Boise State

[dyemeduke]

Boise gets some 3* talent in a 2* (at best) conference. So they roll all but a couple teams each year. Well-coached, have had continuity of systems, and they've built a culture of winning. But if you traded their roster for Washington State's, Wazzou would get worse.

This is a really interesting thread...sorry Buffnik, couldn't disagree more with your statement about Wazzu. Perhaps if you traded the rosters when they were all freshmen, but at this point, BSU's upperclassmen players have developed into quality players. They are simply better players now than their 3-4 star counterparts coming out of HS.

BSU may not win the Pac 12 if they joined, but they would still upper-tier. They have shown their ability time and time again...it's time for "bigger" programs such as us to stop being snobbish about the matter. BSU is a quality program with a coaching staff that has found talented players, developed their talents, and created great game plans. Looking past BSU due to their "small-school" status is exactly the type of lazy elitism that can get a program into trouble by looking past others.

 

[somebody]

This is a really interesting thread...sorry Buffnik, couldn't disagree more with your statement about Wazzu. Perhaps if you traded the rosters when they were all freshmen, but at this point, BSU's upperclassmen players have developed into quality players. They are simply better players now than their 3-4 star counterparts coming out of HS.

BSU may not win the Pac 12 if they joined, but they would still upper-tier. They have shown their ability time and time again...it's time for "bigger" programs such as us to stop being snobbish about the matter. BSU is a quality program with a coaching staff that has found talented players, developed their talents, and created great game plans. Looking past BSU due to their "small-school" status is exactly the type of lazy elitism that can get a program into trouble by looking past others.

Two statements w/o enough evidence to prove. Definitely well-coached, but they don't look like world-beaters if they're in the PAC-12 losing 4-5 games a year, which IMO is what would happen up to now. But as stated before, they are upgrading the talent and a move to the PAC would only intensify that. Won't ever happen though because their school ranking is non-existent, so this argument will only continue ad nauseam as they crush their weak schedule.

 

[Darth Snow]

This is a really interesting thread...sorry Buffnik, couldn't disagree more with your statement about Wazzu. Perhaps if you traded the rosters when they were all freshmen, but at this point, BSU's upperclassmen players have developed into quality players. They are simply better players now than their 3-4 star counterparts coming out of HS.

BSU may not win the Pac 12 if they joined, but they would still upper-tier. They have shown their ability time and time again...it's time for "bigger" programs such as us to stop being snobbish about the matter. BSU is a quality program with a coaching staff that has found talented players, developed their talents, and created great game plans. Looking past BSU due to their "small-school" status is exactly the type of lazy elitism that can get a program into trouble by looking past others.

You completely overlooked the main point. Its not the talent, it's the schedule grind. Boise only plays maybe 10 quarters of meaningful, difficult football a season. Pretty easy to gameplan and focus for 10 quarters. Now, you make those quarters games, and all of a sudden your talent deficiencies really become apparent. Could kellen Moore handle a weekly beating by bcs defensive lines? Could those small running backs keep making the right decisions after being pile drived by Vontaze burfict? Would that smaller dl hold their superior technique and scheme for the fourth week in a row after getting punished by Oregon, Stanford, and usc's lines the precious weak? Etc.

Utah will be a good test case. Keep in mind they still have had much better classes than Boise as well.

 

[Buffnik]

This is a really interesting thread...sorry Buffnik, couldn't disagree more with your statement about Wazzu. Perhaps if you traded the rosters when they were all freshmen, but at this point, BSU's upperclassmen players have developed into quality players. They are simply better players now than their 3-4 star counterparts coming out of HS.

BSU may not win the Pac 12 if they joined, but they would still upper-tier. They have shown their ability time and time again...it's time for "bigger" programs such as us to stop being snobbish about the matter. BSU is a quality program with a coaching staff that has found talented players, developed their talents, and created great game plans. Looking past BSU due to their "small-school" status is exactly the type of lazy elitism that can get a program into trouble by looking past others.

Not being snobbish. Being realistic. If Boise State played Washington State, I'd expect them to win. Handily.

But I'm talking about talent. Not skill. Not team chemistry. Not abilities that are suited for the system. Not coaching. Not culture.

I have a lot of respect for what Boise State has accomplished. But they do not have the talent of any Pac-12 program. For example, Washington State has 15 players on NFL rosters compared to Boise State's 12. CU has 20 despite how down we have been. http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter

 

[mattrob]

Not being snobbish. Being realistic. If Boise State played Washington State, I'd expect them to win. Handily.

