There have been 55 comments, comment now

Editor’s Note … This is the latest in a series of guest editorials. Below is an Essay from CU at the Gamer Eric, who accepted the challenge of documenting his position that if you don’t have the players, it doesn’t matter who is wearing the headset on the sidelines … 

Jimmy’s & Joe’s Matter More Than X’s and O’s

Ok, we know there’s no end to the debate of what matters more in college football, coaching or next level players? We can also agree, they both matter.

My belief is that the caliber of players matters more. And of course, we know the coaches get the players, and recruiting is only one part of coaching. But, you don’t always get the players you want. Sometimes you get the players who want you, and do you what you can with them. It’s just a lot easier to do what you can with them, when they’re higher caliber players.

To frame the conversation, we can look at CU’s history of winning, losing, and how it may correlate to the caliber of the roster.

From there, we’ll take a look at some other programs and coaches who’ve spent time in the Pac 12 and elsewhere. We can then extrapolate pretty simply, and we’ll find it supports the notion of the success of the top tier teams in the country, in the current era, as well as those in the middle and bottom tiers. The top teams have more talent and are putting the most players into the NFL.

From 1988 to 1998, the glory days of CU football, CU put 55 guys into the NFL draft (https://www.pro-football-reference.com/schools/colorado/drafted.htm). From 1999 to 2009, CU put 28 guys into the NFL draft. From 2010 to 2021, CU put 19 guys into the NFL draft.

From 1988 to 1998, CU had a 98-29 and 4 record, won a national championship, and was routinely one of the top teams in the country. This era spanned McCartney and Neuheisel (duh). (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/colorado/index.html).

From 1999 to 2009, CU’s record was 64 and 72. From 2010 through 2020 CU’s record was 48-79. Yikes. So, we see there’s a direct correlation to the W/L records and the NFL dudes. You can go through on a more detailed level, and the correlation holds – although there will always be some minor exceptions.

You might then ask, well, if the NFL dudes were close to the same # in the decade from 1999 to 2009 as 2010 to 2020, why was the more recent decade’s win/loss record so bad, relative to the prior decade?

I would posit that it’s because from 1999 to the early 2000s, there were still some NFL dudes on the team and the luster of the glory years was not fully worn off. However, those guys had dried up circa 2002. And from 2010 to 2020, there were a few, with the bulk on the 2016 team, who got into the 2017 NFL Draft.

Here’s the data:
• From the 2000 NFL draft – so 1999’s players – to the 2003 draft, CU put 15 dudes into the NFL. In the next 6 years of the decade, they got 11 guys into the NFL, and of those, four, or 2/3 were in the 2006 draft. The dearth of talent, relatively speaking, had begun.
• From the 2010 draft to the 2021 draft, to the 2016 draft, CU got only 9 guys into the draft. In 2017, they got four guys into the draft, all on that stellar 2016 defense (none found and recruited by Leavitt). And, although we’ve not discussed undrafted free agents, they had a couple other guys on that defense who made the league that way. Also part of the 2016 defense was Isaiah Oliver who left early and was in the 2018 draft.
• From 2018 draft to the 2021 draft, CU got six guys into the NFL, three of them in 2020 draft.

Draw your own conclusions, as I know you will.

So what if we take a look at some of the cats who’ve coached in the Pac 12 and elsewhere? Two favorites are always Chip Kelley and Chris Petersen.

Petey was the guy at Boise State from 2006 through 2013 and amassed a ridiculous record of 84-8. He got 20 guys into the NFL in that 7 year span. And, although that raw number isn’t THAT huge on an annual average basis, when you consider the conference they played in, those 3+ NFL dudes per year (and there are probably some undrafted free agents adding to those) stacked up pretty well compared to their relative competition. You can go poke around at your leisure, and see if that holds true. I believe it will.

Now, at UW, Petey was there from 2014 through the 2019 seasons. He amassed a record of 53-27. He put 25 guys into the NFL. Four dudes into the league per year, on average. Not bad, right? We’d love to see CU getting four guys into the league every year. It’s been a while since that’s been the case.

How ‘bout Chip? He was the man at UO from 2009 through 2012. Pretty short tenure. And “allegedly” paid $25k to Cam Newton, who still went to another school. Nevertheless, he amassed a record of 46 and 7. And was largely proclaimed a football play-calling genius. Certainly an innovator. But did his roster help? Let’s see. He got 13 guys into the NFL or 3+/yr. I would argue, those dudes mattered.

