Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Recruiting Strategery - GLOVES UNTIED Edition
Tequilla
Member Posts: 19,813
BUCK BUCK BUCK ... all anybody wants to talk about is BUCK BUCK BUCK ... and there's good reason for it as it's a current weak spot with respect to our overall recruiting package. You'd have to be an idiot to not concede that we're far from elite in that area of our roster. Having a problem is one thing ... WHAT you're going to do to SOLVE the problem is another. And honestly, it's the question that matters.
Today, we've seen both @CokeGreaterThanPepsi and @Dennis_DeYoung basically throw up over a recent offer to a BUCK prospect in Georgia. The odds that he ends up at UW are slim at best. That's not the point to me. It all comes back to the WHAT and HOW we're going to address the problem.
Coker and Dennis largely have 3 main themes in recruiting:
1) If UW wants to be an ELITE program, they need to recruit ELITE players
For the sake of conversation, I'm going to conclude that UW is well positioned going forward with strong recruiting that matches the desire for ELITE talent and strong commitment to our geographic strengths at the QB, RB, WR, TE and DB positions.
At the DL position, if we were having this conversation at this point last year, we'd call this a massive weakness. However, in the last year, Malloe has put significant resources into building out a Poly pipeline (leveraging Vita Vea) that will have lasting impacts for us going forward. The reason for this is that in-state, the DL position isn't a particular area of strength. In California, we've typically struggled mightily for the ELITE prospects. What we have succeeded in getting are some under the radar guys like Gaines or players with question marks like Vea, Qualls, etc. The other issue is that DL strength typically sits in Poly players or players coming out of the Southern region of the country. Expecting massive success in the SEC region is definitely unlikely. That leaves only one option remaining. And let's be clear, not being strong on the DL is the surest way to disqualify yourself from being able to compete against ELITE teams. In fact, when you look at P12 teams playing against SEC and other ELITE teams, the area where P12 teams have their biggest challenges are on the lines. Kudos to Malloe as what he has done is turn a weakness from UW into what looks like may be a definite strength going forward.
The LB position is an area where saying Bob Gregory has largely underperformed is an understatement. His 3 best LB recruits last year consist of 2 Poly's and a player with ties to the school given that his cousin was also recruited and Uncle a professor at the school. The Poly commitments are far more attributable to Malloe than Gregory. What/Where are his targets for 2019? The bare minimum for the position is guys that look like Victor and Kaho. A Bierria type is a 3rd LB. A guy like BBK isn't an option against any team that plays power (perhaps against a spread team). If I'm Chris Petersen, this is a MASSIVE area of focus going forward.
Before getting to BUCK, the state of OL recruiting is a great lead in to the challenges that we're facing at BUCK. OL recruiting is technically easier for UW because the State of Washington typically produces a good number of OL on a fairly consistent basis. The challenge though is of those OL recruits produced in-state, how many of those guys qualify at the national level as being ELITE vs guys that are largely P12 players with at best upside to be competitive against ELITE players? A guy like Trey Adams is an easy no-brainer type of recruit. A player like Henry Roberts or Jake Eldrenkamp is a different story. On the West Coast, and specifically California, we've largely failed at going after those ELITE guys as they either go to USC, maybe UCLA, or to more national programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. Getting a verbal from Kalepo early is huge for us and the challenge will be making sure we retain it. Hatchett is a national level recruit and keeping him home is vital. But at the heart of the matter though is are we better off swinging for guys like Roberts/Eldrenkamp or throwing a wider net and getting guys like Mele/Curne? It's not an easy question and will require a delicate balance from Huff. If we trend more local, do we complain that we're not getting enough ELITE players knowing that we have huge risk from Stanford? If we swing wider and end up missing on some of the in-state guys how bad of shape are we in? Inherent in all of that is that to the extent that we extend offers to in-state players like Roberts/Eldrenkamp too early, the likelihood of those offers being accepted early is high and then even having the opportunity to go after the Mele and Curne types becomes constrained.
