Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Peterman and Recruiting
RoadDawg55
Member Posts: 30,123
I think we would all prefer UW to field a team of all 4 and 5 star recruits. That said, the hoopla about his recruiting is fucking stupid. Peterman is likely going to sign top 25 classes. Even Ty did that at times. There are outliers to the recruiting rankings and Peterman has proven to be a great coach and talent developer. There are plenty of other examples. Mark Dantonio has his teams frequently at or near the top of the Big 10 despite not having a single class ranked in the top 25 by Scout from 2009-2013. He still won 11+ games three times during those years. I checked all the way back to 2006 and Wisconsin also did not have a single top 25 class. Somehow they have still gone to three Rose Bowls since 2010. Bill Snyder at Kansas State is another example. He has always gotten lowly ranked guys and JC recruits yet been a winner.
On the other end, Miami, Tennessee, USC, Michigan, and North Carolina are almost always in the top 25 and haven't won shit recently. Tennessee has been especially bad for where their recruits have been ranked. The more I have looked at it, the more I come to the realization that these rankings are mostly shit. What the rankings really prove is that coaching is the only thing that matters. Auburn under Chizik was going in the toilet despite highly ranked classes. Malzahn comes on board and they are playing in the title game.
Fuck the doogs that loved the sizzle of coming in third place for 5 star recruits. Kim and his lemoniers know their site is based on recruiting so they have to act like the rankings are so important. They're not and it takes no skill to rank Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Florida State, and Texas' classes at the top. Those schools always get great talent. I know that Peterman is putting a lot more effort in the bottom half of his classes than Sark did. Not to mention, the balance Peterman will have each class. For the dumb fucks who say Peterman won't take edgy or academically risky players, I present Vita Vea. I think a number of our lower ranked recruits that Peterman signed last year will turn out to be good players.
On the other end, Miami, Tennessee, USC, Michigan, and North Carolina are almost always in the top 25 and haven't won shit recently. Tennessee has been especially bad for where their recruits have been ranked. The more I have looked at it, the more I come to the realization that these rankings are mostly shit. What the rankings really prove is that coaching is the only thing that matters. Auburn under Chizik was going in the toilet despite highly ranked classes. Malzahn comes on board and they are playing in the title game.
Fuck the doogs that loved the sizzle of coming in third place for 5 star recruits. Kim and his lemoniers know their site is based on recruiting so they have to act like the rankings are so important. They're not and it takes no skill to rank Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Florida State, and Texas' classes at the top. Those schools always get great talent. I know that Peterman is putting a lot more effort in the bottom half of his classes than Sark did. Not to mention, the balance Peterman will have each class. For the dumb fucks who say Peterman won't take edgy or academically risky players, I present Vita Vea. I think a number of our lower ranked recruits that Peterman signed last year will turn out to be good players.
Comments
Again why is it so exciting to sign a bunch of 4 star recruits now just to have 50% of them switch by signing day? I liked Petersen in the interview where he said they aren't going to put time into kids who aren't interested.
Well played sir.
But why's Gilby red? Like the meat he eats?
Wonder what was happening during 2009 and 2012 when he was averaging around 2 in the pink?
The head coach and staff are much more important than a a roster of '5-stars'. But it's a fucking symbiotic relationship. Sark proved that. Just ditch the stars and let Peetamus recruit his kids, for his system and shut the fuck up. If he recruits a 2 - star offensive linemen over a 4 - star WR, he's doing it for a reason. If you want cliché bullshit I'll give you the best one of all time. "DJ recruited the state of Washington 1st, then plucked some skill from Cali and beef from hawaii, the northwest and Cali too". Petersen will adopt the exact same philosophy. So the gays from dawgman.com on sports radio am 950 kjr, can stuff their heads up their cunts.
I am so sick of this butt fucking argument. One only need look at 1 game under Chris Petersen to prove the star system is mostly but not entirely bogus. Pete has proven several times in games vs the Oklahoma's, VT ' S , and Oregon ' s of the world that he can play with the big boys, even though most say "yeah, but could he do it week in and week out"?
When Pete completely manhandled Georgia in every fucking facet of the game. Boise st. Would have beat them 10 out of 10 times. Look at where Georgia finished that year. Tells me Boise St. Could have beat most teams in the SEC. That's how dominant BoiseSt. Was in that game. So fuck you and your stars Eklund, kimmy, fetters, scout and espn
Star system defenders (at one point I was one) always throw out the adage that the best teams have the best recruiting rankings, but it's more complex than that. Some do, some don't. A great coach is much more inportant than any recruiting ranking (water is wet). These idiots on doogman are worried whether we will be ranked 15th or 25th in recruiting rankings when it doesn't matter at all.
Over the years, Scout has drastically inflated their star system, either as a means to appraise the teen boys they stalk or to drive interest in their site because "oh hey, look, this kid is a 3*, that's awesome".
If you look back during the Gilby and Ty years, Scout ranked the top 50 as 5*s, top 300 as 4*s and top 1000 as 3*s. Now, you have a fuckton more 4*s and 3*s. For example, Isaiah Renfro, our 4* S/WR recruit, isn't listed in the top 300 for Scout. The last ranked S in the Top 300 is the #17 S. Renfro is #25. Under their old system, he'd be a 3*. But now, because Scout wants us to be excited for the kid, he's a 4*.
What's even worse are all the 3*s now. The top 1700 HS kids are ranked 3* by Scout. That's right. 1700 3*s. What the actual fuck. They inflated the ranks to add 700 new 3*s. The used to be only 700 3*s, now there's almost 1400 of them in Scout's database. How is the 207th best WR in the country a 3*? Or the 159th best DE? Or 135th best OLB? If you take these numbers and go back to Sark's 2010 class, all those 2*s would be 3*s now. Yes, Atoe would've been a 3* if he were a teen boy this year.
Again, this goes back to the tired argument that stars are fucking useless and the best way to gauge ability is to look at what the team needs and how the kid fits into the system. Or look at BCS offers, who knows.
Either way, Petersen knows what he's doing and the most important thing is that he has a staff that knows his system and knows what type of kids to recruit. Stars can go fuck themselves. Unless we get a 5* recruit. Then that'd be AWESOME!
But after that there is no way to tell the difference between a ranked #67 and #367, and this is where the coaching aspect comes into play. And I believe Scout still uses class size in their metrics, which hurts a team like Mich St. who has taken some smaller classes in recent years, but still had over a 3* average.
I will trust Coach Pete over some fat guy who wears overalls at half-mast.
If the tbs crew actually knew anything about evaluating teen boys, you'd frequently see 5 star kids with no big time offers. But no, they just asks kids who's offered them and rank accordingly.
And GOD FORBID a kid spit on the whole farce and skip some of their stupid camps (hi jake browning!), because the lemon party trio will eat you alive.
Sark got some real nice players to UW, but his recruiting was mostly sizzle that mostly died off before Christmas every year. Only the dumbfuckiest of doogs (Ecktard for one) were impressed by "being in on" the big time targets that were never coming to UW. Sark and his buddies (I think Peter Sirmon was the main source of this) recognized the influence that web sites can have on the doog fanbase. They fed "info" to Grinolds and Ecklund to keep the sizzle going as far into the process as they could every year. The signatures never lived up to the buzz but doogs are dumb enough to forget about all of failures late in the winter and on signing day.
After that, it's a fucking crap shoot of 6'4 self timed 4.4 40 4 stars that will either flourish or fail depending on coaching.
Development is king, but I still get excited about game changers.