How ‘bout in his current role at UCLA? He’s got a 10-21 record from 2018 through 2020. Genius coaching! He got one guy into the 2019 draft. The 2020 draft got three, and the 2021 draft got 2. Not great. Two per year, on average. He had double that at UO.

Now, you may be thinking, how much does an extra NFL dude or two really matter? Then ask yourself, how much did Marcus Mariota matter? Deanthony Thomas? Kellen Moore at BSU? Gardner Minshew, or Luke Falk at Wazzu, or a Nate Landman or Carson Wells at CU (or all the dudes from the 2016 defense that Leavitt had nothing to do with finding and recruiting, but of course everything to do with making them NFL dudes, right)? Dudes matter.

Ok, and now for the Pac 12’s favorite, Mike Leach! He ran the show at TT from 2000 through 2009. He built a 76-43 record. He put 17 guys into the draft between the 2001 and 2010 drafts. Two dudes a year. But, he was also a middlin’ coach most of his tenure there. Following his best year in 2008, he got four guys into the draft. You can see that after his better years, he beat his average for dudes into the league, as well.

In Pullman, he was there from 2012 through 2019. His record was 55-46. He got 12 guys into the league. Not great. So how did he win so much? He had two really good QBs in Luke Falk and Gardner Minshew that fit his system perfectly. And, were also good enough to get a shot in the NFL (and get drafted). Dudes matter.

Fortunately, as I keep saying, CU has more dudes now than we’ve had in a long while. That ramping up began in 2013, peaked in the 2016 season leading to the 2017 draft, and hasn’t been touched since. But it seems the 2022 draft may have another bunch. And if my hunch is right, that bodes well for this coaching staff in the win/loss column, too, for the 2021 season. They’ll just have to keep building the talent, or the wins won’t be sustained either.

Now, if you’re really curious, go check the playoff contenders. They’re doubling the Pac 12s volume of NFL dudes each year, more often than not, right now. Dudes matter. Coaching plays a role, but dudes matter. And, speaking of dudes, I wonder how Dabo will do w/ out Lawrence under center.

Go Buffs.

—-

55 Replies to “Jimmy’s & Joe’s Matter More than X’s and O’s”

  1. Berliner – here’s another interesting twist in our conversation. You say Barnett’s record at CU is all that matters in the scope of our discussion about players and coaches impact on results. I disagree. And, even taking only Barnett’s record at CU into consideration, it was front-loaded, which supports the notion he won more games w/ the prior guy’s roster. And then there’s how weak the Big 12 North was overall, in the early 2000s, too.

    But, taking your point about counting only Gary’s record at CU, then wouldn’t Rick be a better coach using the same metric? After all, his CU record was 44 and 19. Gary’s was what again? What gives?

    Now, don’t get me wrong. When Rick went to UW, I told my brother and all my UW buddies “good luck w/ that.”

    Rick knows football. He can recruit. I think he’s a good analyst. His kid may end up being a better coach than he ever was. But, I think he’s an example – despite having a .600 record as a head coach vs. Gary’s .500-ish – of a guy who underperformed based on the talent he was able to get/have.

    So, if you’d like to have an actual conversation? We can. Your logic just defies itself at every turn. Your rationale for Gary is one example, and Leavitt another. They’re your opinions. And you’re entitled to them. But? They are far from factually based.

    On another note, you latched on to my “I don’t think any of the coaching staffs lost their teams”. I said “I don’t think” because, I don’t know. I am not in the locker room. But, my “thinking” was based on what I saw in 60 minutes of football each Saturday. Not a 3 minute or 30-second video clip. The only time it looked like players quit, a little, was during the failed Embree experiment. And, in my opinion, there were myriad reasons for that, too. Not just coaching.

    Go Buffs.

    1. It’s really hard to listen to you when you make up facts.

      Ricks CU record was
      Colorado: 33–14 19–12
      And front loaded.

      Sheesh you are a disaster. You had all the nfl draft choices wrong and you continue to spew made up facts.

      flimflamearache

      1. Just bad math. Moving too fast. My bad. I was incorrect. I’m not retired like you, after all.

        But that still doesn’t address the point I was making, my friend. You said Barnett’s record at Northwestern didn’t matter. Only his record at CU did. Rick’s record at CU was better than Barnett’s. So again, what gives? Yes, they were both front-loaded. Personally, I think they were both mediocre coaches, and I give the edge to Rick in recruiting. So again, what gives with you?