BUCK is a massive problem for a number of reasons. First, we don't produce a lot of talent in the State of Washington. Joe Tryon has a lot of upside to him but his offer sheet falls more in the category of upper tier P12 player versus being an ELITE player on the national level. Second, given the importance of the position (probably 2nd on the field to QB in terms of ability to individually alter the course of the game), it's in high demand and the competition for the ELITE players is fierce. Third, there are not a lot of ELITE players at the position despite what may show up in the recruiting rankings as the true difference makers are few and far between. Fourth, those that are on the West Coast are almost assuredly going to choose USC and UCLA before UW if they stay in the P12 and likely choose the national players still before UW. Finally, it's the definition of a Fast Strategy position and the coach that we have recruiting the position is the definition of Slow Strategy. So what do we do here? Getting Jimmy Lake more involved in BUCK recruiting is paramount to try to merge the gap between Fast and Slow Strategy. But the reality is that it's going to take time to make those inroads. So what are we prepared to accept in the short-term? If we're going to insist on ELITE, then we're casting a wide net and throwing offers out to Texas and SEC Country hoping that we can get some interest knowing that we're going to strike out almost every single time. If we choose a more realistic approach of targeting the 2nd tier initially and relying on development then we're not going to be getting the ELITE guys. Instead, we're going to be getting guys that look a lot more like Ryan Bowman. And perhaps this brings up a bigger question of is it a requirement that we have an ELITE BUCK to compete and win a National Championship?
The underlying problems as I see them are as follows:
1) If we go after guys early that are 2nd tier caliber players, you run the risk of them taking the verbal early. Coker today talked about how he'd rather have Millen over Morris at this point. We're not pulling verbals ... that's just not going to happen. So if we recruit early, we may get a guy that down the road we'd rather upgrade from. But it's impossible for us to hold a standard of asking verbals to not look elsewhere if we are looking elsewhere and being willing to pull the rug on them in the 11th hour. This obviously has the most immediate impact to any player in-state.
2) Upgrading our recruiting may require us to take incremental steps and in so doing it may require us to punt on going after ELITE players and focus more on the players that we can land. This is specifically true at BUCK but to a lesser extent potentially on the OL. Are we willing to ensure quantity at the risk of giving up some quality or chase quality at the risk of either quantity and/or down the road quality if we miss on our initial round(s) of targets?
This whole thing is like a giant logic puzzle where you're constantly faced with a number of options that require choices and compromises. The main questions to me going forward are:
1) How can we raise the bar in BUCK recruiting and put K in a position to be successful
2) What trade offs are we willing to make?
3) What are must have's vs like to have's?
4) What are our priorities?
5) Is our recruiting messaging/branding on point and consistent?
Today, we've seen both @CokeGreaterThanPepsi and @Dennis_DeYoung basically throw up over a recent offer to a BUCK prospect in Georgia. The odds that he ends up at UW are slim at best. That's not the point to me. It all comes back to the WHAT and HOW we're going to address the problem.
Coker and Dennis largely have 3 main themes in recruiting:
1) If UW wants to be an ELITE program, they need to recruit ELITE players
- There's the often cited measure of having 40+ 4-star or better players on a roster if you want to be a national championship contender
- A driving reason behind the messaging around being FIRST in building the relationship with the high-end prospects in the areas 2-3 years down the line (i.e. current Freshmen and Sophomores)
For the sake of conversation, I'm going to conclude that UW is well positioned going forward with strong recruiting that matches the desire for ELITE talent and strong commitment to our geographic strengths at the QB, RB, WR, TE and DB positions.
At the DL position, if we were having this conversation at this point last year, we'd call this a massive weakness. However, in the last year, Malloe has put significant resources into building out a Poly pipeline (leveraging Vita Vea) that will have lasting impacts for us going forward. The reason for this is that in-state, the DL position isn't a particular area of strength. In California, we've typically struggled mightily for the ELITE prospects. What we have succeeded in getting are some under the radar guys like Gaines or players with question marks like Vea, Qualls, etc. The other issue is that DL strength typically sits in Poly players or players coming out of the Southern region of the country. Expecting massive success in the SEC region is definitely unlikely. That leaves only one option remaining. And let's be clear, not being strong on the DL is the surest way to disqualify yourself from being able to compete against ELITE teams. In fact, when you look at P12 teams playing against SEC and other ELITE teams, the area where P12 teams have their biggest challenges are on the lines. Kudos to Malloe as what he has done is turn a weakness from UW into what looks like may be a definite strength going forward.
