Actual Badgers Thread

Kerb Hohl · Post #161 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:21 pm

I think a top-flight RB will come in when we have one more successful in the pros.

Ball and White were more highly rated than most out-of-state RBs we have brought in and may start paving the way for that.

BUCKnation · Post #162 » by **BUCKnation** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:49 pm

About the O-line: I remember russell wilson saying that seeing the line of 6'5"-6'7" 300 lbs guys sealed the deal for him to come here. He had no line at NC State.

Like someone mentioned earlier, I really think that if UW should be the top 3 choice for any highly ranked OL or TE. The success in the pros from those positions, especially recently, is pretty unmatched.

El Duderino · Post #163 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:24 pm

Ayt wrote:
El Duderino wrote:Didn't OSU also try offering Boreland late in the process but he chose Wisconsin because the Badgers were on him strong the whole time?

From what I can tell, we were the only team that even offered him a scholarship.

The thing that really baffles me at this point (beyond the QB position, which I think should have been very attractive going all the way back to late Barry days) is the RB position. Just a small comment about the QB position, getting Houston is huge. Depending on how things go, we could be a school that routinely gets top 5 or top 10 recruits at QB. Anyway, how do we not get top flight RB prospects? In the 2012 class, we have Vante Jackson, but he is an instate recruit. Rivals has him as the #18 RB and Scout has him as the #25 RB. We'll obviously take that, but he's an instate recruit.

In the 2011 class we have Melvin Gordon, another instate recruit. He was ranked 24th by rivals and 38th by scout. That is good, but again it is instate and he isn't elite.

In our 2010 class, we got James White and Jeff Lewis. White was ranked 42nd by rivals and 70th by scout. Lewis was ranked 84th by rivals and 49th by scout.

Now, I realize these scouting sites aren't all that reliable, but I have a hard time understanding why we can't recruit a top 20 RB that fits our scheme and the UW personality basically every year. It is baffling to me.

Why can't we get an out of state top flight RB recruit to come here? It shouldn't even be that hard. The RBs have an outstanding chance to prove their NFL worth since we ask them to not only run but also block and receive. We should definitely be able to approach top 10 RB recruit with the idea that we have a chance (unless they are insistent on staying close to home, which generally means the SEC).

I'd really love to see a Paul Chyrst offense with top 5 QB recruit, a top 5 RB recruit, combined with what we generally get on the OL, at TE, and at WR.

My guess is because so many teams run the ball quite a bit in college ball that top tier backs feel they can go to numerous different programs and get the ball a lot.

Ill-yasova · Post #164 » by **Ill-yasova** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:10 am

Let's go ahead and make this happen. Gunner Kiel reopens recruiting.

http://247sports.com/Article/Kiel-is-back-on-the-market-45282

Mags FTW · Post #165 » by **Mags FTW** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:33 am

If Wilson wins the Heisman we dominance for years. OLine, RB, and QB flocking to the same school.

BUCKnation · Post #166 » by **BUCKnation** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:08 pm

Mags FTW wrote:If Wilson wins the Heisman we dominance for years. OLine, RB, and QB flocking to nb the same school.

yeah, think of all of the qb recruits who probably dismissed UW b/c they thought they would only be a game manager. Russell Wilson has blown that perception apart.

Kerb Hohl · Post #167 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:57 pm

So can anyone explain to me why anybody but LSU's schedule out of conference has been that much tougher than ours?

mnstinks · Post #168 » by **mnstinks** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:18 pm

Re: Actual Badgers Thread

Postby GrendonJennings on Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:57 pm
So can anyone explain to me why anybody but LSU's schedule out of conference has been that much tougher than ours?

Ah, because they are/were? I think that is obvious (assuming you're talking about the teams ahead of Wisconsin, with OK St being similar. Clemson and Boise played SEC teams as well. Stanford will play Notre Dame which is better than the trash Wisc played.

Kerb Hohl · Post #169 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:22 pm

I didn't really even look into Stanford, but I'm asking what is so sparkling about beating 3-3 Florida State or beating a team that is going to probably finish 7-5 in Penn State, that should have lost to Temple?

I'm not arguing the Badgers schedule was harder, but it isn't as if Oklahoma stamped a triumphant win over a contender. Looking back, most of these teams' schedules don't look very impressive either.

As for Boise, Georgia sucks.

trwi7 · Post #170 » by **trwi7** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:26 pm

Beating a 7-5 Penn State team is still better than any team we've played in NC. So is Florida State.

Kerb Hohl · Post #171 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:31 pm

trwi7 wrote:Beating a 7-5 Penn State team is still better than any team we've played in NC. So is Florida State.

Thanks guys, no **** **** those teams are better.

I'm just saying that's like adding an extra conference game for the Badgers against Illinois a 2nd time or something. Who cares. I saw LSU beat Oregon, and other than that, I don't care if a 12-0 team beat another mediocre one.

Also, quick question: when scheduling for 2015, who will be better? Florida State or Oregon State? Nobody knows.