        I know what gives. You seem to like coaches based on your perception of their personality. Nothing else. if you like the guy? He’s a great coach. See Leavitt. You love that guy. See Chev until lately (you didn’t like his lobbying for HC gig look; but he used to be an offensive genius when he arrived, but was clearly hamstrung).

        So, keep on keepin’ on, my friend. Talk about flim flam. Mein gott.

        Go Buffs

        1. Okay so you screwed up and you got an excuse so lets move on.

          Classic Wacmac

          I like coaches the same way I like people
          Honest, smart, goal oriented, work to meet their goals, humble and nice.

          Mac ain’t one of those.
          Rick, is interesting
          HWSRN ain’t one of those
          Barnett is
          HCKD is.

          Buffs.

          Note: You? Borderline

          1. And that is funny. That is exactly why I was not a fan of bill, personally. I loved that he won games. But dude was a hypocrite. I know. Sacrilege to say here. But not incorrect.

            Go Buffs

          2. Funny how it was bad math but you were all over saying, see how much better rick was then gary. You were all over it to prove your point. Excited actually. Looking at the words you used

            But, taking your point about counting only Gary’s record at CU, then wouldn’t Rick be a better coach using the same metric? After all, his CU record was 44 and 19. Gary’s was what again? What gives?

            What gives is that when you wrote it you believed it.

            Meaning you ain’t checking your work and are just too excited to do a “one up” you just make things up.

            I want to see the sources you used for kids to the NFL, cause the official one I looked at says you are off by as many as ten on won coach. Just give me the source, if you dare. I would check it before you do cause you might have made another “math error?

            Buffs win. Wacmac set the buffs back 10 years. Once leavitt left he was terrible

          3. Oh boy, Berliner. Again you confuse the issue. Whether intentionally, to dodge the point, or because it just escapes you, I cannot say. I am guessing it is intentional, but I could be wrong.

            Allow me to recap: You said Gary’s record at northwestern didn’t matter. Nor did his other head coaching gigs. Only his record at CU mattered. And as such, you consider him a good coach.

            So, if that was the case, and that made Gary a good coach, then how is it, using that same logic, that Rick is a bad coach, based solely on his record at CU?

            Go Buffs

          4. And to be clear, I will say it again. I consider Rick, Gary, Dan and mike to be basically similar in overall coaching ability. Decent. Some better at some aspects than others. A true comparison is impossible because each took the program over in a different state. Not to mention the relative conference strength, etc.

            You seem to regard Gary as a good to great coach, and I am trying to understand why. Similarly, you think leavitt was great. I think he was ok too. Not great.

            That is all.

            Go Buffs

            Go Bufs

    2. And his record at CU and Washington both declined after the first two years and at UCLA he failed from the start.

      You are clueless and factless

    3. its back to earache again
      Rick got to ride the momentum of the best coach this school ever had. After his departure he gradually faded into a radio personality….and I use the term personality loosely as he is basically a stick in the mud straight man for Childers. Yeah he knows football and he didnt humiliate himself like Corso but his trajectory after CU on the carousel was down.
      Barnett’s career path was the opposite. He actually took a program up when he got to NW. He might have lasted several more years here if it wasn’t for one of the worst press manufactured scandals in history with the aid and abetting by a weak administration. I dont blame him for leaving coaching. I would have too after being treated that way.
      Even so Barnett is still a Buff at heart. I dont like Rick. I think he is arrogant and bitter about his time at CU for which he can only blame himself but wont.