The LB position is an area where saying Bob Gregory has largely underperformed is an understatement. His 3 best LB recruits last year consist of 2 Poly's and a player with ties to the school given that his cousin was also recruited and Uncle a professor at the school. The Poly commitments are far more attributable to Malloe than Gregory. What/Where are his targets for 2019? The bare minimum for the position is guys that look like Victor and Kaho. A Bierria type is a 3rd LB. A guy like BBK isn't an option against any team that plays power (perhaps against a spread team). If I'm Chris Petersen, this is a MASSIVE area of focus going forward.
Before getting to BUCK, the state of OL recruiting is a great lead in to the challenges that we're facing at BUCK. OL recruiting is technically easier for UW because the State of Washington typically produces a good number of OL on a fairly consistent basis. The challenge though is of those OL recruits produced in-state, how many of those guys qualify at the national level as being ELITE vs guys that are largely P12 players with at best upside to be competitive against ELITE players? A guy like Trey Adams is an easy no-brainer type of recruit. A player like Henry Roberts or Jake Eldrenkamp is a different story. On the West Coast, and specifically California, we've largely failed at going after those ELITE guys as they either go to USC, maybe UCLA, or to more national programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. Getting a verbal from Kalepo early is huge for us and the challenge will be making sure we retain it. Hatchett is a national level recruit and keeping him home is vital. But at the heart of the matter though is are we better off swinging for guys like Roberts/Eldrenkamp or throwing a wider net and getting guys like Mele/Curne? It's not an easy question and will require a delicate balance from Huff. If we trend more local, do we complain that we're not getting enough ELITE players knowing that we have huge risk from Stanford? If we swing wider and end up missing on some of the in-state guys how bad of shape are we in? Inherent in all of that is that to the extent that we extend offers to in-state players like Roberts/Eldrenkamp too early, the likelihood of those offers being accepted early is high and then even having the opportunity to go after the Mele and Curne types becomes constrained.
BUCK is a massive problem for a number of reasons. First, we don't produce a lot of talent in the State of Washington. Joe Tryon has a lot of upside to him but his offer sheet falls more in the category of upper tier P12 player versus being an ELITE player on the national level. Second, given the importance of the position (probably 2nd on the field to QB in terms of ability to individually alter the course of the game), it's in high demand and the competition for the ELITE players is fierce. Third, there are not a lot of ELITE players at the position despite what may show up in the recruiting rankings as the true difference makers are few and far between. Fourth, those that are on the West Coast are almost assuredly going to choose USC and UCLA before UW if they stay in the P12 and likely choose the national players still before UW. Finally, it's the definition of a Fast Strategy position and the coach that we have recruiting the position is the definition of Slow Strategy. So what do we do here? Getting Jimmy Lake more involved in BUCK recruiting is paramount to try to merge the gap between Fast and Slow Strategy. But the reality is that it's going to take time to make those inroads. So what are we prepared to accept in the short-term? If we're going to insist on ELITE, then we're casting a wide net and throwing offers out to Texas and SEC Country hoping that we can get some interest knowing that we're going to strike out almost every single time. If we choose a more realistic approach of targeting the 2nd tier initially and relying on development then we're not going to be getting the ELITE guys. Instead, we're going to be getting guys that look a lot more like Ryan Bowman. And perhaps this brings up a bigger question of is it a requirement that we have an ELITE BUCK to compete and win a National Championship?
The underlying problems as I see them are as follows:
1) If we go after guys early that are 2nd tier caliber players, you run the risk of them taking the verbal early. Coker today talked about how he'd rather have Millen over Morris at this point. We're not pulling verbals ... that's just not going to happen. So if we recruit early, we may get a guy that down the road we'd rather upgrade from. But it's impossible for us to hold a standard of asking verbals to not look elsewhere if we are looking elsewhere and being willing to pull the rug on them in the 11th hour. This obviously has the most immediate impact to any player in-state.
2) Upgrading our recruiting may require us to take incremental steps and in so doing it may require us to punt on going after ELITE players and focus more on the players that we can land. This is specifically true at BUCK but to a lesser extent potentially on the OL. Are we willing to ensure quantity at the risk of giving up some quality or chase quality at the risk of either quantity and/or down the road quality if we miss on our initial round(s) of targets?
This whole thing is like a giant logic puzzle where you're constantly faced with a number of options that require choices and compromises. The main questions to me going forward are:
1) How can we raise the bar in BUCK recruiting and put K in a position to be successful
2) What trade offs are we willing to make?
