Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
TBS: Just the Facts, Jack
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
Member Posts: 7,646
OK. So I am pretty tired of the idiots over at Dawgman having no idea what they are talking about when they are trying to prop up Sark and bring down Petersen. Lately the refrain over there by The Lemon Party Trio and some of their followers has been that Sark was the most amazing recruiter in the world, and that we should be very worried about Petersen because he has never recruited athletes like this before when he was at Boise. In fact, according to those on Dawgman, we should be worried about Petersen getting a top 25 class at Washington. So I decided to actually look into, you know, actual facts to see if this is a valid concern. The following chart is what I found:
Here are 5 facts:
- In the 13 years of data that I compiled 8 of those years UW ended up with a class in the Top 25. Rick did it twice, Gilby did it in his one year, Willingham did it once, and Sark did it 4 times.
- There are two outliers in this case, both of them transition years. One year was Willingham's first when he finished at 55, the other was Sark's first year when he finished at 66.
- Petersen's first class at UW, during a transition year, resulted in a class ranking of 35.
_ Petersen's first class had an average star rating of 3. This is the 6th best average star rating class in the 13 years recorded.
- Sarkisian's first class was the lowest rated class in the 13 years recorded.
If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions about Petersen and his recruiting, they also better admit that the same concerns should have been brought up about Sarkisian's recruiting when he first started. Clearly, Sark got his recruiting momentum going after his first class (although there are holes in those classes, as will be shown in later posts), so who is to say that Petersen can't get better after his first class?
The main point of this is to show that whoever is coaching the University of Washington will be able to bring in highly regarded classes. Tyrone Willingham, a man who outwardly admitted to not liking recruiting, recruited at a high enough level after his first year that anyone who actually knew how to coach could have had more success with. He also did so at a time when the program was at historic lows.
TL;DR Version: Shut the fuck up Dawgman idiots and let it PLAY THE FUCK OUT when it comes to recruiting.
Here are 5 facts:
- In the 13 years of data that I compiled 8 of those years UW ended up with a class in the Top 25. Rick did it twice, Gilby did it in his one year, Willingham did it once, and Sark did it 4 times.
- There are two outliers in this case, both of them transition years. One year was Willingham's first when he finished at 55, the other was Sark's first year when he finished at 66.
- Petersen's first class at UW, during a transition year, resulted in a class ranking of 35.
_ Petersen's first class had an average star rating of 3. This is the 6th best average star rating class in the 13 years recorded.
- Sarkisian's first class was the lowest rated class in the 13 years recorded.
If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions about Petersen and his recruiting, they also better admit that the same concerns should have been brought up about Sarkisian's recruiting when he first started. Clearly, Sark got his recruiting momentum going after his first class (although there are holes in those classes, as will be shown in later posts), so who is to say that Petersen can't get better after his first class?
The main point of this is to show that whoever is coaching the University of Washington will be able to bring in highly regarded classes. Tyrone Willingham, a man who outwardly admitted to not liking recruiting, recruited at a high enough level after his first year that anyone who actually knew how to coach could have had more success with. He also did so at a time when the program was at historic lows.
TL;DR Version: Shut the fuck up Dawgman idiots and let it PLAY THE FUCK OUT when it comes to recruiting.
Comments
The other point is that many of the top recruits of Sark & Ty also never panned out for a host of reasons. In Sark's classes 2010 & 2011, less than half of the guys in both classes started more than a handful of games. I quickly counted and there were about 11-12 in the 2010 class and 9 in the 2011 class.
The 2012 class is already a fucking mess. Wallace, Vatuvei, McDaniel, Dean, Auelua, Wilson, Rodgers are already gone. Nearly third of the fucking class was done before it even reached two years in the program. The JC guys Coons and Banks are gone. Turpin, Darien Washington, Hindy, Wooching & Lindquist figure not to start more than a few games. Then there are a few other lineman who should be depth players but will be forced to start because of Sark's recruiting failures.
Here is where the difference will be. Petersen will probably bring in 2 less 4/5* guys than Sark did per class. Mind you, its really Sark + hired mercenary Tosh, bc without him Sark's recruiting was terrible other than in his first "real" class. Anyway, instead of only having 8-12 of the 24 recruits contributing on the field, Petersen's classes will have 14-17. Petersen won't have random holes at a position or two each year like we see at safety and punter now and then OL next year.
I will go pour myself a spiked Coke for your efforts.
A thing I remember about Sark's 4 star players he would get were either local or California kids who only had offers from like Cal and WSU. He never got ones that had an offer sheet from really good schools.
Sark had a lot of players fall into his lap like Kasen, ASJ, and Shaq.
"Say what you like about Sark but he is killing it at USC right now"
Yes, they're that dumb.
As for the Lemon Party Trio, I don't think the hiring of Petersen was a big deal for them, it was Petersen showing up and saying "OK, I'm not working with this frat party" - Tosh, Sirmon, Nansen, etc. That's when all the hoss94 bullshit and made-up stories started showing up - "my nephew is a surfer dude football player from SoCal and he said Pete and his staff were like Ward Cleavers"
People still think that if you have some magic coordinator on your staff you're going to pull in tons of 5-star talent even if you suck. They don't realize that good recruiting comes from FUCKING WINNING. If Pete goes 11-2 this year I will bet any fuck on that board my entire life savings that Pete will have a better recruiting class than Sark ever had. Yes, that boring old Petersen with his staff of Ward Cleavers. Just like fat, gay Chip Kelly was able to do, they will go into kid's houses and say "yeah, we're fucking winners, come to our school." They won't have to show up to kids houses woofing and wearing helmets, they won't have to make a fake jersey with the kids name on it, they won't embarrass the university by "proposing" to the kid over the phone. Peterman, Bonerpoppa, Chode, Pees, and the rest will just walk in, drop their 11-win dicks on the table and say, "impressive, isn't it? sign on the line if you want to play for a winner"
I am not saying the star rating system is terrible- I know that for the most part, teams with top-25 recruiting classes are the same teams that end up in the top-25 rankings. But, if a person (ecktard) is assigning stars and is also complaining about a coach, is it possible that his biased opinion could affect the players' rating?
In other words, if he goes into it with the attitude "peterman can't recruit at this level", could he give a player 3 stars instead of 4 because he subconsciously believes that peterman can't recruit 4-star guys? I honestly don't know...maybe he doesn't have that much control over it?