      1. EP, Barnett peaked in the middle of his NW tenure. He went:
        1992: 3-8;
        1993: 2-9;
        1994: 3-7-1
        1995: 10-2
        1996: 9-3
        1997: 5-7
        1998: 3-9
        then at CU:
        1999: 7-5
        2000: 3-8
        2001: 10-3
        2002: 9-5
        2003: 5-7
        2004: 8-5
        2005: 7-5
        I will see if I can insert the actual chart here so I don’t transpose something or mistakenly count a year at a different institution, as I did w/ Rick, giving him credit for 11 wins at CU that he got at UW, that the vk-er is clinging to. Dang stigmatism. Or moving too fast. But, here’s the ol’ side by side copy and paste (or top/bottom, taken from https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/coaches/gary-barnett-1.html). Let’s see if this works:

        And for Rick (and you and the berliner, don’t get hung up on Rick; it’s just one example since berliner said only Barnett’s record at CU mattered, not his record overall as a head coach, nor his time at NW; and yet that same argument doesn’t apply when talking about Rick. Ok then. Pretzel logic is normal for that guy):
        1995: 10-2
        1996: 10-2
        1997: 5-6
        1998: 8-4
        at UW
        1999: 7-5
        2000: 11-1
        2001: 8-4
        2002: 7-6

        Maybe this’ll work here:

        To your final point? Barnett is definitely a Buff at heart. And he’s great in his current role. And he knows football. My contention is just that he is basically a middle of the road coach. Like hundreds and thousands of other middle of the road coaches. Rick included. MacIntyre too. BUT, at least w/ MacIntyre, he did bring the program out of the ashes. And left the roster and entire program in better shape when he left than when he arrived. Can’t say that about most of the other guys in the last 20+ yrs. And fine, that may not be saying much, given how far it had fallen. But progress is progress.

        Here’s to hoping KD brings more progress. I’m guardedly optimistic about him. I’m not as convinced as VK is that he will bring the program back to dominance. I don’t think last year was that great of a barometer on the field, but his leadership, and lack of covidness issues is a good sign. And, I do like some of the early returns on the recruiting front. And if wins come with them this year, the recruiting should continue to improve. If not? It could be more of the same.

        Go Buffs

        1. So now you picking on Barnett.

          Sheesh earache.

          Your article was msnbc ish and you continue to jump down the dry well.

          Get your stuff correct then spout off. You sound like msm cnn apologizing for making things up

          Your numbers of players going to the NFL was made up. Meaning not correct

          Now you spend the day trying to justify why you are right.

          You appear to be a bogus buff, but definitely a wacmac lover

          Sheesh

          1. Not picking on anyone but still illustrating that your logic is flawed.

            I pretty much lump Rick, gary, Dan, and mike into the same pile of decent coaches with spurts of success here and there amid largely mediocre careers (tbd for the guys still coaching).

            I thank them for their efforts at CU and have a balanced perspective on their strengths and weaknesses.

            You seem to think Barnett was great and that leavitt was the greatest ever. I don’t think the facts bear that out.

            That is all.

            Go Buffs

          2. you got mac wac in the wrong pile.

            So you had to say Bill and not Mac.

            Very interesting.

            that is all.

          3. Dan and wacmac are certainly in the same pile but it ain’t in the one of decent coaches. Neither of them could win at the highest level. And yes Leavitt made the 2016 season possible. For you to deny that is ostrich type thinking. But what’s new.

            Putting them in the same group as Rick and Gary indicates your entire premise of players are most important is non-believable.

            Buffs win

        2. I see a number of peaks on Barnett’s record. Once again Rick’s early success was just as much McCartney’s. I get the feeling everyone is a potential client to you. Rick being in Cal and all. or is he already one?
          And how can we even consider your opinion when you think coaches are a minor ingredient anyway?

  2. Eriebuff.

    Sometimes you have to get down in the mud where your opposition lives. Your want pretty? Learn to Code.

    Buffs

  3. This argument on which is more important, great coaching or great players is too funny. The answer is simply it takes a combination of both with some details on the side too.

    Take Italian dressing for an example, how I came up with that this early (not drinking, yet) is beyond me, but bear with me. The two main ingredients are oil and vinegar, that’s your players and coaches, you need an pretty even mix of both to work; you can have a little more vinegar or oil to your liking, but too much of one without the other and it’s starts to go down hill. And the HC is the action that mixes both with the spices.

    The spices in the dressing are the details like special teams and how the S&C coach reduces injuries in the way he trains his players of if he causes more with poor training practices.

    If the mixture of all of that isn’t just right, both the ratio and the items quality themselves, you don’t get as good of dressing. But, use the finest vinegar and oil and you have a great base to start with. BUT, a bad S&C coach and lots of injuries or bad special teams or… and you now have a less than stellar team, maybe a bowl team still but lesser.