3) What are must have's vs like to have's?
4) What are our priorities?
5) Is our recruiting messaging/branding on point and consistent?
Comments
What we want: stronger OL and DL (buck) recruiting (and LB) ...
What we have and what we know:
- good to great coaching, steady trend upwards to horizontal, consistent success. Already have playoff appearance and New Year's day bowl ...
- Sustained success translates to embedding into the young minds of recruits of today elementary to grade 7. - -
- Continued success will pay off in the next 3-5 years ...
- Continued positive relationship with local power/talent brokers (FSP/ much lesser extent Heir) as they help aggregate and funnel talent towards UW (or at least help Petersen focus on talent at hand)
My opinion: focus on slow trajectory of mining local talent and spreading tentacles outwards to reach national level recruits. I think Petersen is getting a little to ahead of himself ... brand isn't national enough yet ...
Offering talented but obscure recruits in other parts of the country over our own is "too soon" ... I think we need more sustained success first and then you'll get recruits from other parts of the country say in their interviews "I want to check out Washington because obviously they are doing something right and putting people in the league ..."
We are already seeing secondary cb/safety recruits on the west coast echo/parrot that sentiment because Jimmy Lake is associated to success stories like King/Budda/SMFJ ...
We are starting to see recruits say the same kind of sentiment for Malloe if you read their reactions. "Poly ... former player ... love that guy ... great coach ... genuine ..." and it's hammered home with Shelton/Vea/Kikaha (to a lesser degree). Once you see Vea picked in the first round (get Shelton and Vea to work the Poly Bowl stat) and you have the gift that keeps on giving.
Lubick is on the cusp once the machine starts rolling, hopefully with Eason in the year after next throwing to Jones/Auzzy ...
Bonopha was behind but he's starting to rev up a little ... some of the high level RB recruits have dropped his name ...
Huff has some jam and he's done well the last year ...
The people you never hear about are: Gregory/Kwat ... and to a lesser extent PaoPao ...
I know that Petersen knows that Lake's time at UW is getting shorter ... and thus Will Harris was brought in and i'm all for that. I think we got a good one.
But unfortunately, that leaves a glaring hole with Gregory/Kwat ... and I know that people on this bored have called out for Lake as co-DC to help out with recruiting there ... I was hoping that UW would be able to hire the UW-equivalent of Big Kenechi Udeze from USC for linebackers/BUCK ...
I think the argument that trying to capitalize on our recent success by making offers to recruits nationally with little chance for even making the top 5 hats on the table is still years premature ... rolling into the expected value concept.
Today, we've seen bod @CokeGreaterDanPepsi and @Dennis_DeYung basically drow down upside a recent offa' to some BUCK prospect in Geo'gia. WORD! De odds dat he ends down at UW is slim at best. Man! Dat's not da damn point t'me. It all comes back t'de WHAT and HOW we's goin' t'address de problem. SMACK MAH' FRO!
Coka' and Dennis largely gots 3 main demes in recruitin':
1) If UW wantsa be an ELITE honky code, dey need t'recruit ELITE players
Dere's de often cited measho' man uh havin' 40+ 4-star o' betta' players on some rosta' if ya' wanna be some nashunal championship contender
2) De concept uh EXPECTED VALUE in recruitin' in dat players located in yo' geographic area is mo'e likesly t'be future commits
A drivin' reason behind da damn messagin' around bein' FIRST in buildin' de relashunship wid de high-end prospects in de areas 2-3 years waaay down de line (i.e. current Freshmen and Sophomo'es)
3) De concept uh Fast Strategy vs Slow Strategy and its implicashuns on recruitin' and how de honky code be sold t'dose prospects
Fo' de sake uh conversashun, I'm goin' t'conclude dat UW be well posishuned goin' fo'ward wid strong recruitin' dat matches de desire fo' ELITE talent and strong commitment t'our geographic strengds at da damn QB, RB, WR, TE and DB posishuns.
