Why We Are Average and the Importance of Attrition
Why We Are Average and the Importance of Attrition
CokeGreaterThanPepsi analyzes attrition rates this week and makes a startling conclusion... Things were worse under Sark than we realized.
Comments
-
So what your saying is, the ceiling on Oregon dropouts > chumps Sark chased at the witching hour before LOI day?
I don't count that last minute crap Sark pulled as "recruiting" when it was clear he whiffed on big names and needed warm bodies.
The numbers on Oregon are interesting. Either their picker is wrong or they have a quick trigger finger. Or abundance? -
"I sat there with my wife trying..."
pics? -
Or you could point to the fact that over the last 4 years the UW team was 5-4 in conference. They beat the bad teams (usually) and lost to the good teams. During that same time their recruiting was between 4th and 6th in the conference. Average coaching +Average recruiting = Average play. Petersen inherited an average team (above average defense, below average offense).
-
A few thoughts/research projects for the Pepsi team:
1) I'd recommend changing "no" in the charts to something that more clearly resembles that the player left the program before completing eligibility.
2) It would be interesting to see the results for the entire conference, but I think in particular it will be interesting to see the impact against Oregon (already completed), Stanford, and Oregon State. Oregon and Stanford obviously because they are the top programs in the conference. Oregon State because while they at times lack in talent, they are almost always experienced, well coached squads that require you to beat them instead of beating themselves.
3) I'm a little torn on how to treat JUCO players in the list
4) I'd also like to see listings that compare how many true freshman are playing immediately
5) I'd also recommend breaking out those that leave the program early because they enter the NFL draft (which means that you got at least 3 years in the program with clear contributions to the roster) versus players that left on their own (which generally means that they didn't provide contributions to the program) ... there's a HUGE difference in these kinds of metrics. I'd argue that the latter is much more closely aligned with the "exhaustion of eligibility" measure. In the end, what you're trying to analyze is the % of players that were just flat out recruiting misses that provided limited, if any, contributions to a program. -
All good poonts Tequilla, to your first poont I should have changed it to "Left Early" or something, that's my bad!
-
Tequilla said:
A few thoughts/research projects for the Pepsi team:
1) I'd recommend changing "no" in the charts to something that more clearly resembles that the player left the program before completing eligibility.
2) It would be interesting to see the results for the entire conference, but I think in particular it will be interesting to see the impact against Oregon (already completed), Stanford, and Oregon State. Oregon and Stanford obviously because they are the top programs in the conference. Oregon State because while they at times lack in talent, they are almost always experienced, well coached squads that require you to beat them instead of beating themselves.
3) I'm a little torn on how to treat JUCO players in the list
4) I'd also like to see listings that compare how many true freshman are playing immediately
5) I'd also recommend breaking out those that leave the program early because they enter the NFL draft (which means that you got at least 3 years in the program with clear contributions to the roster) versus players that left on their own (which generally means that they didn't provide contributions to the program) ... there's a HUGE difference in these kinds of metrics. I'd argue that the latter is much more closely aligned with the "exhaustion of eligibility" measure. In the end, what you're trying to analyze is the % of players that were just flat out recruiting misses that provided limited, if any, contributions to a program.
Recruiting players for your system >>>> Recruiting players because of their stars
Case closed -
Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though. -
Good chit. One would have to think Stanford (two-time defending Pac-12 champ) has had even lower attrition rates.
Off the top of my head, Sloppy Steve's attrition rates and poor recruiting along the OL is the most glaring. Porter was good but had to retire due to shoulder problems but Kohler was overrated and then retired. The 2011 class only had Dexter Charles and Siosifa Tugunga (MAY start next year as a RS-SR). The 2012 class has already lost Nathan Dean and Taylor Hindy and Sarkisian mismanaged Brostek by playing him as a true frosh. The 2013 class hasn't had any attrition which is important to building better depth but Jamie Bryant has already had to retire (either was going to be an OL or DT).
After coming in late for the 2014 class, at least Petersen and Strausser held onto Matt James, flipped Sosebee from BSU, got another OL in John Turner, and then took a grayshirt flier on a former B-ball player Burleson after SDSU convinced him to switch to football).
I'm happy with our 2015 OL class. One 4 star All-American wanted by a bunch of programs (Henry Roberts), another 4 star (or high 3 star) offered by USC, Oregon, ASU, and UCLA in Trey Adams, and one 3 star OT with a couple of other Pac-12 offers (Jared Hilbers).
The previous staff also mismanaged the secondary. They played 2011 recruit James Sample as a true frosh and he hurt his shoulder (like Kevin King) and then he went to the JC route before landing at Louisville (6-2 this year) and is currently their second leading tackler. The 2012 class had 2 misses Darien Washington (don't know where he is) and Cleveland Wallace (San Jose State) and Petersen had to kick 2013 recruit Patrick Enewally off the team in the spring.
I also wish the previous staff had recruited a speed back in 2012 or 2013. 2 star Erich Wilson didn't pan out in the 2012 class and while I like Coleman from the 2013 class, he doesn't have breakaway speed. At least Petersen nabbed speedy Jomon Dotson but he entered the program at 164 lbs so he obviously needs to redshirt.
-
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
-
Agreed, but Oregon also has a lot of talent that only had 3 stars during recruitment. This includes guys like Mariota, Kiko Alonso, Jake Fisher, Grasu, Joe Walker (2 stars), Terrence Mitchell, Boyett, Barner, Patterson, Brian Jackson, Mahle, Paulson, and Matthews. Oregon has done a nice job of getting guys that fit their system, vs how pretty their star quantity looks.RoadDawg55 said:Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though.
