaverPoke]

How many 3 star recruits never get drafted?

This isn't about who doesn't or does get drafted this is about the level of coaching Wyoming players received and you disputing that Christensen coached them as well as they could have been.

Clearly we will never know if that is the case but I simply don't believe that Huff isn't a better college player on a team like TCU. I believe Christensens first shot at coaching he bit of way more than he could chew.

Maybe in 10 years Chirstensen will learn as much as some of the better coaches and will be better at coaching. It was his first shot and he failed at it in a hard place to coach and he left and went back to doing what he is better at which is being in charge of a position not an entire team.

HAHA WHAT????

Where did I say that I said Christensen coached them as well as they could have been??? Hahaha I never even hinted at that!

 

[NowherePoke]

Whatever your feelings about Christensen are, doesn't change the fact that you need fucking football players to win football games. Everyone on here knows that even Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are going to lose with a bunch of scrubs, versus a scrub coach with significantly better talent.

Absolutely. Nick Saban at Michigan State vs. Nick Saban at LSU/Bama. The difference? Talent.


We need to recruit better if we want to win consistently, however.....coming from where we are you really have to start winning with overlooked players that you develop before you can become a player in the recruiting wars.

Look at Boise's recruiting, which is excellent. But that is after over a decade of high level success. Kids that are signing today, grew up thinking of BSU as a Top 25 team. However, the first BSU teams that started winning at a high level in FBS were not made up of 4-star recruits. Gonzaga in hoops is another great example. They recruit big-time talent now, but they started their run with lower level guys.

You have to put something together with "diamond in the rough" types first to build some momentum. We haven't built any momentum during the modern recruiting era in Football and we squandered it in Basketball after Bailey/Davis/Uche.

 

[Wyo2dal]

How many 3 star recruits never get drafted?

This isn't about who doesn't or does get drafted this is about the level of coaching Wyoming players received and you disputing that Christensen coached them as well as they could have been.

Clearly we will never know if that is the case but I simply don't believe that Huff isn't a better college player on a team like TCU. I believe Christensens first shot at coaching he bit of way more than he could chew.

Maybe in 10 years Chirstensen will learn as much as some of the better coaches and will be better at coaching. It was his first shot and he failed at it in a hard place to coach and he left and went back to doing what he is better at which is being in charge of a position not an entire team.

HAHA WHAT????

Where did I say that I said Christensen coached them as well as they could have been??? Hahaha I never even hinted at that!

So now were back to the point that most players could have been better and Wyoming could have won more games with better coaching. So we agree that he was mediocre at best you said he recruited and developed Huff and I disagree Huff is still very raw and Christensens coaching was awful.

If Bohl can take a no rated CB from high school and send him to the NFL to me that shows that he has better coaching and development with players because he didn't do shit for Huff.

 

[BeaverPoke]

God damn this page is infuriating sometimes. I don't despise Christensen. That does not mean that I think he was a great coach.
When I hear his name I don't go into a fury of rage like most of you. Sorry, but that does not mean that I think he is good at developing talent either.

 

[BeaverPoke]

No shit, we need good coaches that need to be developed.
You are under the impression that I am saying coaching doesn't matter.

Couldn't be more wrong.


Coaching absolutely matters.
But so do the players!

 

[Wyo2dal]

God damn this page is infuriating sometimes. I don't despise Christensen. That does not mean that I think he was a great coach.
When I hear his name I don't go into a fury of rage like most of you. Sorry, but that does not mean that I think he is good at developing talent either.

Well we're on the same page but I don't go into a fury either and I don't despise anyone that has ever been here it's just not who I am. You defend him in a scenario of being able to wins games if he had better players and we had some solid athletes and we couldn't win shit.

My opinion of DC is he is a coordinator and not a coach. We lost a lot of games because he is a shitty coach. So yes I do feel like from what I have seen on paper and heard that Bohl will better prepare the players for games and we are likely to win more with less with him as a coach.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It isn't hard. You must have a certain level of talent to be competitive regardless of coaching. If you recruit below that level, then you won't be successful.

Once that threshold is met, coaching makes all the difference in the world up to the 4 and 5 star recruits.

Then it matters on the balance. In other words if your team is full of 5 star kids, you can get by with a little less on the coaching end but you still may not beat a well coached team full of 3-4 star kids. You would likely throttle a well coached team full of 2 star kids.

You have to have talent to coach. Kind of like the show Rudy, well coached and all the heart in the world but didn't have the talent to see the field.

 

[BeaverPoke]

God damn this page is infuriating sometimes. I don't despise Christensen. That does not mean that I think he was a great coach.
When I hear his name I don't go into a fury of rage like most of you. Sorry, but that does not mean that I think he is good at developing talent either.

Well we're on the same page but I don't go into a fury either and I don't despise anyone that has ever been here it's just not who I am. You defend him in a scenario of being able to wins games if he had better players and we had some solid athletes and we couldn't win shit.

My opinion of DC is he is a coordinator and not a coach. We lost a lot of games because he is a shitty coach. So yes I do feel like from what I have seen on paper and heard that Bohl will better prepare the players for games.

I don't defend him in a scenario of being able to win games.

I guarantee that a shit coach with a bunch of Texas All-State kids (these kids who go onto play at the best teams in the SEC, Big12, and Pac12) would beat a Bohl coached team of Wyo Shrine Bowl kids (maybe 2 of these go onto play NAIA).

I'm picking Texas and Wyoming high school because it is a given that Texas high school football is the best in the country and we are among the worst. I am picking the extremes to highlight the difference in talent, and showing how that the baseline talent does indeed matter, as opposed to what JVK was getting at.

 

[Wyo2dal]

I agree stars and ranking matter but I believe the biggest difference is the coach. I also believe that Bohl can and has beat 3-4 star recruits with 1-2 star recruits. Maybe not going as far as just saying Wyoming kids because there are only 2 on the roster.

 

[BJC]

simple.......a bigger stronger faster smarter kid + development > a bigger stronger faster smarter kid + no development

player with a low baseline of talent...size, etc regardless of hard work...development etc....has a ceiling.....can go around and around but

P5 x 3 is not = P3 x 3

However P5 x 2 < P3 x 4

But if the strength staff and coaching gets the most out of players...the end result of the more talented kid will be better............I think I just made a simple situation into something complicated

 

[BeaverPoke]

So... back to my point here a while ago...

I think we can get some 3 star recruits.
I think we can get kids who have other FBS offers.

I know the star ranking shit is ridiculous. But, those kids don't think so.
If a bunch of kids are at a camp and know a 3 star RB or LB is going to Wyoming, it makes Wyoming more appealing.
As compared to a 1 or 2 star who is going to Wyoming.

It gives the Pokes validity and credit among those that actually matter- the future recruits.

Not very many kids in the state of Colorado will care if a kid who they think is a scrub, but Bohl sees talent, goes to Wyoming.

They will care when one of the big bad asses in their circle goes to Wyo.