Yo-ho-ho at th' DL position, if we were havin' this conversation at this point last year, we'd call this a massive weakness. However, in th' last year, Malloe has put significant resources into buildin' out a Poly pipeline (leveragin' Vita Vea) that will have lastin' impacts fer us goin' fore. th' reason fer this be that in-state, th' DL position isn't a particular area o' strength, avast. In California, we've typically struggled mightily fer th' ELITE prospects. What we have succeeded in gettin' be some under th' radar guys like Gaines or players with question marks like Vea, Qualls, etc. Splice the mainbrace! th' other issue be that DL strength typically sits in Poly players or players comin' out o' th' Southern region o' th' country. Expectin' massive success in th' SEC region be definitely unlikely. That leaves only one option remainin'. Splice the mainbrace! And let's be clear, not bein' strong on th' DL be th' surest way t' disqualify yourself from bein' able t' compete against ELITE teams. In fact, when ye look at P12 teams playin' against SEC and other ELITE teams, th' area whar P12 teams have their biggest challenges be on th' lines. Kudos t' Malloe as what he has done be turn a weakness from UW into what looks like may be a definite strength goin' fore.
Thuh LB position is an area where sayin' Bob Gregory has largely underperformed is like wow! an understatement. His 3 best LB recruits last year consist of 2 Poly's and a player with ties to thuh school given that his cousin was also recruited and Uncle a professor at thuh school. Thuh Poly commitments are far more attributable to Malloe than Gregory. What/Where are his targets for 2019? Thuh bare minimum for thuh position is like wow! dudes that look like Victor and Kaho. A Bierria type is a 3rd LB. A dude like BBK isn't an option against any team that plays power (perhaps against a spread team). If I'm Chris Petersen, like, wow like, ya know, this is like, ya know, a MASSIVE area of focus goin' forward.
Before gett to BUCK, dha state of OL recruit is a bombad lead in to dha challenges dat wesa're fac at BUCK. OL recruit is technically easier for UW because dha State of Washington typically produces a good number of OL on a fairly consistent basis. Dha challenge though is of those OL recruits produced in-state, how many of those guys qualify at dha national level as be ELITE vs guys dat are largely P12 players with at best upside besa competitive against ELITE players? A guy like Trey Adams is an easy nosa-brainer type of recruit. A player like Henry Roberts or Jake Eldrenkamp is a different tello. On dha West Coast, and specifically California, wesa've largely failed at goen after those ELITE guys as desa either gos to USC, maybe UCLA, or to more national programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. Gett a verbal from Kalepo faddo is huge for us and dha challenge will be mak sure wesa retain it. Hatchett is a national level recruit and keep him home is vital. But at dha heart of dha matter though is are wesa better off swing for guys like Roberts/Eldrenkamp or throw a wider net and gett guys like Mele/Curne? It's not an easy question and will require a delicate balance from Huff. If wesa trend more local, do wesa complain dat wesa're not gett enough ELITE players know dat wesa have huge risk from Stanford? If wesa sw wider and end up miss on some of dha in-state guys how bad of shape are wesa in? Inherent in all of dat is dat to dha extent dat wesa extend offers to in-state players like Roberts/Eldrenkamp too faddo, dha likelihood of those offers be accepted faddo is tup and then even hav dha opportunity to gos after dha Mele and Curne types becomes constrained.
BOuCK is a messife-a prublem fur a nuomber ouff reesuns. Furst, ve-a dun't pruduoce-a a lut ouff telent in zee-a Stete-a ouff Vesheengtun. Jue-a Tryun hes a lut ouff upside-a tu heem buot hees ouffer sheet fells mure-a in zee-a cetegury ouff upper tier P12 pleyer fersuos beeng un ILITE pleyer oun zee-a netiunel lefel. Secund, geefee-a zee-a impurtuonce-a ouff zee-a pusitiun (prubebly 2nd oun zee-a feeld tu QB in terms ouff ibeeleety tu indeefiduoelly ilter zee-a cuourse-a ouff zee-a geme-a), it's in heegh demuond und zee-a cumpetitiun fur zee-a ILITE pleyers is feerce-a. Thurd, zeere-a ire-a nut a lut ouff ILITE pleyers it zee-a pusitiun despite-a vhet mey shuo up in zee-a