Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Why We Are Average and the Importance of Attrition
Comments
-
If you have time, it would be great if you could cover Peterman's whole tenure. I'd be willing to bet the Kellen Moore years are abnormally low.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:We will do Boise tomorrow and post the results. I'm actually interested to see if they had more attrition since their last 2 teams haven't been so good. Should be interesting, or not.
-
We will try to do that. But it will be hard because it is hard to search for players that might have left the program in 2008 or whatever. But we will for sure try because I think it could be important. I want to try to atleast start with their 2006 or 2007 class.pawz said:
If you have time, it would be great if you could cover Peterman's whole tenure. I'd be willing to bet the Kellen Moore years are abnormally low.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:We will do Boise tomorrow and post the results. I'm actually interested to see if they had more attrition since their last 2 teams haven't been so good. Should be interesting, or not.
-
You say your team is average, but you believe you can win ten games. An average team will win 6-8. Therefore, if you win ten games then you are an very good team.
Btw, we played a Freshmen and walk ons during the O line decimation time It's a matter of coaching as much as the talent of the players. You know that. -
10 wins = 6-3 conference record in a crappy conference. Maybe that's above average.
I'm not saying young players can't play good, the poont of the article is that tons of recruiting misses hurts your program.
And I do agree that coaching is crucial, I am sure there are some teams who don't experience much attrition that suck because their coaches can't coach. -
Yeah I'm a little retarded so I had to come read the comments before I could understand the charts. Interesting article.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:All good poonts Tequilla, to your first poont I should have changed it to "Left Early" or something, that's my bad!
-
I feel like someone already did this and BSU had pretty low attrition ratesHeretoBeatmyChest said:It would be interesting to check attrition for Boise State while Petersen was there. I bet Stanford is low but I'd best Boise St is even lower.
-
It feels like some guys at Stanford have been there for 6 or 7 years.HFNY said:Good chit. One would have to think Stanford (two-time defending Pac-12 champ) has had even lower attrition rates.
-
We entered the 2001 Rose Bowl a bit nervous because we had two freshmen and a sophomore starting against Drew Brees. But great coaching and scheme were enough that our secondary did just fine.
-
Oregon has actually done a great job doing due diligence on their players starting with recruiting. I trumpeted the fact that Oregon has gotten 100% of their committed recruits into school for five straight years, and got some flack for it, but that factoid is related to what Cokehead is putting forth here. A recruiting class of 21 where every one gets into school and participates in practice and camp is better than a class of 24 where a few don't get in. Even if the class of 24, if only two or three don't make it, but one of those two or three was at a position of need... you're fucked, you're moving guys around to fill holes, and you have to work that much harder to maintain continuity among the various position groups.
-
Nowhere else on planet earth can a guy find such in depth analysis on Husky football than here at Hardcore Husky.
Obvious pandering toward KOMO is noted (pm to Derek, I hope you have an iron clad contract with cokegreaterthanpepsi or we may be hearing him trade barbs with Damon Huard on the radio soon)