But I'm talking about talent. Not skill. Not team chemistry. Not abilities that are suited for the system. Not coaching. Not culture.

I have a lot of respect for what Boise State has accomplished. But they do not have the talent of any Pac-12 program. For example, Washington State has 15 players on NFL rosters compared to Boise State's 12. CU has 20 despite how down we have been. http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter

I would agree with this 100%. BSU has not exactly been a talent factory for NFL teams, despite their recent success. In many ways this has worked to their advantage though, as they're able to keep guys in the program for 4, maybe 5, years. Look at their depth chart- they'll probably start at least 20 upperclassmen this year. They don't face the same attrition that many of the BCS programs do and, combined with system stability, they have tough, smart, experienced, well-coached teams year-in and year-out. That's absolutely a credit to the staff and the job they've done, but without question, I believe Boise State has consistently exceeded their talent level in on-field results.

What will be interesting to see in coming years, is how better recruiting classes, as they appear to be on-track for this year, translate to future success. As they bring in more guys recruited by PAC-12 programs, will they play with that same chip on their shoulder? Will they be forced to play some of the more highly-regarded freshmen to keep them happy, at the expense of some of the 4 and 5 year players? And maybe most importantly, will players buy into the program the same way if you're landing players who may have aspirations of playing pro ball? I don't expect BSU to take a step backward, but I'm not sure that the on-field results will necessarily improve as the talent improves.

 

[Buffnik]

mattrob,

The one thing I disagree with you on is whether BSU will take a step back. I think it's inevitable. They can't be better than they've been, so there's only one direction to go. It would be hard to sustain that level even in the WAC, but it will be even harder in the MWC. Too many programs that can jump up and bite them on a week-to-week basis now and BSU will be the team with a target on their backs.

 

[Buffy]

I have to call total horse crap on this.. Star rankings and amount of players on an NFL roster equals how good a college football team is? I don't think so.. There are tons and tons of great college football players that don't equate to playing in the NFL. Wazzu has more talent than Boise St?? Boise St has far more talent on their team at the present moment than we do.. Wazzu wouldnt have finished in the top half of the WAC in recent years. The whole thing of Boise St getting beat up by the grind of a better conference may have been true when they first became a good team back in 2002, but not anymore. This team is flush with talent, especially in the trenches. Same with a team like TCU.. They have as much talent on their team as most upper level BCS teams.

 

[Buffy]

Maybe so.. But I wouldnt bet on it as long as Petersen is around. Theyve had a target on their back for about 10 years now. I remember people saying the same thing when Florida St was on the rise.

mattrob, The one thing I disagree with you on is whether BSU will take a step back. I think it's inevitable. They can't be better than they've been, so there's only one direction to go. It would be hard to sustain that level even in the WAC, but it will be even harder in the MWC. Too many programs that can jump up and bite them on a week-to-week basis now and BSU will be the team with a target on their backs.

 

[Buffy]

I moved to Boise in 2005 for work.. Since then their two most recognizable players have been QB Kellen Moore and RB Ian Johnson. Johnson is the all time WAC TD leader(ahead of Marshall Faulk and Ladanian Tomlinson) and had huge games vs AQ teams. 240 yards and 5 Tds vs Oregon St, who finished ranked, and had over 100 yards and a couple of scores against Oklahoma. Adrian Petersen had 20 carries for 71 yards. Kellen Moore is 38-2 with 3 wins over teams that finished top 10. Neither will play in the NFL, but both we great college players that could play for anyone in the country. There are lots of players just like them, great college football players who played well against high level teams but whose skill set doesn't equate to the NFL. That's why I believe you can't judge talent on who makes it to the NFL.

 

[Darth Snow]

I moved to Boise in 2005 for work.. Since then their two most recognizable players have been QB Kellen Moore and RB Ian Johnson. Johnson is the all time WAC TD leader(ahead of Marshall Faulk and Ladanian Tomlinson) and had huge games vs AQ teams. 240 yards and 5 Tds vs Oregon St, who finished ranked, and had over 100 yards and a couple of scores against Oklahoma. Adrian Petersen had 20 carries for 71 yards. Kellen Moore is 38-2 with 3 wins over teams that finished top 10. Neither will play in the NFL, but both we great college players that could play for anyone in the country. There are lots of players just like them, great college football players who played well against high level teams but whose skill set doesn't equate to the NFL. That's why I believe you can't judge talent on who makes it to the NFL.