recruoiting ruonkeengs is zee-a truoe-a deefference-a mekers ire-a fuo und fer betvee-a. Fuourt, thuse-a zeet ire-a oun zee-a Vest Cuest ire-a ilmust issuoredly guing tu chuose-a USC und UCLA beffure-a UV iff zeey stey in zee-a P12 und leekely chuose-a zee-a netiunel pleyers still beffure-a UV. FEEnelly, it's zee-a deffeenitiun ouff a Fest Stretegy pusitiun und zee-a cuech zeet ve-a hefe-a recruoiting zee-a pusitiun is zee-a deffeenitiun ouff Sluo Stretegy. Su vhet du ve-a du here-a? Getting JEEmmy Leke-a mure-a infulfed in BOuCK recruoiting is peremuount tu try tu merge-a zee-a gep betvee-a Fest und Sluo Stretegy. Buot zee-a reeleety is zeet it's guing tu teke-a time-a tu meke-a thuse-a inrueds. Su vhet ire-a ve-a prepered tu iccept in zee-a shurt-term? Iff ve-a're-a guing tu insist oun ILITE, zee-a ve-a're-a cesting a vide-a net und thruoing ouffers ouout tu Texes und SEC Cuountry huping zeet ve-a cuon get sume-a interest knuoing zeet ve-a're-a guing tu strike-a ouout ilmust ifery single-a time-a. Iff ve-a chuose-a a mure-a reeleestic ippruech ouff tergeting zee-a 2nd tier initielly und relying oun defelupment zee-a ve-a're-a nut guing tu be-a getting zee-a ILITE guoys. Insteed, ve-a're-a guing tu be-a getting guoys zeet luok a lut mure-a leeke-a Ryuon Buomuon. Und perheps zees brings up a beegger quoestiun ouff is it a requourement zeet ve-a hefe-a un ILITE BOuCK tu cumpete-a und vin a Netiunel Chempiunsheep? Bork Bork Bork!
De underlyin' problems as ah' see dem is as follows:
1) if 't be true we wend after guys early yond art 2nd tier caliber players, thou runneth the risk of those folk taking the verbal early. Coker the present day did talk about how he'd rather hast Millen ov'r Morris at this point. We're not pulling verbals. Yond's just not going to befall. So if 't be true we recruit early, we may receiveth a guy yond down the road we'd rather upgrade from. But 't's impossible for us to hold a standard of asking verbals to not behold elsewhere if 't be true we art looking elsewhere and being willing to pull the rug on those folk in the 11th hour. This obviously hath the most immediate impact to any common-kissing hedge-pig in-state.
2) Upgrading our recruiting may require us to taketh incremental steps and in so doing 't may require us to punt on going after ELITE players and focus moo on the players yond we can land. This is specifically true at BUCK but to a lesser extent potentially on the OL. Art we willing to ensure quantity at the risk of giving up some quality or chase quality at the risk of either quantity and/or down the road quality if 't be true we miss on our initial round(s) of targets?
Dis whole doodad be likes some giant logic puzzle where youse constantly faced wid some numba' of opshuns dat require choices and compromises. De main quesshuns t'me goin' fo'ward are:
l HOW cAN W3 RAISE TEH BAR IN BUX0R RECERUITING AND PUT K I NA POSITION TO BE SUCCESSFUL
2) WHAT TRADE OFFS R \\\\////\\\\////3 WSIL7ING TO MK3?????????
3) waht r musth ave's vs liek tto have"s!?!??!?!??!?!??!? olololololol~~
4) what r our priotritEiz?????????!!!!???????????????? TH3IIR IS A RAQTI0 DO|\|T RIUPE ME OFF becuz you suX)r!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11~ OLLOOLOOLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5) si our recriuiting mess4gng/branding oN po1nta nd coNsoistent!?!?!?!??!?!?!? OMG TEH P0WNZ0RS!!!!!!!
I like that they value athletes ie DL that also plays RB. Let’s use a past example, DeMarcus Ware. One of the top LB’s in his region, also played WR. Went to Auburn work outs, but his tiny 198 lb ass got laughed at and he only got an offer from Troy. Then he became a monster.
I’m not saying don’t go after those athletic freaks (Foskey plz) but landing some underweight slow strat athletes that will start contributing y3 will also bring us some monsters and much needed depth. We can also continue rolling out those offers later in the process without losing the opportunity to draw interest from bigger fish. Now with that said, echoing again what’s said here a lot, they did a great job starting the poly pipeline by making some pretty amicable offers to then land big fish, we can’t stop doing that with our in state kids just because we think we have favor with them by proximity. Build a fucking wall!
Since nobody read that because my post are doog shit, here’s a picture of my good boy