    Since the HC is responsible for the details as much as everything else including getting good players I have to lean in that direction, but here’s another side of the equation. A school like Alabama has such a history and a large budget including their support department of analyst and a gigantic fan base, etc, that even if say their HC retires AND for some reason the new coach screws up bad enough to have a “scandal” but not bad enough for major sanctions, just bad enough to have some losses they shouldn’t have and a couple of “losing years” (for that program, not actual less than .500), that program could find a quality replacement coach just from the string of coaches that came through the program. Plus many others to choose from, because it’s that type of job.

    Other schools lower down the food chain may have to hire a rebuilding coach before a seasoned and proven one wants the job.

    On a player level, the same situation at Alabama and just by the sheer size of fan base and the number of kids that grow up wanting to be on that team, recruiting would recover immediately after the new coach comes in, there would be no delay in ramping up recruiting like CU or other schools that have a few bad years seem to go through.

    So, yes coaching is very important… and the jonnies & joes are equally, or almost equally important, BUT, the schools history, budget and size of fan base also helps drive both… those are also part of the spices that make the dressing excellent.

    1. I think that’s a fair analogy, Marcus. And as any accomplished chef will tell you, the cooking’s better, with the best ingredients. But, a good chef can make a leather boot taste somewhat appealing, and a bad chef can destroy the best ingredients.

      But again, my point is that it takes dudes to win. And CU has had a dearth of dudes, with mid-level coaching for 20+ years now. Even Barnett, who some here revere, was a .500 coach. I love the guy. He knows football. He loves CU. His speaking his mind bluntly added fuel to the fire of his ouster, and 70-3 didn’t help. That’s basically like Mac’s OSU demise. You can’t go down like that. But, didn’t someone once say, you are what your record says you are?

      But back to the ingredients, MacIntyre did a good job of elevating the roster. Was it enough? Not by a long shot. Hopefully KD can get us there. We’ll find out.

      Go Buffs.

      1. At Corlorado Barnett was
        Colorado: 49–38 34–22

        WacMac was
        Colorado: 30–44 14–39

        Saying they are the same is so like you. Saying it is like the The Wackers OSU demise is downright ignorant. Your love for Wacmac never dies

        Buffs.

        1. He was 92-94-2 lifetime as head coach. At his d1 gigs, northwestern and CU, he was 35-45 at northwestern and slightly better at CU. Because he inherited rick’s roster. Care to try again?

          Go Buffs

          1. Well eric I am not trying anything. This ain’t a contest.

            What matters is what he did at CU. Anywhere else is not relevant.
            And rick is the perfect example of being a bad coach, what a mistake by Mac.
            Rick was a disaster his last two seasons at cu. Couldn’t recruit a lick.
            Sorry but as I peruse the rosters, cause I gotta a lotta free time, That Gary inherited all these guys is not proven. Based on who went to the nfl (using your metrics which is a false positive anyway) In his first 3 years at CU 7 were drafted. What?

            You just twist it up.

            Anything for the love of wackymacky.

            Just admit it. Mac was a joke. You love a good joke. You love Mac.

            Buffs.

            Note: And i never call you names. I just use your CUATG name.
            Note 2: You need to go verify some of you numbers. They are inflated or made up. like your love for WM. I’ll let you go figure it out. i.e. players drafted would be a good place to start.

          2. Mornin! Verify my numbers? I directly sourced where I got the data. Why don’t you actually show me where they are wrong?

            Or, is it just like the “if you can’t see it, you’ll never know” pat line you use, when you cannot back up your opinions?

            Go Buffs

  4. Oh, and I probably need to clarify for my friends VK and EP: showing successful coaches who did so with lesser talent doesn’t mean the one-off cinderalla stories we love seeing in March Madness, and occasionally in college football, where the confluence of factors catch lightning in a bottle. That’s akin to CU’s 2016.

    Show me sustained success of coaches who maintained it with lesser talent. They’re probably out there. There are always exceptions to every rule. I just can’t think of any. Can you?

    Go Buffs

    1. Those coaches didn’t have to maintain it they just had to get it done and the next job came rolling in.

      Sheesh.

      1. It is classic how lacking in specifics you get when your opinions and beliefs are challenged. You do it every time. And I haven’t insulted you all day, either. At least not intentionally.

        Good game.

