Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Dawgnews is a retard/ doesn't understand how football works (Paging Auburn)
bananasnblondes
Member Posts: 15,425
So it appears Auburndawg wasn't courteous enough to give Fleenor a reach around and now Fleenor has a major sandy vagina and has called out Auburn in 3 different threads about the ENORMOUS talent gap between UW and Oregon/UCLA/SC. Auburn suggested the talent gap wasn't as significant and that coaching of players was the important factor.
He used this crap as his evidence
USC - 4.00 (3.68 for backups)
UCLA - 3.77 (3.57 for backups)
Oregon - 3.68 (3.41 for backups)
Stanford - 3.55 (3.58 for backups) and clearly the most experienced team.
UW - 3.09 (3.12 for backups)
ASU - 3.00 (3.06 for backups)
WSU - 2.64 (2.71 for backups)
So obviously those numbers after the team names are highly researched production metrics for each individual position, right?
Nope, they're high school recruiting stars.
What Fleenor and the rest of the teen boy lovers completely disregard is that you don't rate college players' production by the rating that Biggins and Huffman gave them as 16 year olds. Coleman Shelton, Feeney, Tanigawa, Evan Hudson, DiAnndre Campbell, and Atoe are all bringing doen UWs rating because they were 2 star recruits but were good enough to start over 3-star guys. Three of those guys have been starting since they were RS Freshmen. Somebody even pointed out that substituting Riva in at RT and Ross at WR moves the number from 3.09 to 3.29.
Other players bringing down UWs rating include Danny Shelton (likely the best NT in the Pac-12), Marcus Peters (likely all Pac-12 at CB), and Kikaha (one of the top rushers in the PAC). All those guys are middle of the road talent according to Fleenor's system of rating players because they were 3-star high school players.
While there are some definite deficiencies at positions like OL due to Sark's shitty recruiting at those positions, Fleenor is using some fucking retarded logic here and keeps posting shit about it because he is so proud of himself and his research. The rest of the posters over there are too dumb to see this. Instead they are polishing Fleenor's knob and posting shit like "I never realized how far we are behind Stanford and Pete's lousy recruiting is putting us even further back (another myth that has been proven fucking wrong)"
He used this crap as his evidence
USC - 4.00 (3.68 for backups)
UCLA - 3.77 (3.57 for backups)
Oregon - 3.68 (3.41 for backups)
Stanford - 3.55 (3.58 for backups) and clearly the most experienced team.
UW - 3.09 (3.12 for backups)
ASU - 3.00 (3.06 for backups)
WSU - 2.64 (2.71 for backups)
So obviously those numbers after the team names are highly researched production metrics for each individual position, right?
Nope, they're high school recruiting stars.
What Fleenor and the rest of the teen boy lovers completely disregard is that you don't rate college players' production by the rating that Biggins and Huffman gave them as 16 year olds. Coleman Shelton, Feeney, Tanigawa, Evan Hudson, DiAnndre Campbell, and Atoe are all bringing doen UWs rating because they were 2 star recruits but were good enough to start over 3-star guys. Three of those guys have been starting since they were RS Freshmen. Somebody even pointed out that substituting Riva in at RT and Ross at WR moves the number from 3.09 to 3.29.
Other players bringing down UWs rating include Danny Shelton (likely the best NT in the Pac-12), Marcus Peters (likely all Pac-12 at CB), and Kikaha (one of the top rushers in the PAC). All those guys are middle of the road talent according to Fleenor's system of rating players because they were 3-star high school players.
While there are some definite deficiencies at positions like OL due to Sark's shitty recruiting at those positions, Fleenor is using some fucking retarded logic here and keeps posting shit about it because he is so proud of himself and his research. The rest of the posters over there are too dumb to see this. Instead they are polishing Fleenor's knob and posting shit like "I never realized how far we are behind Stanford and Pete's lousy recruiting is putting us even further back (another myth that has been proven fucking wrong)"
Comments
A 4* true freshman QB will always be better than a 3* RS-Senior QB.
I've tried to explain the meaninglessness of star ratings, once you're evaluating a roster of actual players who have actually played, to Auburn at least a dozen times. He just ignored me. He'd respond to every other person in the thread but me.
Section14aFS gets an honorable shortbus mention but he's been the voice of reason lately. He's moved up the Doogman power rankings for 2014.
Rumor has it... he received a TO shortly after the Hawaii game. No warning either.
Bleenor has such a loser mentality. Good coaches win. If Peterman is who we think he is, he will win. If he doesn't and you make excuses for him, you are a doog. Win or GTFO. Nothing has changed.
Abundance?
Obligatory : emotapman was a 2 star.
Stars matter in some sense. Of course they do. The most talent typically will compete. That being said, scout and rivals and espn all skew rankings to a paying public. It's why ESPN rankings are generally directed at SEC recruits. Scout is much more West coast, and rivals is somewhere in the middle and pandering to their strong schools. At some point development matters, not what you were rated at 16.
I used to make fun of some of these idiots who live for recruiting, but can't name 10 players from a class 2 or 3 years back. It's just a joke how much they fawn over guys that the majority never play or make much of a difference. It's really sad actually.
Ektard and Fetters' impact reports are the most useless thing I've ever read. Every 4 and 5 star guy is expected to immediately factor into the depth and will eventually be an All Conference performer. Every two or three star guy is going to live in the weight room, put on 20 pounds and factor into the depth in 3 or 4 years. Somebody earlier this year pointed out that Eklund said Will Dissly was a guy who would be locked into the weight room for 3 years before he ever got on the field. Nobody really knows shit until the games are played. In most cases, it takes 2 or 3 years before you really know how good a class is.
Stars mean something when you're talking about the as yet untested talent in your freshman and RS freshman classes. They don't mean much, but there isn't much else to go on.
Stars no longer mean a fucking thing, and shouldn't even be part of the conversation, once a guy has been a contributing part of the team on game days. They are just speculation after all. All previous speculation goes in the dumpster once you see guys play. Judge the talent by what you've seen or don't judge it or try to discuss it at all, unless you're Auburndoog or BleenorFS.
WTF is wrong with you people. Obviously you're not a true dawg fan