Ok. So what exactly are your criteria for judging talent?

 

[mattrob]

I moved to Boise in 2005 for work.. Since then their two most recognizable players have been QB Kellen Moore and RB Ian Johnson. Johnson is the all time WAC TD leader(ahead of Marshall Faulk and Ladanian Tomlinson) and had huge games vs AQ teams. 240 yards and 5 Tds vs Oregon St, who finished ranked, and had over 100 yards and a couple of scores against Oklahoma. Adrian Petersen had 20 carries for 71 yards. Kellen Moore is 38-2 with 3 wins over teams that finished top 10. Neither will play in the NFL, but both we great college players that could play for anyone in the country. There are lots of players just like them, great college football players who played well against high level teams but whose skill set doesn't equate to the NFL. That's why I believe you can't judge talent on who makes it to the NFL.

We're obviously defining talent differently then. I would view most of the BSU players as hard working system players who lack the physical talents of most BCS players. BSU maximizes the talents of players in their system, but that does not mean they have an equal talent level to match up man to man against BCS schools every week and still see the same kind of success they've been having.

 

[Buffnik]

I have to call total horse crap on this.. Star rankings and amount of players on an NFL roster equals how good a college football team is? I don't think so.. There are tons and tons of great college football players that don't equate to playing in the NFL. Wazzu has more talent than Boise St?? Boise St has far more talent on their team at the present moment than we do.. Wazzu wouldnt have finished in the top half of the WAC in recent years. The whole thing of Boise St getting beat up by the grind of a better conference may have been true when they first became a good team back in 2002, but not anymore. This team is flush with talent, especially in the trenches. Same with a team like TCU.. They have as much talent on their team as most upper level BCS teams.

In other words, Boise State does a good job of recruiting to their system and coaching them up.

If you think that BSU is pulling in better talent than Pac-12 programs, you're just wrong.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I have to call total horse crap on this.. Star rankings and amount of players on an NFL roster equals how good a college football team is? I don't think so.. There are tons and tons of great college football players that don't equate to playing in the NFL. Wazzu has more talent than Boise St?? Boise St has far more talent on their team at the present moment than we do.. Wazzu wouldnt have finished in the top half of the WAC in recent years. The whole thing of Boise St getting beat up by the grind of a better conference may have been true when they first became a good team back in 2002, but not anymore. This team is flush with talent, especially in the trenches. Same with a team like TCU.. They have as much talent on their team as most upper level BCS teams.

USC, Texas, and half the SEC are calling horse crap on this.

 

[MtnBuff]

Boise does a great job of using the resources available to them and taking advantage of their schedule.

They are looking at some higher rated more field ready recruits this year than in the past but in general they do a very good job of identifying kids who have the potential to develop. They take kids who are undersized, underdeveloped, played in weak programs, or were stuck behind better players and thus didn't get as much playing time or played out of position.

They they take advantage of their schedule. They play 1-3 games a year against legitimate competition. The are able to focus on those games and prepare heavily for those games, the rest of their games they can pummel with the talent they have developed. By playing the majority of their games against weaker teams they are able to get their backup players a lot of field time against competition they can handle mixed in with their regular players. Against teams like Idaho and Louisiana Tech they don't have to play their starters more than a half and often are substituting as early as the second quarter. This does two things, one is that they always have a guy ready to play. He may not be as developed as the starter but he is comfortable on the field and in the event of a starter going down he may be physically overmatched but will be mentally ready. The second thing it does is by keeping the key players off the field the chances of injury to the starters is greatly reduced.

Playing in a quality conference teams don't have these luxuries. They have to play their key players most if not all the game or risk getting beat. They also don't have the abundance of live playing time to develop their backups. Recruits have to be physically ready to compete against the big boys or not play.

Even though they don't have the depth of talent and physical play of a PAC, Big XII, Big X, or SEC the MWC is a major step up in terms of depth and talent from the WAC. I think that Boise will do fine in the conference but it will be interesting to see if they have to adjust their approach to deal with the better competition.

 

[gobuffs11]

Boise State fan here. I have been following this website since our programs became buddy-buddy on the recruiting trail. Lots of great info on this site!

If you guys did land Payne, you got a stud, all our fans wanted him but when we took Jack Fields from El Paso, it was rumored he would no longer have a scholly. I am pretty envious if you get Payne. (we have heard it was Oregon State)

O.K. now on to this thread....