        Go Buffs

  5. The challenge is that we are hamstrung (for the right reasons) in the recruiting game since the GB days. The ‘good ole’ days of Mac’s Buffs’ are long gone to where LaVonte w/his terrible driving judgement is the ‘bad guy’ on the team…see ‘Mike Pritchard/The Hill’ for the earlier version.
    We are half in/half out…meaning we are not top tier national academic brand like Stanford or CAL, but our entry standards (and support of football) are similar. Tough spot to be in for anyone and likely the root of the ‘unstainable’ stereotype that is stuck to CU football w/in the coaching industry.

    1. No one said it would be easy. But The coaches of the last 10 12 years have been unable to get the cruits, put in a set of schemes that make sense and win games. And don’t throw 2016 at me that was all the DC.

      Buffs.

      Note: And yup, CU needs to start looking at partial qualifiers again. I am not sure they still do that.

  6. Players do matter.
    If your a crappy head coach you can win with all stars
    If your a crappy head coach you can’t win with zero all stars.
    Chip is a shittyhead coach. Those were not his recruits that went to the nfl from Oregon
    If your acrappy coach you don’t get the players
    WacMac did get some players. But he was a crappy head coach

    If your a good head coach you can dominate with all stars
    If your a good head coach you can win with zero all stars
    Peterson is a good Head coach

    Since you submit all these hypothesis, I would submit that it would have been Peterson instead of the flimflam man coming to boulder, he would still be here and the Buffs would be rolling. But alas the flimflam man and then flimflam man #2.
    All you have to do is look at the staffs that wacmac attackted. Not impressive.

    To say the rebirth started in 2013 when wacmac showed up is naïve and not being honest. His record was 14 and 39 in the pack with 8 of those coming in one year because of the defensive coordinator.
    Those two coaches were the demise of CU Football. Couldn’t recruit, couldn’t play head coach, and couldn’t put a staff together. Yup the scandal was a disaster, but the real disaster was those two.

    I am looking forward that the new coaching staff has on the mighty Buffs. Recruiting, teaching, playing and winning. Something the two frauds could never do.

    Buffs.

    1. What hypotheses did I submit?

      The 2013 recruiting class yielded two of the four defensive players in the 2017 draft. Tedrick and chido. 2014 brought in akhello. 2015 Jordan. And Isaiah too, although he left I. 2018. Not to mention the I drafted free agents from that defense. So I think that substantiates the opinion of the improved caliber of players that began in 2013.

      Go Buffs

      1. and yes, petey is a good coach. Who won with nfl dudes. 20 of em At bsu and 25 at uw. Arguably, the 20 he had at bsu helped more than the 25 at uw, because the mountain west had lesser players, in general, relative to bsu, than uw to their competitors In The pac 12 and p5 in general vs g5.

        Go Buffs

        Ps- who brought petey to bsu, how and why? He would not have ever gone to CU in 2006.

        Go Buffs

        1. you ol cherry picker you
          Are you one of those rags to banker stories that rose from the Cal farm fields?
          As long as you want to focus on CU how bout HWSRN, MM and a couple of years that never got started from Embree and Dinner Bell Mel.
          In other words the last decade and a half of crappy coaches.
          For the last draft here are some more stats.
          Here’s the breakdown by stars, according to 247Sports.com:

          Five-star: 19
          Four-star: 73
          Three-star: 110
          Two-star: 32
          Not Ranked: 21
          and I will take your money on Dabo

          1. Thanks for the effort. Let’s make a bet on dabo. They won’t be in the playoffs. That should be easy for you to take. They still have dabo and venables, a bunch of other nfl dudes, but no Lawrence. Six pack o bass?

            As to your nfl dudes and star ratings, all you did is prove my point. How many stars did chido, akhello, tesrick and Jordan have as recruits? Oliver? I could go on.

            Go Buffs.

          2. And aren’t you the guy who rips on the recruiting services for knowing nothing and being unable to evaluate kids accurately, and yet you’re using their stats? Ok then. Carry on.

            Go Buffs.

        2. You need to recheck your numbers for nfl dudes?

          “Petey” it must be nice to have a personal relationship with him. Funny how you can’t call them by there real names. Anyway the issue for HWSRN is the dumbarse AD who could not see past the fake to who the real HC was at Boise. That guy also couldn’t see past the HCMW. Hence the demise because of head coaches, who really couldn’t recruit the bigtime guys, couldn’t put together a staff and couldn’t coach.

