TBS: Just the Facts, Jack
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
-
Yeah, but still.
-
Well played, that is about the response that this would get if I still posted over at doogman.MikeDamone said:Yeah, but still.
-
I thought sarks first class was better than that. He had FREE PUB! and stuff
-
-
He coached in the Rose Bowl and recruits saw him and stuff.MikeDamone said:I thought sarks first class was better than that. He had FREE PUB! and stuff
-
I mentioned something similar a few months ago. In fact if you look at the ranking of the class by average stars and not points, it even makes the point stronger. The HC at UW will always bring in a top 25 class if its a non transition year.
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. -
POTW
-
Your best effort ...
I will go pour myself a spiked Coke for your efforts. -
If Petersen continues his success at UW then I think he is going to start landing great classes. Top 20 for sure. People will know then he really is that good of a coach and it wasn't all because he just got to beat up on shitty teams in Boise State's conference.
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.
-
HeretoBeatmyChest said:
I mentioned something similar a few months ago. In fact if you look at the ranking of the class by average stars and not points, it even makes the point stronger. The HC at UW will always bring in a top 25 class if its a non transition year.
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 and his magic coffee, 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. -
Some moron over there is using Kyle Wittingham's mediocre ride through the Pac-12 as reason why Petersen will fail. Like always, when the facts came up (Wittingham stayed at the same program - Fucking Utah, and Petersen pulled in more 4-star players in his transition year than Wittingham did in his entire career at Utah) this gem came up:
"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" -
That's pretty much what I always envisioned Saban doing. Shit works.bananasnblondes said: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 couldn't help but notice your bar chart color choice for the Ty W years.
-
I agree with Cunt here. If Peterman ends up being successful here, he will end up with some great classes in the future. We have a great program, great fans, money, new facilities, and a winning team would make us very competitive for blue chip type recruits.
-
Al Sharpton will be in touch.sarktastic said:I couldn't help but notice your bar chart color choice for the Ty W years.
-
Honest question: are the TBS star ratings assigned via a consensus from all scout/rivals people? Or are they rated based on one person's opinion?
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? -
Take the stars with a grain of salt. Look at the offer sheets. I trust D-1 coaches to evaluate talent much more than I trust a bunch of NAMBLA motherfuckers.
-
No idea now, but many years ago Ektard used to insist he had nothing to with rankings. Other fat people do those.Dardanus said:Honest question: are the TBS star ratings assigned via a consensus from all scout/rivals people? Or are they rated based on one person's opinion?
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? -
OKGs.HeretoBeatmyChest said:I mentioned something similar a few months ago. In fact if you look at the ranking of the class by average stars and not points, it even makes the point stronger. The HC at UW will always bring in a top 25 class if its a non transition year.
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. -
Like who????//??Swaye said:
No idea now, but many years ago Ektard used to insist he had nothing to with rankings. Other fat people do those.Dardanus said:Honest question: are the TBS star ratings assigned via a consensus from all scout/rivals people? Or are they rated based on one person's opinion?
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?
-
*morbidly obese
-
Yeah, I should have mentioned that the rankings and stars shown in the chart are all from Scout, since I actually believe if you want to follow TBS, the best way to do it is through Scout; especially if you are a fan of a team from the West Coast. Rivals and ESPN have no clue what is going on west of the Mississippi.
I think they are assigned by a committee of some sort. I think for the West Coast Biggins and Huffman are the two with the most say, but I am not sure on that. -
I can't wait until Petersen puts up a better record than Sark ever did in year 1 and get to hear the lemon party trio say:
"The Pac-12 was much more STACKED when Sark was at Washington, he would have easily done what Petersen did this season" -
Peterman never had to recruit against a ranked Oregon State!CuntWaffle said:I can't wait until Petersen puts up a better record than Sark ever did in year 1 and get to hear the lemon party trio say:
"The Pac-12 was much more STACKED when Sark was at Washington, he would have easily done what Petersen did this season"
-
They will also say that Petersen is only winning because Sark left a full cupboard. It's in the script.CuntWaffle said:I can't wait until Petersen puts up a better record than Sark ever did in year 1 and get to hear the lemon party trio say:
"The Pac-12 was much more STACKED when Sark was at Washington, he would have easily done what Petersen did this season" -
USC was much more competitive when Sark was HC at WashingtonCuntWaffle said:I can't wait until Petersen puts up a better record than Sark ever did in year 1 and get to hear the lemon party trio say:
"The Pac-12 was much more STACKED when Sark was at Washington, he would have easily done what Petersen did this season" -
I'm looking forward to the current players, as they rack up wins, to start shitting on Sark's head in the media while praising Peterman... and having doogs turn on the players who dare bash Sark.
I'm *not* looking forward to reading doogs post shit like 'I root for USC every week except for one... tee hee hee' -
Petersen coming in and getting Baker to switch left me no doubt he will be able to recruit. Sark had 0 chance at Budda (although doogs will claim he planted the seeds for Petersen) and Petersen was able to wrangle him in with very limited time.
-
Not Sark's fault. Bellevue clearly isn't known for it's sizzle and edgy talent and the kids that come out of there have no eye for the possibilities of a program built on it. Skyline and Gig Harbor put out way edgier players so I doubt Petersen will have much success at those places.CuntWaffle said:Petersen coming in and getting Baker to switch left me no doubt he will be able to recruit. Sark had 0 chance at Budda (although doogs will claim he planted the seeds for Petersen) and Petersen was able to wrangle him in with very limited time.
-
LOL. Much applause Banana.bananasnblondes said:Some moron over there is using Kyle Wittingham's mediocre ride through the Pac-12 as reason why Petersen will fail. Like always, when the facts came up (Wittingham stayed at the same program - Fucking Utah, and Petersen pulled in more 4-star players in his transition year than Wittingham did in his entire career at Utah) this gem came up:
"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"
