Peterman and Recruiting
Comments
-
Why do you hate offseason natty's?RoadDawg55 said:I realize it has already been beaten around quite a bit already. I had some free time today and was looking at these rankings. That's all the post was.
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. -
I am thrilled that someone put in the time and effort to make this graph, but I must admit that there is some bias to this information.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it again as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
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! -
Who could forget all of Ty's Puget Sound All-stars.
-
The rankings matter at the very top of the scale. Prior to FSU's NC, their classes were ranked #8, #6, #1 & #2 respectively. Sorry, those are ESPN numbers. And I am pretty sure you would see the same thing for over 98.3% of the last 15 national champs. Of course you need a good coach, but even a guy like Chizik can find a nut with high caliber players.
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. -
Well the "talent evaluators" (tbs) also basically base their ranking on offers. If a kid gets interest from Alabama he'll get his stars real quick.RoadDawg55 said:I realize it has already been beaten around quite a bit already. I had some free time today and was looking at these rankings. That's all the post was.
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.
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. -
It's probably more like 81%IrishDawg22 said:The rankings matter at the very top of the scale. Prior to FSU's NC, their classes were ranked #8, #6, #1 & #2 respectively. Sorry, those are ESPN numbers. And I am pretty sure you would see the same thing for over 98.3% of the last 15 national champs. Of course you need a good coach, but even a guy like Chizik can find a nut with high caliber players.
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. -
Petersen is going to recruit better than Sark or Neuheisel both in terms of class balance, fit or whatever the fuck you call it, AND star rating. Cook it. His first class, a transition one that started very late, was rated higher than two of Sark's (avg rating is the only fucking recruiting stat that should even be considered).
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. -
Back in the day it was a kid's offer sheet. This was from the mouth of a prominent husky coach. Now offers go out like junk mail. Means very little. The media has little clue If an offer is "committable". What a joke recruiting has become. It was fun to follow in the early Heckman days and before. Dudes with dawgman.com are speculating more than ever. Total crock o shitwhatshouldicareabout said:
I am thrilled that someone put in the time and effort to make this graph, but I must admit that there is some bias to this information.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it againif as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
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! -
I'm with Irish on this one. At the very top it fucking matters. There are always a few guys ahead of the pack that you stand back and say, "holy fuck, he's a game changer".
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. -
This is one of the best poasts ever regarding Teen Boy Stalking. Grinolds and Ektard were so horny over the fact that Sark, Sirmon, and other coaches on staff would feed them info that they actually bought the horseshit they were being fed. You damn near hear Ektard's pussy getting wet when he would type out one of those "being in on big recruit x" poasts. He was just excited that he got to talk to a real, live college football coach finally. It's the same as when little Bobby gets an autograph from his favorite baseball player and runs home to tell his mommy all about it. Instead of mommy, Ektard gets on his laptop and types out a Doog-a-rific poast.chuck said:Petersen is going to recruit better than Sark or Neuheisel both in terms of class balance, fit or whatever the fuck you call it, AND star rating. Cook it. His first class, a transition one that started very late, was rated higher than two of Sark's (avg rating is the only fucking recruiting stat that should even be considered).
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.