          As far as the players you mentioned, it is interesting as to their rankings before signing on to the Buffs and very interesting who was coaching them in 2015 and 2016 which certainly put them in a position to be drafted. And there is not question that without that DC the Buffs would not have had the year they had. Already showed you all the details. And that the players without that coaching and scheme would not have risen to the heights they have.

          Anyway, it appears you did some work so there is that. Funny how your data only talks about your preconceived notions.

          The fact remains that in the 5 years of wacmac it was a total losing record. And except for 1 year it was a disaster. And Coaching was the key. Not from the HC or the OC

          Go Buffs and go big earache.

          Appreciate the effort

          1. So then, you made the argument that a good coach can be successful without good players (or presumably by making them play to their fullest potential). Where are your examples? Leavitt in 2016 does not count. That is purely opinion. The fact the defense improved from 2013, through 2014, 2015 and 2016 could also be because the players improved as they matured, and the head coach changed the system to suit their abilities (3-4 vs. 4-3) and he brought in a d coordinator who could coach the style of d he wanted.

            Go Buffs.

          2. This is fun. I get earache here and earache there, but nothing really substantive from you.

            Let’s look at your arguments: 1) Chip Kelley inherited Belotti’s guys. Ok, not untrue. But you assert he’s a crap coach and he only won with Belotti’s guys. So, whose guys did Leavitt inherit? Yet you assert Leavitt is the mastermind of CU’s 2016 defense. Ok. Got it.

            2) you say good/great coaches can be successful w/ “no stars”. Examples, please.

            As for Petey? That’s just how he’s known in the PNW (that’s the pacific northwest). Still have a lot of friends and family up there, many who are deeply rooted to UW, Wazzu and BSU.

            And don’t look now! It was Hawkins who brought him to BSU. So, if a mark of a good coach is to get good people, hmmmm…. He got him there because of their relationship, and Petey has a special needs kid. BSU was uniquely equipped for that. He was also allowed to not have to travel to recruit, which was part of the enticement. No chance was he leaving there in 2006 (ok, there’s always a chance but… Petey’s a unique cat, which is one reason he retired from UW, so he wasn’t going anywhere, until the timing was right (see his kid’s needs, age, etc.) and he got exactly what he wanted, which he did at UW).

            As to bringing coaches to Boulder (for Mac, Embree, and Hawkins, in particular, and KD too) just like with recruits, you sometimes get who wants you, not who you want.

            Looking forward to your next banker this, earache that reply. Will stand by for something substantive.

            Go Buffs.

          3. Your love for wacmac is true. That is admirable. The results speak for themselves.
            He was a loser HC and got fired because of it. Finally.

            You can put all the condiments on a piece of sh*t and it’s still a piece of sh*t. And that was the head coaching job done by WACMAC.

            And yes the players grew and matured. Mac didn’t instituted the 3-4. Mac was clueless how Leavitt’s defense worked but he was smart enough to take the credit.

            Anyway you tried your best and it was pretty good but done only to prove WacMac was the savior of CU Football.

            I gotta laugh at that.

            Have a great day and never give up your love. It is becoming too you.

        3. prove your point? 3 stars make up the bulk of the draft. Even more 2 stars than 5 stars.
          Coaching had nothing to do with that? Even thought I will admit money has gone out of control n college football coaches are still being multiple six figure salaries. I can just imagine how you would do as an AD.
          You focus on Lawrence….a QB….and of course thats the only position where talent level usually a critical factor. There is very little difference in the athletic abilities of 3 stars and 4 stars. one tenth of a second in the 40? 20 lbs on the BP? Coaching makes the difference
          and you could go on? Unfortunately you always have. You have even gone off the rails answering yourself.

          1. Coaching matters. Of course it does. This is not an absolute argument. I started my post with that. But, coaching doesn’t matter as much as the players. And, for all the vitriol you spew about MacIntyre, he was better at finding, evaluating and landing under rated yet talented kids (particularly on the defense) than anyone at CU since probably Neuheisel. KD seems to be taking that to another step higher, which is needed.

            EP – show me the examples of coaches who succeeded with lesser talent. Please.

            Let’s look at Jim Harbaugh. He’s had enough stops in enough places w/ varieties of results. Same coach. What’s the difference?

            Here’s some more you can dive into: Kyle Wittingham? Urban Meyer?