Yes Boise State is a non-AQ, but we recruit against the PAC 10/Big 12 and have been for more than a couple years. Whoever thinks Wazzu would get worse with our roster is off their rocker. Completely asinine comment. There are maybe 4-6 teams in the entire country that wouldn't trade for our D-line. (Someone said our D-Line and RB's were small? Wow...)We have a lot of talent. Take off the BCS blinders.

Now on to what got me in this thread in the first place....

The star rating system. The biggest scam going in college recruiting. It is all about subscriptions. Yes, the 5 star guys are can't miss, but there are what 50 of them and how many actually pan out at their power programs? Half?
The difference between a 4 star and a 3 star is the difference between the size of the fan base. I watched, (actually watched it happen almost instantly) a Notre Dame OL recruit that was unranked and a 2 star go to a high 3 star in a matter of hours after his verbal to the Domers. If you really want entertainment, listen to the Clemson fans bitch and moan about how their 4 stars play like 2 stars year after year after year. The recruiting websites are first and foremost a business, and for some reason, it is automatically assumed that the team with the highest star average a couple years ago is by far and away more talented. Not the case. 90% of recruits at this level are by and large very comparable outside of the freak 10%.

Again, congrats if you got Payne, and I also like the QB you guys picked up. Good luck recruiting hope you can find quick success in the PAC12.

 

[MtnBuff]

First off you don't define how good a football team is strictly by talent, it has a huge amount to do with it but there is a lot more that goes into it than talent. Boise takes full advantage of their situation and makes the most of it as they should. On a one game basis Boise would beat most teams in the country and I would give them a fighters chance against almost any team in the country. The caveat being that that the one game is a part of a normal Boise schedule and the normal schedule for the other team.

Boise gets the chance to focus on just a few games a year, the rest of their games are against inferior competition. Put them in say the Big Ten and have them line up week after week against big physical athletes and they would break down and flounder.

They do have some excellent talent, but most of that talent has been developed in-house against the San Jose states of the world. To say that their talent top to bottom compares with most AQ schools is ridiculous, to say they do the most with the talent and situation they have is very realistic.

 

[SBG]

Most great teams of the past have had to deal with major injuries along the lines. BSU has never had (I know that's not the case, but I doubt they've lost 3 starting corners/safeties in the first few weeks) to start a true frosh, unless they were a stud. They are a product of their conference. It works for them. They are good and solid, you can't dispute that. However, they are good because they aren't thrust into the same positions that a lot of BCS teams have been put under because of injuries. They are able to develop their players in a way that a lot of teams simply cannot, except for maybe the elite teams like USC, OSU and whatnot.

Playing guys that have been in the system for years will put up a good fight against teams that are overall, more athletic, but young and inexperienced (some even being prima donnas). They know their assignments and techniques and have played in front of 80k and aren't intimidated. People neglect the mental aspect of the game, but that's a large reason why they are good. They are incredibly sound in their schemes and use a lot of misdirection to help create confusion and mismatches on offense (look up smartfootball.com's analysis of BSU). That's why CU beat OU in '07 in their first true away game when a green QB (Bradford), because Hawk was certainly an idot and our two seniors (T-Wheat and Dizon) made crucial plays to prevent a loss; that, and just pure luck, which happens in football games sometimes.

They have beaten top opponents. Oregon and VT being prime example, but they also got trounced by UGA a few years back when Hawk was at the helm. They did struggle with VT though, a VT that lost to James Madison a week later, won the ACC and got annihilated by a Stanford team that played a full, tough conference schedule. I haven't seen BSU put a major hurt on a team. They win, but I've never seen a complete mauling of the other team that was a legit top 20. I want to see them play 3 top 25 teams back to back to back like KU did a few years ago.

Give them enough time and their coaches will find out how to beat anyone. They are good, unlike our last bumbling idiot coach. Give them a week to prepare for Texas, then Oklahoma then a good Mizzou or TT or fuskers and they'll have to do their homework earlier. Playing teams like NMSU (note: I went there for ugrad), I know they can already start working on a gameplan for Nevada that's out 4 weeks ago or VT over the summer. Even if you were to take a bottom team in the Big 12 last year, one with a good coach like ISU, can present upset issues. In the past few years they've beaten @fuskers and @Tejas. More so a fight than a lot of WAC teams have put up against decent BCS competition.