            And, if KD doesn’t continue upgrading the roster, he may be the best coach on the planet. Won’t matter.

            Jimmys and Joes drive the bus.

            Go Buffs

  7. Very good read. And while I agree players matter, in college coaches are still the most important part to a good program. So I pose this question. In an alternate universe let’s say colorado doesn’t fire Barnett after the 2005 season. Do they go 2-10 in 2006? No. I think that team would’ve gone 5-7 or 6-6. Now that’s a hypothetical but I think we all know we were better than that 2-10 debacle of a season. I mean heck they should have beaten a highly ranked Georgia team that year. So that’s #1. But where the rubber meets the road is in recruiting. Good college coaches are good recruiters. And not just good recruiters but a good eye for talent. Coach McIntyre had his issues, but I will admit he was good at finding talent in places no one else did. Yeah we got a Lotta players drafted after the 2016 season, but how many of those players were really highly recruited? Yes Jim Leavitt didn’t recruit any of those players from 2016, but his scheme started to really take affect in 2015. There was a point that season we all saw that they were getting better on defense with Jim Leavitts scheme. So sometimes the question is what comes first the chicken or the egg? I do not believe the buffs win the south in 2016 without Jim Leavitt. I to believe that Jimmy’s and Jose are more important. But coaches in college football are the ones that bring in the Jimmy’s and Joe’s. Therefore I do think in college football the coaches are the most important part.

    1. Thanks shay.

      Definitely some chicken and egg in That conversation.

      As to the 2006 hypothetical of Barnett not having been forced out? I submit 70-3 as one counterpoint. And a very weak big twelve north as another. Alas? We’ll never know.

      Now to vkbarker’s point about great coaching making teams with lesser players (or zero stars may have been his words) successful? Where are his examples? Do you have any? I don’t.

      I do have examples of bad coaching bringing down more talented players, and teams, but that is usually not from the play calling and scheme, it’s because the players didn’t like the guy/s so they didn’t play for them.

      That, for the most part, hasn’t been the case at CU, I don’t think.

      And although a lot of people point to leavitt as the guy behind the 2016 d, it was mac looking to go to a 3-4, and his relationship with Patrick Willis, who had him as a position coach in San Fran, that got jim to Boulder. And jim “might” have a reputation of not necessarily playing well with others, coaching chops or not. But that’s kinda beside the point. But may explain why he’s not been a head coach again, and spent two years in Boulder and one in Eugene, etc.

      Go Buffs

      1. That, for the most part, hasn’t been the case at CU, I don’t think.

        See you don’t know if there was. But there were rumors especially in Wacmacs last year. You saw his videos. The players were lackluster at best. He had lost control.

        Anyway it’s hard to discuss things with you cause all you want to do is verify the greatness of Wacmac. We all know different.

        And Leavitt, yup he is a feisty guy and got pissed when WM wouldn’t take his input on how to run the O against an opponents defense. WM is a narcissist plain and simple.

        Okay I’m done here thanks for reminding me all about WM.

        Buffs.

        Note: and JL is back at DF coordinator. And so is WM. As the world turns. Cept WM took several millions of dollars and never said thanks

        1. Oh, that’s right. You were in the locker room. Got it. And talk about endless infatuation w/ a coach? You’ve had Leavitt Love and longing, for some time.

          Still waiting for you to show me examples of coaches who built successful programs without top level players. Your posts are the same – insult, Leavitt’s great, insult. Some stats that are occasionally relevant, as long as it supports your opinion of Leavitt.

          Go Buffs

          1. Well as I said, I need to show you nothing cause your wackymacky love blinds you.

            But there are plenty of coaches that did well at schools with lower talent and now because of that are at the big schools. Just look around. Say Minnesota, say Indiana, say Purdue………..buddy they are everywhere.

            You do it with less talent cause your a good coach you get the next gig. That’s how it works.

            And players don’t drive the Bus, they are the engine. And a good driver can do a lot with a down level car

            Buffs

  8. I am with the Jimmy and Joe’s.
    In baseball, Casey Stengel was a great manager with the New York Yankees.In 1960, with him as manager the Yanks went 97-57, for a .630 winning percentage. They had great players.
    In 1962, he managed the New York Mets, with a truly sad sack line up. They went 40-120, for a .250 win percentage.
    You win with great players.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *